I am sure that if the SEC believed that the catalyst may not exist, they would not be as simple-minded as to call up Islechem and ask them. IMO the work that Islechem did did not absolutely prove that the catalyst ever existed.
I think it is in the realm of possibility that the catalyst does not exist. But, I admit is is very hard to prove. It would take some skullduggery, you would almost have to hire a PI.
There are two problems for the SEC in making more serious claims of misrepresentation beyond the accounting problems;
- the difficulty in proving the case
- the fact that much of the publicly available information about JBI is in dubious sources like Facebook. The JBI Facebook was never, to my belief, an official source of company information. Then the fact is that the company cannot be held accountable. Same witht he cl;aim of $10/barrel cost, lots of things. Timelines... the standard disclaimer on forward-looking information protects them alot.
The accounting problems are in a different realm. Especially if the standard that the CEO/ CFO is held to is that they "ought to have known" even if they deny having known. That would be a tough one, but that is the standard in misrepresentation as far as I know.
