The company did everything the right way. It contacted the FDA prior to marketing the product. The FDA reviewed the facility on site and issued a "no action 'required" determination. Based upon this determination, the company proceeded to market the product. Somewhere along the line a snafu occurred; however, I believe the company when it stated the August 31st letter was based upon a "misunderstanding." Why replace a man who has rapidly built a company, hired a seasoned management team, dramatically ramped up revenues, meet quarterly expectations quarter after quarter, is doing more studies than several of the competitors combined, has a product that is heads above the competition, has an incredible medical advisory team (see Andrews)...one can go on and on. I have been in management a long time. Firing THIS CEO would set the company back years. His connections in the healthcare industry alone are worth their weight in gold. This jockey is a winner. And I believe he is a very good man.
The man's accomplishments are impressive. What he has done for Atlanta and several colleges in the area is singularly noteworthy. My gut says support him, not fire him. The SEC will be favorably resolved. And the FDA issue will also come to a favorable resolution. Trust this team and it will pay off. Stick with this stock. If I am wrong, I will shave an eyebrow.
I think you are being naive if you think the SEC will be settled favorably. If you think this, then I suggest you didn't read the detailed complaint the SEC filed. I would put the odds at better than 68% that the SEC will win a judgement that does not allow Pete to remain as the CEO of a publiclly traded company. UNLESS, the SEC will take a large cash settlement from Pete in lieu of removing him as CEO. But, I am just not sure they(the SEC) will settle. MDXG better be preparing for a life without Pete. Now, could he advise them from the 'sidelines'? Well, yes, I imagine he could. I don't know if there is any law against MDXG using Pete as an 'advisor'. I just don't know. There may be a no contact order enforced. Not sure.....
With other posters of tny501's intellect, that's very low hurdle.
He and his dog Spot. must be "us the shareholders" he refers to.
Not a lot of CEOs have Petit's credibility and competency. Was the company supposed to pull their injectibles in December based on a letter from the FDA indicating no issues with the current marketing of that product? As far as the SEC action is concerned, Petit could have probably paid a relatively small fine (no disgorgement of profits because he had none) and it might have been better for the company but as an individual who values his reputation, he couldn't do that. I don't blame him,