I Don't Think of it as Disagreement
Your (admitted) speculation is fascinating. It fits the facts we have on hand, my only point is we may not have one or more significant pieces to this puzzle yet.
You frame the commonalities well. Cannavest is not a party, that eliminates a great number of potential causes of action. Roen initiated the first suit and MJNA counter sues naming not only Roen but almost every other significant stake holder in CANV. The fact that the one thing they all hold in common is substantial amounts of CANV stock becomes the single best guess as to the underlying cause of the dispute.
If that assumption proves to be warranted (and again, it fits the facts we have) then you're in a far better position to interpret potential motives from than I am. The only "not quite sure how that fits" aspect for me is that MJNA either has (had) legal right to dispose of their CANV shares or they didn't.
I'm the first to recognize that sometimes parties enter into lawsuits for stupid reasons. I was delighted last year when two groups of internet ponzi schemers who once collaborated, later competed wound up suing each other. In the midst of a civil complaint one side accuses the other of running an illegal scheme only for the other side to point out that the person raising the allegation, when both parties worked together, was the one who designed that scheme in the first place. Comedy gold.
I'm not in any way insinuating anything that untoward is going on between Roen and MJNA but I am waiting for a few more puzzle pieces to fall into place before guessing what the picture looks like. If however your speculation proves to be correct Det, my already considerable respect for you will most justifiably increase.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
