Menu Foods CFO sold stock before pet food recall

CTV.ca ^ | 4/10/07

[freekitty]

Sure. He wants to get out of Dodge with the moola before these poor pet owners come looking for him. Freeze his assets and let them sue his you know what off.

[PAR35]

hundreds of tons of dog food would have been processed and cycled through after the sale of the stock.

Much of it which was subject to the recall. The key date isn't when the public knew (the recall), but when he knew.

[flutters]

The CEO admitted he knew something was wrong on March 6th, and probably well before that. They sold the tainted food since Dec. 3rd and I would imagine they got reports immediately after the tainted food hit the shelves.

[PAR35]

“The company had received reports of potential problems almost a full month earlier, on February 20.”
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=9AA80BDC-E7F2-99DF-325B0C8F34C09E95

That was a week before he bailed on his stock. I suppose it is possible that the CFO was kept in the dark about a large potential hit to the company’s bottom line, but more to the point, I think you all might be interested in investing in some ocean front beach property in Nevada.

[PAR35]

See the Scientific American article I linked to in post 24 - that puts the date that the company first learned that there might be a problem much earlier than the date the guy’s defenders, including you, are using.

[snarkytart]

I believe him.

Unless it turns out that he had some convincing advance of the poisoning before the complaints became public, it probably is a coincidence. Especially if he’s in the habit, as some execs are, of routinely selling the stock they routinely acquire as vested compensation.
_____________

Menu Foods knew two weeks before the recall was announced that the food was contaminated. They were getting reports and they tested the food on a few cats at their company which died.

[Teacher317]

imagine for a moment that he's telling the truth...
imagine the personal hell he's going to go through ...
and there's no way to get out of it. He cannot "take it back", he cannot un-ring the media's bell, and he cannot repay his "unrealized losses" (which day's trading price do you choose as "fair"?).

Talk about bad luck! Did he kick a black cat under a ladder into a fragile mirror?

[DogBarkTree]

“Did he kick a black cat under a ladder into a fragile mirror?”
LOL Fair enough. It could very well be his unlucky for being lucky day.

[Caramelgal]

"Rut-Ro!"

I don’t know much about the Ontario Securities Commission vs. the SEC here in the US but I seem to recall from an “Insider Trading” class I had to take when I was a staff accountant in a publicly traded company, that the amount of stock sold or the amount of profit made is not the issue. Insider trading is having any inside knowledge not yet made available to the public, of any event that may positively or negatively effect the value of the company stock and buying or selling stock based on that inside knowledge.

And according to the laws here, you don’t even have to profit from it if, for example, you tell you husband about some inside information and your husband tells one of his golf buddies and he tells his brother and the brother buys or sells stock based on that information before the information is made public – if the SEC can trace that back to you – bam – you can do some hard time.

If it’s a coincidence the timing of the sale is very unfortunate for this guy.

If it comes out that he had prior knowledge of a problem….well he could be in some deep Scooby do do.

[chaosagent]

When I took my 6 & 63 exams a while back it seems there has to be intent.

Based on what you stated, if a husband came home and told his wife that he didn’t feel like going to dinner with friends because he just found out that they’d been sold some contaminated wheat gluten and shipped it out in pet food. And then the wife calls the friends and tells them why she’s cancelling dinner, and the appliance repair guy fixing the fridge overhears, and shorts his pet food stock, the husband is in trouble?

I don’t think so.

Remember the SEC was not able to get Martha Stewart on insider trading after her stock broker told her the drug company CEO was selling his stock.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Thanks for the info. If he sold because he knew, let him eat catfood.

PAR35 — that Scientific American link was very good — much better info on the technical side than I’d had from casual reading and MSM listening.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Wiens said the first reports about pet-related illnesses connected to Menu Foods products were made in late February.

That may be true but the manufacturer was doing trials where up to 15 animals died during testing as far back as December 2006.

This guy is lying through his teeth.

[Caramelgal]

When I took my 6 & 63 exams a while back it seems there has to be intent.

Well perhaps the class I took was being overly cautious and strict in its interpretation. This was a class for employees of the company who either might be privy to inside information and or had stock options.

I had to watch a film from the SEC (and yes I had to strain to stay awake -LOL) and it used an example not unlike mine as how I could get into trouble.

You are right in that there has to be intent on my part like I tell the hubby that “we poisoned the dog food today. The legal department is in panic mode and our CFO had to be pulled off the window ledge and our stock is going to tank as soon as this becomes public”. If I say to the hubby – “tell your sister to sell her stock this week (and feed her dog Alpo)” then that’s a pretty clear violation.

If the hubby goes ahead and tells his sister without my saying he should or telling my sister-in-law myself – well it’s hard to prove intent but it’s also equally hard to disprove intent on my part. If I just say “tell your sister to feed her dog Alpo” without saying why, I’m probably in the clear. But if I purposely or inadvertently passed on information that is not available to the general public, I understood I could be prosecuted if anyone that received that information benefited.

But it was stressed over and over – if you have any inside knowledge that could effect the stock price that is not public knowledge – you don’t talk about it – to anyone - period! And you don't buy or sell stock or advise anyone else to based on inside information.

In any case it scared me enough to be very, very careful about exercising my stock options given I knew a lot of stuff about where the company was heading financially that hadn’t yet been made public. For example one of my many areas of responsibility was managing Payroll. I knew about a coming “reduction in force” terminations and who was getting the axe even before my boss the comptroller did. I also knew about potential acquisitions and the results of the FDA approvals of our drugs before it went out on PR NewsWire.

This was why I was very careful about what I said to anyone about work. My (ex) husband would ask “how was work today” I’d say “It was Jane’s birthday – we had cake. It was good. I finally got a new stapler today and it is a piece of crap. The guy in Purchasing is a jerk.”

[KeyLargo]

If you love animals, this story will make your blood boil! A dog was found wandering in a Texas town with wire wrapped around its mouth. Go to: http://www.nbc5.com/index.html

[Wicket]

Here’s my problem. Assuming the CFO knew, then he probably wasn’t the only one who knew. They delayed notification, more animals died, and he profited.

Don’t know why, but I kind of have a problem with that.

[Abathar]

Oh I agree with you, they moved WAY too slow on this. My point was putting myself in the position of may CFO’s that know that they are going to lose a whole lot of money, but having to sit there until the news is released before they can do anything about it.

Imagine you have your retirement sitting there and a few weeks before retirement you find out your going to lose 50% of its value in a week and not being able to do a damn thing about it.

[sweetiepiezer]

more fuel for Senator Durbins fire
______________________________________________

I called Durbins office yesterday and told the gal to thank him for a least getting the ball rolling on this and that a lot more investigation has to be done on it.
At least he is doing more than my Senator from NV is doing, Ensign, and he is a veterinarian.