Medical Marijuana Inc (MJNA)

[Det_Robert_Thorne]

This is pure shoddy corporate governance

The two-year audit has nothing to do with Cranford, Murray and Stewart Environmental.

In a PR on August 14, 2012, MJNA management said that they planned to complete a two-year audit for uplisting purposes within 120 days:

Company to become Fully Reporting

In conjunction with the S-1 filing, MJNA expects to file their first audited financial statements prior to year-end. The Company's objective is to complete the 15c2-11 application process, which it started in May of this year, as well as becoming a fully reporting, fully compliant company with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). The audit and due diligence process will take an additional 90 to 120 days to complete. Once completed and approved, the Company's equity shares will trade on a "Solicited" basis, be on a higher level of the NASD Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board and there will be a dedicated market maker for the Company's tradable shares.

Of course, management missed that goal, and by June 10, 2013, I wrote on this board that the audit shouldn't be expected until mid-2014:

They'll probably want to get a complete, accurately reported 2013 under their belts before showing that 2012 was not all that it was cracked-up to be, and the FY2013 report will not be filed until sometime in Feb or March of 2014.

Therefore, I don't expect an uplist attempt before April, 2014.

In November, 2013, I noted that it had been more than one year since the initial promise, and wrote the following:

So more than a year later, the uplisting is still "all hat and no cattle".

If MJNA management wanted to, they could easily have completed an audit of 2011 and 2012 by now, plus filed an S-1 with the SEC, but they haven't.

If management was serious about this, they wouldn't be dribbling out the "audited" financials one quarter at a time, but would simply audit the two prior years.

On July 5, 2014, I issued this post:

No uplisting attempt until 2015

They can't uplist until they audit, and while they claim in the most recent filing that they've audited 20 of 24 months, I have to wonder how, if they didn't get the numbers from RDH until recently, they could say that any month after the creation of RDH has truly been audited.

What they've now got is partial, incomplete audits that will have to be adjusted to include RDH.

When will they restate the 2013 results to reflect actual income and expenses of RDH?

Now, they've dropped the talk of the audit from the most recent filing, which pretty much guarantees no attempt until after the 2014 annual filing is made at the end of March, 2015.

Instead of wasting time on a lawsuit, management should have been making sure that the audit was done.

My guess is that they don't really want shareholders all of the inside information that would be required in a S-1 filing with the SEC, and the same is likely true for what would be discovered in a lawsuit if it went to trial.

That's another reason why I expect the latest lawsuit to eventually be dropped.