Jersey, I won't refrain because it's a very import
Post# of 75360
(Total Views: 388)
Posted On: 04/19/2018 7:46:10 AM
Re: Jerseyfish #43388
Jersey, I won't refrain because it's a very important matter. But I will try to lay out the facts without pointing fingers.
When he was running the company, Jerry Grisalfi reached a deal with Lily Li that seemed like great news for investors. Lily's investment group would get a lot of stock (a majority voting interest, if I recall correctly) in return for which they'd open China (and perhaps more of Asia) for the company.
Things then went haywire. Jerry left the company and has been sued by management for various kinds of misdeeds which can be summarized as acting in his own interest, not the company's, without the consent of the Board. The litigation claims that the Board never formally approved the Lily deal and that Jerry did it on his own behalf and ultimately for his own benefit.
I'm not saying this is so, Jersey! It remains an open question if a) Lily and Jerry were collaborators in this scheme, b) Lily got played by Jerry, or c) Jerry is in the clear on this.
This is my understanding of the situation: Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'd also add this: If Scenario #2 is correct (Lily was suckered by Jerry), it is feasible that she could join RMHB management in the lawsuit against Jerry. Her being terminated could be a precursor of that. It would make sense for her to abandon any benefit accruing to her prior to joining the cause of action. (It's like Stormy Daniels offering to give back the $130,000.)
It is ALSO possible that she was terminated because the Board decided that a) she was in cahoots with Jerry, or b) that although she wasn't in cahoots with him, her management vision is totally unaligned with that of the company at this point and so she shouldn't have a say in the company. Strictly speaking, that makes sense: She wanted to bring non-CBD drinks to China and RMHB is not focusing on CBD drinks elsewhere. (In fact, I did some googling and learned that CBD appears to be illegal in China.)
To repeat, I'm not taking sides here, just trying to lay out the scenarios as I understand them. The litigation will clear this all up for us eventually.
When he was running the company, Jerry Grisalfi reached a deal with Lily Li that seemed like great news for investors. Lily's investment group would get a lot of stock (a majority voting interest, if I recall correctly) in return for which they'd open China (and perhaps more of Asia) for the company.
Things then went haywire. Jerry left the company and has been sued by management for various kinds of misdeeds which can be summarized as acting in his own interest, not the company's, without the consent of the Board. The litigation claims that the Board never formally approved the Lily deal and that Jerry did it on his own behalf and ultimately for his own benefit.
I'm not saying this is so, Jersey! It remains an open question if a) Lily and Jerry were collaborators in this scheme, b) Lily got played by Jerry, or c) Jerry is in the clear on this.
This is my understanding of the situation: Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'd also add this: If Scenario #2 is correct (Lily was suckered by Jerry), it is feasible that she could join RMHB management in the lawsuit against Jerry. Her being terminated could be a precursor of that. It would make sense for her to abandon any benefit accruing to her prior to joining the cause of action. (It's like Stormy Daniels offering to give back the $130,000.)
It is ALSO possible that she was terminated because the Board decided that a) she was in cahoots with Jerry, or b) that although she wasn't in cahoots with him, her management vision is totally unaligned with that of the company at this point and so she shouldn't have a say in the company. Strictly speaking, that makes sense: She wanted to bring non-CBD drinks to China and RMHB is not focusing on CBD drinks elsewhere. (In fact, I did some googling and learned that CBD appears to be illegal in China.)
To repeat, I'm not taking sides here, just trying to lay out the scenarios as I understand them. The litigation will clear this all up for us eventually.
(14)
(0)