Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steady_on who wrote (26538)	7/22/2012 9:27:04 AM
From: Joseph B. Schmidt	Respond to of 53574

Scandle34 Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:31:12 AM Re: Rawnoc post# 191493 Post # of 191519 That exception would carry more weight if they were not also buying in the free market. However that becomes an individual insider trading issue. siliconinvestor.com

To: Steady_on who wrote (26538)	7/22/2012 9:29:26 AM
From: Joseph B. Schmidt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

kezzek Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:35:56 AM Re: arvitar post# 191496 Post # of 191520 You have nailed it. You can't release snippets from a report to everyone, then claim the rest of the report is "not material". Perhaps if the PIPErs had paid SAIC to do the report and no information about it was provided by JBI or anyone else, they might have had a shot at some sort of FD exemption, albeit a long shot. But by saying "We have this detailed analysis that is very positive, but we're not releasing any real details", I believe once again, JBI is likely to draw the SEC's displeasure. And that's bad enough when they're not already suing you for fraud. siliconinvestor.com

To: Steady_on who wrote (26538)	7/22/2012 5:29:39 PM
From: Joseph B. Schmidt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

kezzek Sunday, July 22, 2012 4:59:58 PM Re: loanranger post# 191571 Post # of 191578 The big difference, as I see it, is that the discussion you cite relates to the information of the existence of a PIPE offering at all. It does NOT relate to an independent, third-party assessment of a company's business, requiring the full cooperation, involvement and assistance of the company itself. Though I think obtaining any such information and not sharing it would have put both the company and PIPErs on shaky ground, the fact that JBI subsequently chose to reveal not only the existence of the report, but a few points from it, leads me to think they will run afoul of both the SEC and shareholders once again. I have yet to see any evidence that material information can be provided to PIPE participants and does not have to be made to other shareholders, as well as the general public, under regulation FD. And to take it a step further, and release snippets of positive information, while holding back the actual report itself, well, I would love to see where the SEC believes that to be in compliance with Reg FD. The "f" isn't there for nothing. siliconinvestor.com

To: Steady_on who wrote (26538)	7/22/2012 5:32:12 PM
From: Joseph B. Schmidt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

kezzek Sunday, July 22, 2012 5:10:12 PM Re: Rawnoc post# 191573 Post # of 191578 You might want to read what the SEC says about Reg FD "Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure) is a new issuer disclosure rule that addresses selective disclosure. The regulation provides that when an issuer, or person acting on its behalf, discloses material nonpublic information to certain enumerated persons (in general, securities market professionals and holders of the issuer's securities who may well trade on the basis of the information), it must make public disclosure of that information. The timing of the required public disclosure depends on whether the selective disclosure was intentional or non-intentional; for an intentional selective disclosure, the issuer must make public disclosure simultaneously; for a non-intentional disclosure, the issuer must make public disclosure promptly. Under the regulation, the required public disclosure may be made by filing or furnishing a Form 8-K, or by another method or combination of methods that is reasonably designed to effect broad, non-exclusionary distribution of the information to the public." You'll note the lack of "it's OK as long as the people it's disclosed to keep it a secret". Then of course, JBI really stepped in it when THEY disclosed portions of the report. siliconinvestor.com

To: Steady_on who wrote (26538)	7/23/2012 5:02:17 PM
From: Joseph B. Schmidt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

Any high-fives after the meeting?

To: Steady_on who wrote (26538)	7/24/2012 11:47:03 AM
From: Joseph B. Schmidt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

Did anyone stand up and ask what the processing cost of the plastic is? Or is that still a secret, too? NewMoney Tuesday, July 24, 2012 11:42:02 AM Re: Artiztic1 post# 191902 Post # of 191905 No. They said that buying plastic "could" be an option if shredded plastic ready to be fed into the process could be puchased at a lower cost than prepping it themselves. If not. They'll just prepare it themselves like they've been doing. Sorry, hope that helps. siliconinvestor.com

To: Steady_on who wrote (26538)	7/24/2012 12:50:19 PM
From: SteveF	Respond to of 53574

"If one were to spend a few moments analysizing the statement from the CEO that 10 machines are going to the first RKT site and take into account the recent doubling of machine capacity to 4000 lbs/hr it looks very likely that RKT is planning on gathering plastic feedstock from more than it's own operations." I would very much like to! When will the statement from the CEO be made available for us to analyze? In fact, not a single slide suggests the number of processors "needed" by the RKT site. An anonymous message board poster made it so a few hours later it could be repeated enough that a few more might be tricked. Shameless, but at least we know for sure now. sec.gov