The Streisand Effect is what happens when a person or company sends out legal threats to stop people from seeing something and, in turn, makes that thing they didn’t want seen go viral.
MedMen’s lawyers probably should have talked to their clients about this before they started sending us weird legal demands because wow, you guys, last Friday’s story is now our most viewed story ever. We got more traffic over the weekend than we’ve had in any other full week.
And the social media response! We got CEOs of MedMen competitors calling, texting, emailing, we got lawyers offering their help if needed, media queries, it’s been a ride.
As for MedMen stock, it’s a little down at the time of writing.
And yes, I’m still writing.
Back in late May, we ragged as much on FSD Pharma (HUGE.C) as we did on MedMen, and in fact said some things about FSD that, upon reflection, were pretty harsh.
In that same piece, I said this, about the CSE:
Hey, CSE! Being easier to deal with than the TSX is admirable, but that doesn’t mean I should be able to bring you a fentanyl deal and get a green light to go public. Do better.
But you know what both the CSE and FSD did that MedMen didn’t?
THEY PICKED UP THE PHONE.
- From the CSE, a shrug and a tacit admission that supervoting share structures are a terrible look for new pubcos and the hope it doesn’t catch on.
- From FSD: An explanation as to why they chose that structure, agreement that a sunset clause on those supervotes may make sense, and then an agreement to have a no holds barred, all questions welcomed, audio interview on Equity.Guru where they not only made a case for their ‘super voting’ shares structure, but also made a pretty good case for themselves as a company.
That’s how it’s done. You can read about the interview here, or hear it below. It’s a great interview and we gave much respect to FSD for engaging like adults and clarifying their situation.
In contrast, shortly after we posted our story about/reponse to the mysterious legal threats from MedMen (MMEN.C) and their lawyers at Raines Feldman LLP last Friday, where they demanded we retract false statements about the company but didn’t actually bother telling us which statements we had made that were false, we got a follow-up email making their demands somewhat, but not very much, clearer, and insisting it’s ‘not their job’ to tell us what we got wrong.
Which is kind of what you’d say if, you know, you didn’t actually find anything wrong but instead wanted to use legal threats to stop journalists writing about your client.
Firstly, and most funnily, they ‘intend’ to pursue Equity.Guru for ‘half a billion dollars’, for ‘false and misleading statements regarding MedMen Enterprises Inc.’
Huh. Half a billion dollars. Sure. Why not?
But, for the 17th time, which ‘false and misleading statements‘ were made?
Let’s call that still a work in progress.
[pdf-embedder url=”https://equity.guru/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2018.08.10-Letter-to-Chris-Parry.pdf” title=”Here’s the second letter.”]
Last time around the legal eagles demanded we apologize and retract all the false, misleading, fraudulent, unfair, and I’m going to add pithy statements we’d allegedly made about them over five stories, but the worst thing they could actually note was a headline that they felt ‘suggested’ something that we didn’t actually write in the headline, at all.
Most recently, you published an article titled “As MedMen (MMEN.C) CEO buys new home, company is taking tips away from its employees.”
The title of the article itself (and the image underneath) is misleading – suggesting that MedMen’s CEO is stealing employees’ tips to line his own pockets.
‘Stealing’? What?
We didn’t say the CEO was ‘stealing’ employees’ tips. We said the company was taking tips back and not telling the employees why, which was true. And we said the CEO was buying a mansion, which was also true.
To accuse us of ‘suggesting’ what we didn’t suggest at all was spurious legal logic, but after about three minutes of shrugging and eye rolling and Taylor and Ethan leaving the room to try out a new vape pen a client had ‘accidentally’ left in the office, we changed the headline.
Because, let’s face it, the story was four months old, getting no traffic anymore, and we just didn’t really care. Maybe if we changed an old headline, they’d go away, which is what usually happens when some exec googles himself and finds a story from 2013 about that time he killed a hooker and is worried his soon-to-be in-laws won’t be impressed.
[Legal note: We are not suggesting anyone associated with MedMen has ever killed a hooker, though if you look deep enough at Bloomfield, the company they acquired on the east coast, questions do spring forth about why a company would seemingly overpay for a company nearly bankrupt, especially when they have to agree to keep running the company in the way that was driving it bankrupt, while that acquisition target may also have organized crime ties.. But no dead hookers and we’re sure it’s all just a coincidence.]
Changing an ages old story that nobody looks at any more is not new. There are whole companies whose job it is to contact media on behalf of their clients and ask if they’d please kindly take something down that is making life difficult for them.
Sometimes folks have done something mean and reckless and done their time and want to move on with their lives, and old stories online can make that impossible. “I’ve been in rehab for two years now and work with underprivileged kids and can you please take down my photo?”
Sometimes they come clean about the badness, and we help them tell their story as a mea culpa.
We usually charge a ‘scrub’ fee for such things, as do most large media entities, but in this case the original letter was so vague and spurious, that the only way we could show our willingness to be fair was to change the headline they clearly had an (odd) issue with to something else.
Let’s be abundantly clear on this; we didn’t make that change because the headline was wrong, or even close to wrong, we did it because we’re really busy and we’ve received bullshit letters like this before and they’re almost always a waste of everyone’s time.
But our show of compassion and compromise didn’t play out that way in this case. Raines Feldman LLP took our compromise and found their balls, deciding our team doing them a solid was some sort of giant admission of guilt.
So they decided to double down.
Sing it, Barbra.
Based on our review of your internet postings, it appears that you have attempted to walk
back some of the egregiously false and misleading statements in the article; however, you
have not gone far enough.
We haven’t walked back anything. We shrugged, changed three words in a headline on an old story, and ate a taco.
First, the Letter demanded that you issue a retraction of the false allegations
contained in five articles Equity.Guru published about MedMen. You failed to do so.
And you failed to list the ‘false allegations’. What do you like on your taco?
The other articles cited in the Letter also contain false and misleading information that, as you touted on an interview with James West on June 8, 2018, had a direct negative impact on MedMen’s share price. Indeed, you stated that
I love it personally, I think this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Since we dumped a bucket of cold water on them, we’ve taken a half a billion dollars off their valuation. Other companies like TGOD [which, as we understand, pays you to promote their stock] have been the recipients of the dry powder that seems to have gone to them.
These are damages that MedMen intends to pursue.
Only half a billion dollars? Why not a full billion?
I’m confused by the above; you claim that our allegations have slandered MedMen execs, but you’re going to sue for lost company share price? How does our alleged damaging of their reputation just happen to come out as the exact same amount their company stock dropped on opening day?
Are you actually trying to sue for some sort of alleged market manipulation? I mean, that would make more sense, even if it would be similarly ridiculous because, ya know, it didn’t actually happen.
Your reference to TGOD, and your repeated claims of fraud and ‘unfair competition’ and how you’re investigating us and we should keep copies of all our communications and documents secure, would seem to point to what you’re really concerned with, that your clients think we’re fraudulently manipulating the market to the benefit of one or more of your competitors. If that’s the case, let’s get to it and stop fucking around with retraction demands: We’ll happily meet you in discovery, but the catch is, your clients are going to have to come too. With all of their documents and communications.
But before we get there, some corrections of your own are due; We don’t get paid ‘to promote stock,’ not TGOD’s or anyone else’s.We’re journalists, not stock promoters, and we make it clear in all our materials, and on our website, that client companies can expect us to be negative when warranted.
We get paid for market awareness programs and our selling point is our honesty and transparency. Companies like TGOD, and others, pay us to consider writing about their company, instead of the 6000 other public companies we could write about on a given day.
Sometimes we do write about them, and it’s positive. Sometimes we don’t write about them at all because a non-client company did something we find more interesting. And sometimes we write about our clients and it’s NEGATIVE.
We love TGOD, but here’s one of a few recent ones that came out about TGOD which is non-complimentary:
In fact, on June 1 2018, I tweeted this to the world:
Yo $TGOD fans, happy that you have made serious doughbucks, but be cautious now – today’s isn’t based on people suddenly realizing TGOD is a great business, it’s based on the market chasing itself. It’s fever.
If you can, take some profit off the table. Ride your original stake— Chris Parry ™ (@ChrisParry) June 1, 2018
So your whole conspiracy push is a silly one. If we’re conspiring to destroy your client and blow TGOD up, we’re going about it all wrong by telling people to take profits on our clients and talking about their bad news.
Second, even your efforts directed at correcting the record on the article initially titled “As MedMen (MMEN.C) CEO buys new home, company is taking tips away from its employees” fall woefully short. All that occurred was that Equity.Guru reworked the title, deleted the egregiously defamatory image, and added an addendum. However, you took no steps to correct the false facts contained in the article initially.
We reject the notion that the image or the headline were defamatory in any way. Your first letter seemed only to specify that headline as being objectionable to your client, and your countless references to ‘false’ statements are never explained, so we shrugged and changed it as a sign of good faith and, frankly, taking the path of least giving a shit.
But I’m happy to change it back if that show of good faith is, instead, going to be seized upon as some sort of unspoken admission of guilt.
We particularly like, as alternate headlines, “MedMen fucks up their taxes, forces minimum wage employees to suffer for their mistakes,” as an option. We also like, “MedMen store managers get no answers from management as to why their paycheques have been docked, send us texts instead.”
Do let me know if the current version isn’t up to your needs and I’ll have another crack.. you know, as a good faith gesture and all.
Nor did you remove references to Mr. Modlin’s purchase of a new home or photograph of his home, none of which is pertinent to the facts of the story and which can have no purpose but to suggest (falsely) that the purchase of the home by MedMen’s President is somehow tied to MedMen’s efforts to comply with federal and state tax laws and regulations.
Sorry, do you mean our reference to THIS LOS ANGELES TIMES STORY FROM A WEEK BEFORE OUR STORY WAS POSTED THAT NAMES MODLIN AS THE PURCHASER OF THIS $3M+ MANSION AND INCLUDES PICTURES OF IT IN A PHOTO GALLERY?
We do like this kitchen though.
Sorry Miles, not only did we not suggest the purchase of his home was ‘tied’ to his, or the company’s, taking of employee tips, but the relevance to the story is how bad it looks for him to have made this flashy purchase while his minimum wage employees were having hundreds of dollars subtracted from their pay.
The employees literally pointed out the LA Times story to us as part of what was making them so angry at MedMen. It’s relevant, pertinent, and salient.
Also, not to beleaguer the point, but the butcher’s block island really is a nice piece.
But I digress: You don’t get to tell a media outlet what stories it can write, what it can include in those stories, and what’s relevant to their story. WE make that call, which is all a nice fat part of our ‘free speech’, which you told us in the last letter you support, though we note you haven’t actually provided any of that support to the GoFundMe we set up to receive it.
I particularly liked this line from your letter:
Your publications contain numerous demonstrably false statements, and we have no intention of policing every false statement that you make, while you shirk your responsibilities and duties under the law.
Well I don’t know what to tell you, Miles. I’m right here, standing in front of you, just a boy telling another boy that I’m here to help you. But you’ve gotta do your part.
I mean, you’ve gone to SO MUCH EFFORT to claim we’re acting fraudulently, you’ve said ‘false allegations’ over and over, and presumably you wouldn’t say any of that if you didn’t actually have evidence of our spouting actual false allegations, but out of two long legal letters sent so far, the best (only?) thing you could actually come up with is this:
In the article published on May 28, 2018, entitled “MedMen (MMEN.C) goes public Tuesday, but three executives will make most of the money on the deal,” you state that “of the $100 million raised in new shares going public, $53 million of it goes straight into the pockets of [Adam Bierman and Andrew Modlin].” This statement, and others like it, are demonstrably false.
First, the Company raised approximately $150 million in connection with the go public transaction.
I find it adorable that while claiming I got it wrong with my numbers, you choose to cite an ‘approximate’ figure of CAN$150m as the amount the company raised going public. It was actually C$143m, according to docs filed at SEDAR.
But do you know what that number comes to in US dollars?
$108m.
I was $8m off on my figure (in US$), while you were $6.7m off on yours (in C$).
That deserves a Shirley Hemphill.
Others out there use the same number; here’s Cheddar TV:
.@ShopMedMen just listed on the CSE after raising about $100 million in pre-sales of $MMEN shares. CEO @_AdamBierman_ on why now is the right time to go public, and what he thinks needs to change in the U.S. before pot companies start listing on the NYSE. #CannaBiz #CheddarLIVE pic.twitter.com/SPqj7Atqf4
— Cheddar (@cheddar) May 29, 2018
But you know what, Miles? I’ll update that story to make clear it was US currency and not Canadian I was citing.
Let’s keep going, I like this.
Contrary to what is stated in your article, nearly all of this amount will be used for the expansion of operations and general corporate and working capital of the Company. The $53 million you describe as going in the pockets of the executives is comprised primarily of performance based equity compensation that may or may not be received and has nothing to do with the capital raised in the offering.
You might want to check your timelines on that, Miles. When I wrote my story (May 28), there was no disputing that $53m in question was going to the executives in question on the timelines noted.
AFTER my story was published (June 8), and (I’m going to assume) in response to my story, and the extremely negative reaction that your clients got on the market as a result of it, the company CHANGED its bonus system.
MEDMEN REVISES EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PLANS
The grant of units for Medmen Enterprises Inc.’s co-founders under its long-term incentive plan (LTIP) will now vest upon achievement of certain share price goals.
Co-founder and chief executive officer Adam Bierman, and co-founder and president Andrew Modlin will receive their LTIP units of MM Enterprises USA LLC according to the following schedule. One-third of the total units will vest when the price of Medmen’s subordinated voting shares reaches $10 in the open market, another one-third will vest when the share price reaches $15, and the final one-third will vest when the share price reaches $20. The price will be determined as a five-day volume-weighted average price in any exchange where Medmen shares are traded.
This modification to the grants under the LTIP was made to provide greater economic alignment with Medmen’s shareholders.
What is now ‘one third at $10, one third at $15, one third at $20’ was formerly [from MedMen’s public listing documents] 25% on day one, and “the remaining 75% of which will vest ratably, on a monthly basis, beginning on May 17, 2018 and concluding with all such LTIPs being fully vested as of March 15, 2020.”
There was no ‘maybe they won’t get paid’ when our articles were written, nor when my James West interview was spoken. That came later. Which you’d know if you’d bothered actually reading the documents surrounding your client’s complaint, rather than just sending out words and assuming they were correct.
MedMen’s CEO went on @CNBC and was asked by @jimcramer twice about compensation. Ducked the Q the 1st time and called the criticism ‘noise’ the 2nd. If it was noise, why radically alter the long-term equity plan to vest based on share price and not time? https://t.co/xhYj9fqQrX
— Michael Miller (@Porters6thForce) June 18, 2018
But here’s what I’m going to offer in the spirit of loving you like Mr Rogers would a neighbour, Miles: I’m going to adjust those earlier stories to reflect the subsequent change of heart your clients had. Because that change of heart was a beautiful thing, Miles. It was the sort of thing that makes what we do worthwhile. It preserved shareholder value, it helped get the C-suite back in line with shareholder goals, and it provided an example that a shitty deal can be made (moderately) less shitty if enough people speak loudly about it.
[Also, I would have done that if MedMen had just asked me to, like big boys, because it’s relevant.]
Moving on: The numbers in my piece are also right.
From your client’s listing statement on Sedar:
Adam Bierman, Chief Executive Officer
[…] Under the terms of his four-year employment contract, Mr. Bierman is entitled to an annual salary of US$1,500,000.In accordance with the terms of Mr. Bierman’s employment contact, he received 9,661,939 LTIP Units that were issued based upon the SR Offering Price ($5.25), 25% of which vested immediately on issuance (as of May 17, 2018) and the remaining 75% of which will vest ratably, on a monthly basis, beginning on May 17, 2018 and concluding with all such LTIPs being fully vested as of March 15, 2020.
Mr. Bierman’s salary will be reviewed annually. Mr. Bierman may be eligible under the
terms of his employment contract for a discretionary annual cash bonus and he may also be eligible to receive additional equity based compensation.Mr. Bierman’s employment contract provides for the payment of severance in the event of
termination without Cause in the following manner: three (3) times Mr. Bierman’s annual salary plus five (5) times his annual targeted bonus and a lump sum payment of US$250,000 to be paid on the first day of the month following the termination date. Post-termination, Mr. Bierman will continue to benefit from MedMen’s executive protection policy for a period of three (3) years.In the event the enterprise value of the Resulting Issuer exceeds US$2 billion at any time, Mr. Bierman will be granted a US$4,000,000 cash bonus.
Modlin’s deal is identical, as is the CFO’s ($1.25m per year for a CFO? Jesus, you’d think he’d get the taxes right).
Now here’s what I said in my article:
The CEO and the Chairman will each receive US$1.5 million per year in salary for four years, plus US$10 million in ‘redeemable units’ based on share price, that have vested, plus another $30 million in long term incentive plan units that vest over 24 months, at the end of every month.
This means Bierman is coming into this deal – stock aside – with $1.5 million in salary, another $15 million annually in ‘incentives’, and $10 million ‘just cus’, or $26.5 million off the top.
This, from what I can see, is actually underplaying the full figure.
The math I’m using (in US$, so we’re clear):
- Salary: $1.5 million
- Redeemable LTIP units that had vested immediately: $10m (25% of 10m units at C$5.25 a unit)
- Monthly incentive payments: $19.7m
That’s (approximately) US$31m in salary and bonuses annually, which is more than what I’d noted.
But let’s go for the original smaller figure of $26.5m, just to be charitable and because, lord knows, I don’t want you spending all night drafting another retraction demand.
You know what $26.5m is when it’s multiplied by two?
Go on, Miles, you can do it. Get an associate to bring you the abacus and a cup of Earl Gray.
$53 million.
Which is EXACTLY what I said:
President Andrew Modlin gets the same deal, so of the $100 million raised in new shares going public, $53 million of it goes straight into the pockets of the big two.
Now, I don’t want to give the impression that I’m not a charitable and community-minded man, Miles. You’re correct in two parts of your complaint, and I’m happy to admit it because, unlike your characterization of me, I don’t actually like to be wrong.
I said $53m of the raise went into the pockets of the big two, and it appears, if we’re being exact, I have no way to tell whether it was money from the raise or money already in the bank that was paying executive compensation. So I hereby, without reservation, publicly and proudly retract my statement that “of the $100 million raised in new shares going public, $53 million of it goes straight into the pockets of the big two.”
Also, to your credit, you pointed out some of that money was in the form of equity bonuses, so it’s true, I wasn’t right for me to say ‘revenues’ went into their pockets.
It would be right to say their equity-based bonus packages diluted shareholders to the enrichment of the executives in question. But it’s not right to say they were all ‘cash or revenue-based.’
Note: This is a first. I’ve never retracted anything before in a decade of journalism.
Obviously the point is minor and makes very little difference to most people, because the bonuses are still absurdly high, the golden parachute (referenced above) is insanity, and the listing document from the company says the founders were paid that much not because a compensation committee felt it was fair, but because the founders ‘wouldn’t have taken the company public without them.’
It’s right there in the company documents. Your clients can show you.
You make another point below that:
In the article published on May 29, 2018, entitled “Green Organic Dutchman (TGOD.T) & MedMen (MMEN.C) have big days, but only one is smiling,” you state that MedMen’s deal “pay the three top execs some $65 million in their first year.” Again, this statement is false. MedMen’s executives are compensated on a mix of salary, bonuses, and stock incentives, and there is nothing their compensation package that guarantees payment of $65 million to MedMen’s three top executives.
A few things:
- That story was posted before MedMen changed their compensation package.
- That $65m figure included the US$4m cash bonus each executive would receive if the value of the company hit $2 billion. I should have said, MedMen’s deal “COULD POTENTIALLY pay the three top execs some $65 million in their first year,” and I regret the error. I’ll adjust the post accordingly.
- A note to everyone else in the world: PLEASE LET EVERYONE KNOW MEDMEN EXECS, SINCE THEY CHANGED THEIR COMPENSATION PLAN, ONLY STAND TO MAKE AROUND $30 MILLION IN BONUSES BETWEEN THREE OF THEM FOR RUNNING A PUBLIC COMPANY THAT, AS YET, HASN’T MADE A PROFIT AND THAT THE OTHER $23M WILL ONLY BE PAID IF THEY HIT SHARE PRICE MILESTONES, THOUGH SUCH MILESTONES WILL ALSO INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE BONUSES #RETRACTIONMANIA.
Miles: If you’d like me to post a story reflecting the above, right on the front page, with a nice big animated gif, do let me know, and I’ll gladly comply because, and here’s the kicker on all this: The adjusted plan, and the story as you tell it, is not a good look.
But what you’re asking me to put on my website, right up top, with a big fat ‘look at me’, that we’ll send out to all social media and, hell, even buy ads for so people will see it – none of it looks great for your guys.
Because of that, we’re not going to post the full page retractions you’re asking for, by the day you’ve laid out [Monday] in the letter you sent [last Friday afternoon]. We just don’t think it’s in your client’s best interest, though remain open to it if you and/or they insist because, hey, this story continues to be tremendous publicity.
You further state that the executives can decide on “untold bonuses” for themselves. This statement too is inaccurate, as their compensation is determined by MedMen’s independent compensation committee.
I’d suggest this is arguable, since the MedMen three have 99.3% of the voting power in the boardroom, but it’s not a hill I’d die on. ‘Reclusive millionaire only bought seven Rolls Royces for his cats, not eight as previously posted; The Times regrets the error’, you know?
Also, from MedMen’s corporate filings:
Mr. Bierman’s salary will be reviewed annually. Mr. Bierman may be eligible under the terms of his employment contract for a discretionary annual cash bonus and he may also be eligible to receive additional equity based compensation.
So, like, okay.
Back to you.
All told, these and several other demonstrably false statements give rise to serious
claims for defamation and libel by Messrs. Bierman, Modlin, and Parker, as well as claims
by MedMen itself.
Again, which demonstrably false statements are you including in ‘several other’, because so far you’ve really not got that gun to smoke. Across some 3500 of our words, you’ve picked apart a couple of math and currency issues, some past and present tense issues, and completely missed that your clients’ compensation package now is different to what it was at the time the stories were written.
You’ve also alleged fraud where there is none. You’ve also reignited the facts behind these stories months after they’d gone cold. And you’ve Streisanded this thing to a point where, frankly, I’m just stoked if you want to keep it rolling.
IN CLOSING:
As a journalist, I’m used to threats being made against me. I’ve had them from market guys and criminals and folks who combine the two and, as a general assignment reporter at The Vancouver Sun, I once came into work to find the entire US right wing political class doxxing me and calling for violence against me for writing about their racism.
As a journalist, if something I wrote can be made clearer, I’ll generally clarify it, because that’s good for the readers and truth is what we deal in.
As a journalist, if something I wrote is wrong, I’m happy to clarify that too, for the same reasons.
But what you don’t get to do is tell me to kill stories for inconsistencies you won’t describe, errors you can’t list, and alleged crimes you’re going to toss around without substantiation.
I said a lot of things about MedMen, but I didn’t allege fraud; that’s where YOU went, Miles.
Others have a pretty low opinion of the outfit you represent, and they’re not shy about saying so. Can we expect you to send letters to all of these people, or was it just me you thought you needed to silence?
If these other people won’t be sued for half a billion dollars, why not? You could literally make 8 billion just from this list.
@Keubiko @DumpsterFire69 @DonutShorts Can you name a more flagrant and borderline criminal compensation structure of a recent issue than $MMEN?
— Nikola Zivkovic (@nikzivk) May 29, 2018
It is worth noting that CSE-listed Green Thumb Industries and MedMen both have Super Voting Shares in their capital structure, however, while Green Thumb chose to include a coattail provision to protect subordinate share holders, MedMen did not. #PotStocks $MMEN.c $GTII.c pic.twitter.com/3EI7AUvjV1
— Michael Miller (@Porters6thForce) July 16, 2018
G’morning #potstocks folks, remember to NOT buy $MMEN $MMEN.c @ShopMedMen today!
Why? Cuz if this goes well, more US reverse merger operators will think that retail #weedstock investors are just a bunch of dumb idiots to fund their self-enrichment schemes (also like $ALQ.c $ALQ) pic.twitter.com/JQdVedrJEX
— SeñorWeedStocks (@KolombianGold) May 29, 2018
@ChrisParry @equitydotguru Stick to your guns Chris. You were bang on on Medmen.
— Andy Morrisey (@andymorrisey) August 11, 2018
$MMEN is an ugly display of greed and poor corporate governance. Co-founders are keeping all power and upside economics in this business pic.twitter.com/G8lwRQIkjz
— JustifyYourFee (@JustifyYourFee) August 11, 2018
Hey @_AdamBierman_ maybe u should have your crack legal team maybe look at suspicious trading on $mmen.c stock rather than send hollow demands to @equitydotguru @ChrisParry I don’t have time time to find out who is gapping & trapping https://t.co/Wl7TvffYDp
— Jason Spatafora (@WolfOfWeedST) August 11, 2018
If only https://t.co/rCn8aA4aL3 had $mmen $mmnff attorneys, they would still be around. All those nasty analysts who talked the company down would be cowed into silence. Where is the governance controls-is this a good spend of investor money?https://t.co/PMFtYfLHp5
— Merida Capital Partners (@MeridaCap) August 11, 2018
ohhhhh they only received $30m? im sure they voluntarily ‘passed’ on the other $23m (may or may not have…anyway). Annnnd 150m instead of 100m? well then, lets go buy some @ShopMedMen $MMEN!!!
— DonutBreath (@DonutBreathz) August 11, 2018
Jason Spatafora:
The fact that Adam Bierman thought this was an acceptable go public strategy shows how unprepared he was to helm a company in the capital markets. CEO’s don’t take $1.5m salaries, they take options and stock that is escrowed for long periods of time. This was a pure and simple money grab that is so blatant. MedMen is a real business, the dispensaries are beautiful, but investors need to realize that a public company is a completely different and desperate animal. If capital structures are as bad as this one they spell disaster for shareholders.
Debra Borchardt:
MedMen in return posted its own sponsored content story on Cannabis Financial News calling the company “A compelling opportunity to invest in the cannabis industry.” The only financial figure given in the story about the compelling opportunity was that MedMen had a $1.6[b] pre-market valuation. MedMen’s initial valuation grew as a result of an investment by Captor Capital which lists Andrew Modlin as a consultant.
Investigative journalism in the cannabis sector by @equitydotguru
Is a very important service, although lots dont agree with everything they do , in regards to $MMEN it’s completely 100% bang on and it seems now MMEN’s lawyers are trying to kill the storyhttps://t.co/zM3rD4LqvZ— MMJ Investing (@mmjinvesting) August 11, 2018
MedMen (MMEN.C) lawyers threaten to sue https://t.co/7TPFaAU9uY for.. we’re actually not sure – Bring it on – I have a team of lawyers that will back him if he so wishes to utilize. One call https://t.co/yYOzoAbdDj
— Hamzah Ali Khan (@HamzahKingKhan) August 11, 2018
We’ve been flooded with notes like the ones above. They have a common theme: Stand your ground, speak the truth, and you’re not wrong.
So we’re going to go with that. If your client wishes to press for a full trial, we’re in, and have our retainer at the ready. If your client has had enough bad publicity, then notify us we’re all good, and we’ll move on to other things, though we’ll reserve the right to write about MedMen as a public company, and your clients as executives of that company, and time we fucking choose.
Option three: Let your CEO sit for a video livestream interview. That way he can clarify anything we have wrong in his own words, right in front of a camera, live.
Your move.
— Chris Parry
Leave a Reply