Let me start by saying I don't think you are being alarmist. These are valid concerns, and brushing them off would be a disservice.
While the alleged STAKE Act violations are technically a 'seperate' piece of the law, they're grouped into the same suit. I do not think they are being approache…
Let me start by saying I don't think you are being alarmist. These are valid concerns, and brushing them off would be a disservice.
While the alleged STAKE Act violations are technically a 'seperate' piece of the law, they're grouped into the same suit. I do not think they are being approached differently, and whatever settlement is reached will likely be all-encompassing. When the lawsuit was filed, my gut response was to imagine myself in management's shoes. What would I do? I would immediately shut down sales in the area concerned. Perhaps I'd shut down other sales, too. I'd scrutinize any action based on the opinion of external counsel, seeking reviews from secondary sources. Those aren't extreme actions. They are conservative. The company's reputation is integral. Can't jeopardize that.
What do you do after you shut down sales? Internal audit. Experts. Lawyers. Figure out the damage and determine if anything is wrong to fix. Then fix it. Why keep all of CA suspended? It's the safest course until a settlement is reached. If you think about the timing, the new bill, which will bar online sales of flavored products for the whole state, will go into effect on Jan 1st, 2025.
Greater communication should be encouraged, but that is difficult until a settlement is reached. I would expect more after reaching an agreement.
Thanks Devin. I can probably imagine a scenario where management believes they have done minimal wrongdoing but nevertheless shuts down CA to be conservative.
However, the question is whether they have been flagrantly and knowingly breaching the law in CA. Their silence on the STAKE Act allegations, while giving commentary on the SF flavored products allegations and the Stockholm allegations gives me great concern that these may not be isolated mistakes but part of a larger pattern of broad non-compliance in California. Which then raises the question of where else have they been non-compliant, and what else is there that management haven't been upfront about.
Fair. Everyone must make an informed view on how intentional, capable, and truthful the team is. At the end of the day, that's true for all companies. You could reach out to their team to discuss directly - they are generous with their time and IR is quick to respond to emails.
I have no affiliation, but Robotti is hosting a fireside chat with Gavin in about an hour from now:
Thanks for your thoughts and questions, Duncan.
Let me start by saying I don't think you are being alarmist. These are valid concerns, and brushing them off would be a disservice.
While the alleged STAKE Act violations are technically a 'seperate' piece of the law, they're grouped into the same suit. I do not think they are being approached differently, and whatever settlement is reached will likely be all-encompassing. When the lawsuit was filed, my gut response was to imagine myself in management's shoes. What would I do? I would immediately shut down sales in the area concerned. Perhaps I'd shut down other sales, too. I'd scrutinize any action based on the opinion of external counsel, seeking reviews from secondary sources. Those aren't extreme actions. They are conservative. The company's reputation is integral. Can't jeopardize that.
What do you do after you shut down sales? Internal audit. Experts. Lawyers. Figure out the damage and determine if anything is wrong to fix. Then fix it. Why keep all of CA suspended? It's the safest course until a settlement is reached. If you think about the timing, the new bill, which will bar online sales of flavored products for the whole state, will go into effect on Jan 1st, 2025.
Greater communication should be encouraged, but that is difficult until a settlement is reached. I would expect more after reaching an agreement.
Thanks Devin. I can probably imagine a scenario where management believes they have done minimal wrongdoing but nevertheless shuts down CA to be conservative.
However, the question is whether they have been flagrantly and knowingly breaching the law in CA. Their silence on the STAKE Act allegations, while giving commentary on the SF flavored products allegations and the Stockholm allegations gives me great concern that these may not be isolated mistakes but part of a larger pattern of broad non-compliance in California. Which then raises the question of where else have they been non-compliant, and what else is there that management haven't been upfront about.
Fair. Everyone must make an informed view on how intentional, capable, and truthful the team is. At the end of the day, that's true for all companies. You could reach out to their team to discuss directly - they are generous with their time and IR is quick to respond to emails.
I have no affiliation, but Robotti is hosting a fireside chat with Gavin in about an hour from now:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_V3o9DGTOQGO65LppdUVZkA#/registration