RE:RE:G&M replies to critiscsm about Aph coverageThe Globe policing the Globe is great satire. Never refuted or acknowledged
-
that when they couldn’t get the TMX on record about the “about face” didn’t seek out another source to examine how TMX could legally do that (eg lawyer that handles regulatory issues and filings)
-
that the hedge fund was never credentialed in anyway and was facing lawsuits for similar previous actions which still wasn’t disclosed.
-
that when disputing the value of the assets they never reached out to the half dozen or so analysts that cover Aphria for comment.
-
when determining if ownership was”immaterial”, and thus not subject to disclosure, never consulted with knowledgeable party to determine “materiality” but instead changed narrative to the form of acquisition. THEN went to children and asked if they would like candy for dinner (asked academics about increased disclosure)
-
the pejorative language that the editors allowed the reporter to use in the stories.
The reporters last article had a more clinical and dispassionate tone. Colourful descriptors were not evident that time through. Which was far different than previous articles. **So despite this reply... things have changed. **
And short stories on ACB and WEED... nary a mention.
Funny how the reporter hasn’t had many calls returned on recent stories.
GoBlue
Trodzburger wrote:
Blue,
what are we looking at here exactly ?
seems like a big FU from the globe to whoever complained to them by an older, uglier “journalist”
do you likw how they tossed in the new insider compliance part at the end,
seems to me that they are RE suggesting that the non disclosure of NUU shares by Vic and gang is what has
the SP in the sh1tter