in total >> per K (filed 6.4.14)
page 22/23
ITEM 3.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Contingencies 1, SEC civil action; SEC civil action, Shareholders derivative lawsuit
In August 2010, a former employee filed a complaint against the Company’s subsidiary alleging wrongful dismissal and seeking compensatory damages. The Company denied the validity of the contract which was signed by the former employee as employee and president of the subsidiary. The Company entered into negotiations with the former employee to trade-off some of the benefits of the alleged employment agreement in return for repayment of debts to the Company incurred by the former employee while in the employment of the Company’s subsidiary. The debt in the amount of $346,386 was written off. Prior to December 31, 2011, the former employee settled the dispute with the Company and agreed to repay $250,813 to the Company. The employee owns shares of the Company and will sell and use the proceeds to make the repayments. The Company recognizes these receipts as recoveries when realized. As of December 31, 2013, the Company has received $118,250 of repayments. This is a cumulative amount from 2012 and 2013. These recoveries of bad debt are included in selling, general and administrative expenses.
As previously reported, on July 28, 2011, certain of the Company’s stockholders filed a class action lawsuit against the Company and Messrs. Bordynuik and Baldwin on behalf of purchasers of its securities. In an amended complaint filed on July 10, 2012, these stockholders sought to represent such purchasers during the period from August 28, 2009 through January 4, 2012. The original and amended complaints in that case, filed in federal court in Nevada, allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements, or both, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations and prospects in press releases and filings made with the SEC. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose material information, or a combination thereof regarding: (1) that certain media credits (“Media Credits”) were substantially overvalued; (2) that the Company improperly accounted for acquisitions; (3) that, as such, the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls. During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the case and an amended complaint was filed. The defendants’ answer to the amended complaint was filed during the fourth quarter of 2012.
On August 8, 2013, JBI, Inc., (the “Company”) entered a stipulation agreement (the “Stipulation Agreement”) in potential settlement of the previously reported class action lawsuit filed by certain stockholders of the Company against the Company and Messrs. Bordynuik and Baldwin (both former officers of the Company) on behalf of a settlement class consisting of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the period from August 28, 2009 through January 4, 2012 (the “Proposed Class Period”). Under the Stipulation Agreement, the Company would agree to issue shares of its common stock that will comprise a settlement fund. The number of shares to be issued will be dependent on the price per share of the Company’s common stock during a period preceding the date of the Court’s entry of final judgment in the case (the “Judgment Date”). If the price of the Company’s common stock is less than $0.50 per share based upon the average closing price for the 90 trading days preceding the Judgment Date, the Company would issue 3 million shares of its common stock. If the price of the Company’s common stock is between $0.50 and $0.70 per share, based upon the same 90-day average closing price, the Company would issue 2.5 million shares of its common stock. If the price of the Company’s common stock is more than $0.70 per share based upon the same 90-day average closing price the Company will issue 1.75 million shares of its common stock. The shares will not be distributed to class members in kind. At any time after final approval by the Court, class counsel would have the option to sell all or any portion of such shares for the benefit of class members, subject to certain volume limitations. Plaintiff’s counsel’s attorneys’ fees, subject to Court approval, would be paid out of the settlement fund. The Company would also pay settlement-related costs up to a maximum of $200,000. The plaintiffs and each of the class members who purchased the Company’s common stock during the Proposed Class Period and alleged they were damaged would be deemed to have fully released all claims against the Company and other defendants upon entry of judgment. On September 10, 2013, that agreement was submitted to the Court, and class counsel moved for entry of an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, including the mailing of a settlement notice that will include, among other things, the general terms of the settlement, proposed plan of allocation, and terms of plaintiff’s counsel’s fee application. On April 1, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying that motion. The Company is currently reviewing what steps should be taken in light of this Court Order. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the class action litigation at this time.
22
On April 25, 2013, plaintiffs ASPTO LLC, Plastic2Oil of Clearwater 1 LLC, and ES Resources LLC filed suit against the Company in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, alleging breaches of certain contracts and seeking unspecified damages. The Company thereafter removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and filed a motion to dismiss certain counts of the Complaint. On November 12, 2013, the Court issued an Order transferring the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time.
On August 9, 2013, a purported shareholder derivative suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against John Bordynuik, former Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a former member of the Company’s Board of Directors, and Ronald C. Baldwin, former Chief Financial Officer of the Company. The Complaint was filed by Erwin Grampp, allegedly acting on behalf of the Company, and it names the Company as a nominal defendant. This is the second purported shareholder derivative suit that Mr. Grampp has filed in which the Company has been named as a nominal defendant. As previously reported, the first such suit by Mr. Grampp was dismissed by the court. This recent Complaint (“Grampp II”) alleges, inter alia, that defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company by causing the Company to erroneously book certain media credits in 2009. Grampp II alleges that this conduct resulted in two lawsuits against the Company, one an action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC Action”) and the other a purported class action by Ellisa Pancoe and Howard Howell (“Class Action”). Grampp II alleges that the Company has settled the SEC Action, and that the Company is in the process of settling the Class Action, but that the Company has been damaged as a result of these two lawsuits. Grampp II seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Company from defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin in an unspecified amount. It also seeks unspecified equitable relief, and costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in the action. On October 11, 2013, defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin filed a motion to dismiss this action. That motion is pending and the Court has not ruled upon it. Pursuant to the Company’s By-Laws, the Company has an obligation to indemnify defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin to the fullest extent permitted by Nevada law.
On August 20, 2013, plaintiff Stephen Seneca filed suit against the Company and John Bordynuik, former Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a former member of its Board of Directors, alleging claims against the Company for fraud, negligence, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract, as well as a breach of Section 678.4011, Florida Statutes. The claims allege wrongdoing by the Company in connection with a Unit Purchase and Exchange Agreement dated September 30, 2009, and certain shares of the Company’s stock issued pursuant thereto. On September 17, 2013, plaintiff caused a Summons to be issued on the Complaint, and on September 26, 2013, plaintiff caused the Complaint to be served on the Company. Plaintiff seeks damages “in excess of one million dollars.” On October 31, 2013, the Company and Mr. Bordynuik filed a motion to dismiss this Complaint. On May 14, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the motion in part. The Court dismissed one of the claims made against the Company, and struck another from the Complaint. The primary claim as described above is still active. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time.
At December 31, 2013, the Company is involved in litigation and claims in addition to the above mentioned legal claims, which arise from time to time in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, based upon the information and facts known to them, any liability that may arise from such contingencies would not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements of the Company.
http://jbii.ir.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFr...;Type=HTML
page 22/23
ITEM 3.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Contingencies 1, SEC civil action; SEC civil action, Shareholders derivative lawsuit
In August 2010, a former employee filed a complaint against the Company’s subsidiary alleging wrongful dismissal and seeking compensatory damages. The Company denied the validity of the contract which was signed by the former employee as employee and president of the subsidiary. The Company entered into negotiations with the former employee to trade-off some of the benefits of the alleged employment agreement in return for repayment of debts to the Company incurred by the former employee while in the employment of the Company’s subsidiary. The debt in the amount of $346,386 was written off. Prior to December 31, 2011, the former employee settled the dispute with the Company and agreed to repay $250,813 to the Company. The employee owns shares of the Company and will sell and use the proceeds to make the repayments. The Company recognizes these receipts as recoveries when realized. As of December 31, 2013, the Company has received $118,250 of repayments. This is a cumulative amount from 2012 and 2013. These recoveries of bad debt are included in selling, general and administrative expenses.
As previously reported, on July 28, 2011, certain of the Company’s stockholders filed a class action lawsuit against the Company and Messrs. Bordynuik and Baldwin on behalf of purchasers of its securities. In an amended complaint filed on July 10, 2012, these stockholders sought to represent such purchasers during the period from August 28, 2009 through January 4, 2012. The original and amended complaints in that case, filed in federal court in Nevada, allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements, or both, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations and prospects in press releases and filings made with the SEC. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose material information, or a combination thereof regarding: (1) that certain media credits (“Media Credits”) were substantially overvalued; (2) that the Company improperly accounted for acquisitions; (3) that, as such, the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls. During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the case and an amended complaint was filed. The defendants’ answer to the amended complaint was filed during the fourth quarter of 2012.
On August 8, 2013, JBI, Inc., (the “Company”) entered a stipulation agreement (the “Stipulation Agreement”) in potential settlement of the previously reported class action lawsuit filed by certain stockholders of the Company against the Company and Messrs. Bordynuik and Baldwin (both former officers of the Company) on behalf of a settlement class consisting of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the period from August 28, 2009 through January 4, 2012 (the “Proposed Class Period”). Under the Stipulation Agreement, the Company would agree to issue shares of its common stock that will comprise a settlement fund. The number of shares to be issued will be dependent on the price per share of the Company’s common stock during a period preceding the date of the Court’s entry of final judgment in the case (the “Judgment Date”). If the price of the Company’s common stock is less than $0.50 per share based upon the average closing price for the 90 trading days preceding the Judgment Date, the Company would issue 3 million shares of its common stock. If the price of the Company’s common stock is between $0.50 and $0.70 per share, based upon the same 90-day average closing price, the Company would issue 2.5 million shares of its common stock. If the price of the Company’s common stock is more than $0.70 per share based upon the same 90-day average closing price the Company will issue 1.75 million shares of its common stock. The shares will not be distributed to class members in kind. At any time after final approval by the Court, class counsel would have the option to sell all or any portion of such shares for the benefit of class members, subject to certain volume limitations. Plaintiff’s counsel’s attorneys’ fees, subject to Court approval, would be paid out of the settlement fund. The Company would also pay settlement-related costs up to a maximum of $200,000. The plaintiffs and each of the class members who purchased the Company’s common stock during the Proposed Class Period and alleged they were damaged would be deemed to have fully released all claims against the Company and other defendants upon entry of judgment. On September 10, 2013, that agreement was submitted to the Court, and class counsel moved for entry of an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, including the mailing of a settlement notice that will include, among other things, the general terms of the settlement, proposed plan of allocation, and terms of plaintiff’s counsel’s fee application. On April 1, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying that motion. The Company is currently reviewing what steps should be taken in light of this Court Order. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the class action litigation at this time.
22
On April 25, 2013, plaintiffs ASPTO LLC, Plastic2Oil of Clearwater 1 LLC, and ES Resources LLC filed suit against the Company in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, alleging breaches of certain contracts and seeking unspecified damages. The Company thereafter removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and filed a motion to dismiss certain counts of the Complaint. On November 12, 2013, the Court issued an Order transferring the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time.
On August 9, 2013, a purported shareholder derivative suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against John Bordynuik, former Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a former member of the Company’s Board of Directors, and Ronald C. Baldwin, former Chief Financial Officer of the Company. The Complaint was filed by Erwin Grampp, allegedly acting on behalf of the Company, and it names the Company as a nominal defendant. This is the second purported shareholder derivative suit that Mr. Grampp has filed in which the Company has been named as a nominal defendant. As previously reported, the first such suit by Mr. Grampp was dismissed by the court. This recent Complaint (“Grampp II”) alleges, inter alia, that defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company by causing the Company to erroneously book certain media credits in 2009. Grampp II alleges that this conduct resulted in two lawsuits against the Company, one an action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC Action”) and the other a purported class action by Ellisa Pancoe and Howard Howell (“Class Action”). Grampp II alleges that the Company has settled the SEC Action, and that the Company is in the process of settling the Class Action, but that the Company has been damaged as a result of these two lawsuits. Grampp II seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Company from defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin in an unspecified amount. It also seeks unspecified equitable relief, and costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in the action. On October 11, 2013, defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin filed a motion to dismiss this action. That motion is pending and the Court has not ruled upon it. Pursuant to the Company’s By-Laws, the Company has an obligation to indemnify defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin to the fullest extent permitted by Nevada law.
On August 20, 2013, plaintiff Stephen Seneca filed suit against the Company and John Bordynuik, former Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a former member of its Board of Directors, alleging claims against the Company for fraud, negligence, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract, as well as a breach of Section 678.4011, Florida Statutes. The claims allege wrongdoing by the Company in connection with a Unit Purchase and Exchange Agreement dated September 30, 2009, and certain shares of the Company’s stock issued pursuant thereto. On September 17, 2013, plaintiff caused a Summons to be issued on the Complaint, and on September 26, 2013, plaintiff caused the Complaint to be served on the Company. Plaintiff seeks damages “in excess of one million dollars.” On October 31, 2013, the Company and Mr. Bordynuik filed a motion to dismiss this Complaint. On May 14, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the motion in part. The Court dismissed one of the claims made against the Company, and struck another from the Complaint. The primary claim as described above is still active. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time.
At December 31, 2013, the Company is involved in litigation and claims in addition to the above mentioned legal claims, which arise from time to time in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, based upon the information and facts known to them, any liability that may arise from such contingencies would not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements of the Company.
http://jbii.ir.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFr...;Type=HTML
