Replies to post #2143 on ChromaDex Corp. (CDXC)

[frankvestor8]

Other observation on the BSR attack

(1) Article was withdrawn minutes after publication on SA (and then re-appeared). Whatever you make of this.

(2) Heavy selling volume on the stock the two days prior to attack.

(2) indicates group activity with advance knowledge of attack. Sometimes SA author is just shill/proxy. The author didn't really write the article himself/herself (even though he/she certified to SA otherwise). Other SA author or even hedge fund wants a piece (usu. negative) to be published without real identity revealed. Sometimes simply to boost impact (because someone doesn't want to be the guy/gal who keeps on churning out something negative that raises question of bias.)

Just author one or two short articles and gradually you might just receive this kind of request from others. If it's likely a hit piece, you get the chance to profit from others' work while potentially making a name for yourself. When you cooperate on this kind of matters, you could build a network with future profit potential for yourself.

(Not everyone cooperate on this kind of things. Some chooses to be independent and original. Some validates the content of third party work before consent.)

Inexperience traders should particularly be aware of this practice.

[frankvestor8]

Good info. Some traders/observers appear to have already assumed Honig's involvement, maybe due to his deep pocket. Interestingly, BSR apologized only to Pershing, ChromaDex, and Honig. Not Brauser. It also puzzles me why Honig's did not sue PumpStopper for similar articles before.

His (and Frost's) not going after Lakewood may be a little easier to understand, given (potentially) Lakewood's powerful attorneys.

Could this somehow be related to the degree of distortion involved? I keep on thinking this way because I know for fact that some legal threat never materialized in relation to SA negative articles. Representatives for companies/major investors (just like Honig in this case) made threat but never actually sued. Common among those few cases: they didn't distort. One author simply updated his article by adding a couple sentences of caution. And that was it.

Jaksch really was weak/slow in handling this crisis. It's good that Mr. Honig came to rescue in the end.

From this point on, they probably should vet each board candidate carefully. Bring in someone who would be an asset than liability. Should not be another Dunkerley, Honig, or Brauser. And then preferably he/she would have expertise to help with the company's ingredient business. Age wise, maybe someone in the 40-70 range? Or maybe it does not matter. A retired executive might have more time to advise on the company's business.

My 2 cents too. Not up to us anyway.

[MinnieM]

For those without pacer accounts, the lawsuit filed by Honig for libel can be found at the free recap link:

Recap docket: http://ia801502.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.gand.228797/gov.uscourts.gand.228797.docket.html

Complaint: http://ia601502.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.gand.228797/gov.uscourts.gand.228797.1.0.pdf

Proof of Service: http://ia801502.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.gand.228797/gov.uscourts.gand.228797.7.0.pdf

Motion for Expedited Discovery: http://ia601502.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.gand.228797/gov.uscourts.gand.228797.9.1.pdf







In Reply to 'mtg220022'
Right, I was thinking best case scenario. By the way I just saw this on Pacer. Barry Honig is suing BSR, I think it's interesting that it's him suing BSR and not Pershing or ChromaDex. My 2cents is that it was probably Honig's lawyers that orchestrated the withdrawal after a quick read of the suit.

As to if they can get people on the board, I think that they probably can at some point. I actually would rather see a younger guy that would be more invested in the day to day of the company than an older guy that came from a big name company, just my 2 cents.