In t gets deleted in FUDhub land: An excellent
Post# of 43066
Posted On: 06/17/2014 9:54:20 AM
In t gets deleted in FUDhub land:
An excellent reply from stocker to the big guy:
(stocker) Not so far fetched. If they had a good case to force settlement, as you state, why then issue a Wells Notice and Statement of Claim. There is no doubt that it was done to harm the stock. A settlement has nothing to do with a de facto admission of wrongdoing. JBI admitted there may have been an accounting error at worse and was willing to settle because of this. They had every intention of defending the case but the investors gave JBI no option - they were forced to settle. Those 2 issues combined with the fact that legal costs would be higher than the settlement, resulted in a settlement.
Is was not reported on the SMB's? Wrong. Just how can anyone speculate a Wells Notice was being issued the day before JBI received Notice? It was much more than mere speculation and I expect the SEC investigated themselves as to how that could possibly have happened. Perhaps that why is the investigator no longer works with the SEC. If they were in settlement discussions why issue the Wells Notice and Statement if it was their intention to all along negotiate a settlement, as you've stated.
Coincidences, I think not. Orchestrated, much more likely.
Quote: (the big guy bs)
That is far-fetched and outlandish. This is a just a case of professionals doing their jobs. No one set JBI up. The Wells notice and Statement of Claim are normal steps in the investigative process. Nothing more, nothing less. There was no conspiracy to hammer the stock price. It hammered itself by misrepresenting the financials to investors.
It was not reported on SMBs, there was speculation. Means nothing. Means a poster knows how the SEC works, that is all.
Settling in negotiations is normal, because it does cost everyone less money. It is up to the judge who pays costs. He does not have to make the loser pay all costs, especially if a reasonable attempt to settle is made. And if the lawsuit is deemed frivolous, the SEC would have had to pay all costs for both sides!!!
Lawyers move around a lot, from case to case. They are just professionals doing a job. I once launched a lawsuit. It ended up being bandied about by 3 lawyers. Milked for all it is worth.
A Settlement IS IN FACT a de facto admission of wrongdoing. If the SEC had gone to court with a poor case they would have been laughed out of the courtroom. They had a good case, and that forced a settlement.
An excellent reply from stocker to the big guy:
(stocker) Not so far fetched. If they had a good case to force settlement, as you state, why then issue a Wells Notice and Statement of Claim. There is no doubt that it was done to harm the stock. A settlement has nothing to do with a de facto admission of wrongdoing. JBI admitted there may have been an accounting error at worse and was willing to settle because of this. They had every intention of defending the case but the investors gave JBI no option - they were forced to settle. Those 2 issues combined with the fact that legal costs would be higher than the settlement, resulted in a settlement.
Is was not reported on the SMB's? Wrong. Just how can anyone speculate a Wells Notice was being issued the day before JBI received Notice? It was much more than mere speculation and I expect the SEC investigated themselves as to how that could possibly have happened. Perhaps that why is the investigator no longer works with the SEC. If they were in settlement discussions why issue the Wells Notice and Statement if it was their intention to all along negotiate a settlement, as you've stated.
Coincidences, I think not. Orchestrated, much more likely.
Quote: (the big guy bs)
That is far-fetched and outlandish. This is a just a case of professionals doing their jobs. No one set JBI up. The Wells notice and Statement of Claim are normal steps in the investigative process. Nothing more, nothing less. There was no conspiracy to hammer the stock price. It hammered itself by misrepresenting the financials to investors.
It was not reported on SMBs, there was speculation. Means nothing. Means a poster knows how the SEC works, that is all.
Settling in negotiations is normal, because it does cost everyone less money. It is up to the judge who pays costs. He does not have to make the loser pay all costs, especially if a reasonable attempt to settle is made. And if the lawsuit is deemed frivolous, the SEC would have had to pay all costs for both sides!!!
Lawyers move around a lot, from case to case. They are just professionals doing a job. I once launched a lawsuit. It ended up being bandied about by 3 lawyers. Milked for all it is worth.
A Settlement IS IN FACT a de facto admission of wrongdoing. If the SEC had gone to court with a poor case they would have been laughed out of the courtroom. They had a good case, and that forced a settlement.
(0)
(0)