OK, can we talk? There are several of you on this msg board that are doing dd, looking for any and all possible positives, for this stock to head higher. I admire the effort and passion. But the overriding consensus of almost everyone is that management of this company is weak - poor decisions in the past with regard to suits etc. and certainly MIA while the stock drops about 50% in value. The fact is, gentlemen, that I have never seen a successful company that had poor management. Period! What am I missing here? I enjoy reading (some) of the postings but I am talking about an investment, not enjoyment.
Thanks for listening......
C.E.O. JOHNNIE WILLIAMS WILL ALWAYS BE " JUST " J.W. PERIOD..........................................................IF THEY COME UP WITH NEW GOOD PRODUCTS THIS IS A POSS. INVESTMENT,,,,, WITH THE SAME OLD #$%$ ABOUT THE " FAMOUS LAW SUIT THIS ONE AND THAT ONE " ....I THINK YOU SHD THROW YOUR MONEY ON ANOTHER HORSE AND " NOT-THIS-D.O.G. !!!!"...IM .IN AND OUT OF THIS STOCK FOR OVER 7 Y.E.A.R.S.......NET=====LOST====$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
When Williams cofounded Star, he (with others in some cases) had low TSNA tobacco curing patents and soon thereafter use patents for the minor tobacco alkaloids (including anatabine) in view of their activity in the body as MAOIs.
In 2001, "mgmnt" had 2 ways to go. Pharmaceutical or tobacco. They chose tobacco because they had a near slam-dunk case against every major tobacco company in the U.S. for infringement of their original '649 low TSNA (major cancer causer in both cigarette and smokeless tobacco ... the only one in smokeless) curing patent.
It was near slam-dunk because of the way the patent wording was allowed by the USPTO. Essentially anyone who did anything at all unusual (re prior curing art) and came out with TSNAs "substantially reduced" infringed. A couple of years later, well into the litigation, the district court (mis-) construed "substantially" to mean at or below some exceedingly low TSNA results Williams had given in the discussion of the patent AS AN EXAMPLE, not as part of what was claimed.
It appears that at that point Star thought it could prove that some of these very low numbers were sometimes obtained in some of RJR's tobacco, so THE METHOD infringed (even though they could no longer charge that virtually all of their tobacco obtained infringing levels). Even in hindsight I cannot tell whether or not this good/bad idea.
Star needed a lab to run TSNA tests on samples of RJR tobacco. The lab they chose apparently really screwed up in preserving and analyzing the samples. That choice of labs may indeed have been a bad management choice (in hindsight, but I think they can be faulted for not choosing a better lab). In essence THAT is what made the chances go from slim to none in proving infringement re RJR. But one must consider that the suit was brought with a very strong case ... it was the court's construction of the term "substantially" that really did in the process. Court's fault.
(There is a lot of interim detail, like that RJR's "Peele" method was actually anticipated by Williams, etc. that's missing here. Also the, deliberate, I believe, so as to try to simply starve Star to death, 2+ year delay in a simple decision [about 16 pages] on the bogus charge of "inequitable conduct" by the district court judge. A chance to sell off their cigarette business for upwards of $50M fell thru in about 2004. They should have sold it for what the buyer would give at that time. They later practically gave it away, but hindsight helps as always.)
I don't think anyone can fault Star for going for the apparently quick and easy money first. The money would have come in VERY handy with the pharma pursuits. While waiting thru the judge's long, unexplained, inexcusable delay (trying to starve them out) Star decided in 2007 to finally begin, by "financing", the pharma effort. Turned out to be a very GOOD decision ... hindsight.
Despite a loss of the RJR matter in jury trial in 2009, Star had its first "supplement" on the market in 2010. Development and marketing of that gave rise to the incredible luck of the discovery of the superior anti-inflammatory property of the principle ingredient, anatabine (it was known and patented for its MAOI properties, but the A_I property was completely unknown).
Star's management has done a truly STELLAR job of developing this product/property(A-I) and partnering with the right people.
I would guess that your "MIA" comment is ignorance of what is going on now with the suit (they have an apparent need for silence now), plus ignorance of the FDA regulations regarding the marketing of supplements, which is a very complex minefield to navigate, and has been discussed here at great length over two+ years. Most of the near constant bishing and griping here re the supplements is due to the widespread misunderstanding of the supplement regulatory environment, and why (therefore) the company can't say anything about anything in that arena either.
I've been studying the stock and investing in it since it was OTC:BB in 1998. I'd give management a c+ to B- on the RJR front (assuming no $$ takeaway, but understanding what they were up against), and a solid A on the pharma front. Pharma is going to exceed everyone's hopes if they can rope off enough of the market with patents (use patents still in app stage, and the determinant). Even if not, the head start with the excellent name and aesthetics for "Anatabloc" should be sufficient for a nice market share.
You may get some hint by watching the last 15 minutes of this hour long video string on youtube by Dr. Mullan. The VERY short mention of Star's anatabine is because of FDA rules (as Mullan states), but wow. Read about his credentials (Dr. Michael Mullan) and know he is at the center of research on Star's anatabine products. Read Dr. Curtis Wright's bio (Rock Creek), the guy that got all this to market. This is great stuff, and it's going to be big news.
[[I'M SORRY, MY DISGUISE DID NOT WORK AND I GUESS I CAN'T POST URL. You can look for this on a recent post on our archive group at the "cigx_vipgroup" (search yahoo groups, and join the rest of us in thinking hate thoughts of Yahoo).
Only with an at least detailed understanding of the regulatory theaters (tobacco and pharma/supplements) that Star operates in can one begin to understand their actions (and lack thereof) and motives. I wish I had a deeper one, but I do have an overall picture/understanding of the situation.
You guys are hilarious. A good company? Really? Explain why a $10M Rev company with a market cap of $450M is a good company with expanding losses. You're being bluffed by mgmt. Wake up and smell the roses.
Tradewinds is the true manipulator of this stock. You can tell by their investments. They're financing this company and probably sending out #$%$ newsletters telling you to buy up. By the way, they're located in the Cayman Islands and are evading US scrutiny/taxes.
You want to bash me because I disagree with you but check it out. You will agree. You can even check thier website.
I don't agree that "the overriding consensus of almost everyone is that management of this company is weak." Please explain which "poor decisions" regarding litigation you are referring to.
They had a patent asset and set up a business around it. They even had customers and revenues until RJR bought the customer. RJR breached the contract and Star sued. They lost the early rounds of litigation over the course of several years. In the last two years their fortunes have begun to change and it appears they are on the cusp of a payoff. Again, which part of this was a "poor decision?"
Just because someone loses in litigation does not mean that they made a poor decision. Anything can happen when you go to court.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
To Lovely - Read what you have written. If one has 1000 shrs, get out of here - you are not big enough to make play/make money. But if you own several thousand, you can stay in the game. Gee, I may be old fashioned but either an investment is a good risk (ALL investments are risky) or they are not; how many shares you own are irrelevant. Some of your past comments were ok but this sort of language makes you look silly.
Ag, STSI is a speculative stock, a great product which works and as all if not most, good things take time and patience. Sounds like your in a hurry to make money and this may take a little time, but the product is here.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
First of all, why the tremendous sensitivity? Let me be clear.... I started using Anatabloc (based on Couples' ad), felt a little better, purchased a few shares. I've been looking for company communications/statements and because of the lack thereof, I started reading the msg board. I'm in no hurry; this is not a big deal for me (either way). My comments on management is strictly from either reading the msg board and observing the company's actions. It appears to me that this msg board has two camps (1) strong bulls and (2) strong shorts. And too often I see more emotion than logic. When the stock moves down, the bulls blame the shorts; when the stock recovers, the shorts start screaming at the stupid longs. I feel like I've stepped into a private party and forgot to bring my own booze. Guys, I have no ax to grind....looking for some insightful info. Good luck....