Depends on how you look at it. The complaint used the word "purported" in reference to company claims, like the existence of the calalyst.  However, that was clearly not the subject of the complaint. So, IMO that is bad wording. Irrelevant. They should have come out and said... the claimis stating that the SEC does not htink the catalyst exists. I support JBI's response to those para's and that wording. Taken literally, if the SEC is challenging the validity of JBI's product claims like the existence of the catalyst, then JBI's success could conceivably be tied to the outcome of the SEC lawsuit.

IMO the SEC claim is purely on the acounting fraud that they allege occurred. This to me is going after the low-hanging fruit, what is proveable.