216
that report …
I prefer objective writing that is free of conflict whether in fact or in appearance. It appears the authors took short positions based the information that they collected and transformed into their self-described thesis and then released that thesis where they profited almost immediately given the share price’s significant downward movement. Shorting the share does not negate the validity of the content but could suggest motive that is contrary to service over self-interest. The final disclosure is an interesting one given the authors want their thesis to be accepted at face value as being reliable:
"Hindenburg Research makes no representation, express or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of [the information in report]."
This is a standard disclosure for such opinion pieces. However, it does seem odd for a specific piece filled with images and links that the authors infer are relevant to the discussion and thesis thereby inferring are factual. Aphria’s Dec 3rd response to the opinion piece was as succinct as it was definitive – “malicious and self-serving”.
PreMarket December 4th, the following two pieces were available:
Deal Maker with Aphria Rebuttes Allegations
What stands out in the above Financial Post article is that “This entire report assumes Andy DeFrancesco was an insider of Aphria. A very quick search of SEDAR will confirm that’s not true. He’s not an insider and has never been”.