Navy you may be right. Maybe I'm jaded, but when the COO sells millions of shares at the most critical juncture in the company's history this is a huge red flag for me. The company was under a continuous assault from SA and others and this only provided fuel for the fire. A responsible move would have been to wait until the company was on more stable footing. I've watched this same scenario play out over 28 years now. The game doesn't change only the players. Further, when I asked Stuart Smith about these sales the knee jerk and irrational response I received screamed guilt. You be the judge.
Below is a couple of email exchanges between myself and Stuart. Keep in mind I spoke with Stuart many times before this and always have very friendly and respectful conversations. The emails started on 3/4 and continued for approximately a week.
Stuart:
Could you please confirm or deny if a 144 has been filed on behalf of Ms Sides to sell 7.2 mil shares. Thank you for your
I will ask the Company I do not know. What I do know is I have been told she has not sold a share in the past two years. Filing 144 removes the restriction to sell it does not mean you have to sell.
The question was: "Did Ms Sides file a 144 filed in order to 7.2 Mil shares starting on 3/10/2013?" I am well aware of the process in regards to the 144 and I don't care if she sold shares in the past or if she sells shares in the future. However, when a company starts parsing words to avoid answering questions in full I begin to get suspicious. I don't have a problem with the sale but, I have a big problem with the answer. I've been around this game a while and the response I received is a big red flag.
I understand where you are coming from. With that said I was unable to speak with Michelle yesterday so I got the best available answer. My calls are always returned in 24 hours. I expect to hear from her today
Stuart, did Ms Sides ever respond to the question about the 144? Thanks
Yes she did and yes that was her registration of restricted shares. The difference is the spin shorters and naïve folks put on it. Just the subject of the email along says insider selling (sort of). She is in compliance with the SEC and that means no more that 1% at any point of the daily volume. Even better she has not sold a single share of MJNA ever. But, I know you are naïve so make of it what but don’t confuse a removal of a restriction with the actual selling. Moreover, like many of my other clients, to preserve cash for the expansion of operations, wouldn’t you rather the management of these micro caps leak shares out in compliance with the SEC in lieu of large salaries? Thereby more income is making its way to the bottom line right?
Sounds like you are in over your head, Stu . I asked a legitimate question and you get your panties in a twist. I insinuated no wrong doing by the subject line, but instead just responded to your last e-mail instead of creating a new one. Naïve? No, not Naïve. I've forgot more about this industry that you know and it shows by your childish knee jerk response. If this management team is as amateurish as you it is only a matter of time before this thing implodes. For the sake of all invested I hope that is not the case. Lack of transparency and defensive reactions such as the one you just displayed erode confidence in those looking to invest in this company. Now I am worried about what is going on behind the scenes. Good job, Stu. I'll be sure to pass this along to management as well. {Note} Insider selling is not the same thing as insider trading. One is legitimate the other is a crime.
To be fair to Stuart he did issue an apology. Though he would not answer my questions about the issues you raised earlier today. IMO, same old game just different players.
