For now, CannaVest is not a party, so it didn't have to report about the lawsuit in its 2Q/14 filing. While I never wrote that it had to, when I initially speculated on this having something to do with the termination of the HempMeds agreement, I can see where that could have been implied.
However, half an hour after the first post, I posted a second message clarifying that this is shareholder on shareholder action, and that Hempmeds was likely not a reason.
2) It's a 2Q/14 event, and should be reported in 2Q/14 filing
Since the suit was filed on 6/20, and as you noted that MJNA was made aware on 6/25, the event clearly occurred during 2Q/14 and needs to be included in MJNA's 2Q/14 disclosure. That's why I asked the question in the initial post, "Could this be one of the reasons MJNA is late with its 2Q/14 filing?"
3) It was Roen Ventures that filed the initial suit against MJNA
We disagree on motives, which are purely speculative.
Sure, my two theories are speculation, but they're based on MJNA's long-term history of inadequate corporate governance and filings that seems to regularly get them into trouble.
Why would the majority shareholder of CANV sue MJNA, and why would the countersuit name other CANV principals who are large shareholders (other than Mona, Jr,) but not name the company itself?
Right now, based on all available info, the only connection that I can come up with is that the others mentioned as third party defendants did one of the following:
1) Bought shares during the $1 restricted share offering (Mona III, Mik-Nik, Mackay)
2) Acquired shares when Roen converted its $6M loan to CANV to shares (Mackay, Mercia, Mai Dun and Roen Ventures itself)
3) Were part of Roen at the time the conversion deal was struck (Mona Jr).
The only person not mentioned in the suit who was an insider at the time and who bought shares was Director Ted Sobieski, who bought 50K shares at $1 for his family trust, but left the board on May 7.
Considering how the SEC is cracking down and suspending the trading of stocks, which then end up nearly untradeable on the Grey Sheets, it would make sense for Roen to want to see MJNA file, but why would MJNA countersue, other than to prevent it from having to tell the public more than it wants to?
That's why I think that this is a fight over who can sell what shares and when.
CANV can't sue MJNA, because IIRC, there was nothing in the Phytosphere sales agreement that prevents MJNA from selling shares as soon as they can come off restriction (which is probably why MJNA originally said it would have $150M in revenue in 2014).
I've wondered in the past what would prevent MJNA from selling its CANV shares as soon as they came off restricted status, and some of MJNA's shares would have become eligible to sell in Jan, 2014, right during the $1 offering to accredited investors.
So perhaps a side deal between MJNA and Roen was made.
Pure speculation, but based on MJNA's history?
BTW, if I am even close to being right about this, could a side agreement between shareholders be considered some type of illegal collusion?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
