Skip to main content

ZAGG Conference Call Raises More Questions than Answers about Pedersen's Resignation


Late Tuesday afternoon August 28, 2012, ZAGG Inc. (NADAQ: ZAGG) held a conference call with investors in an effort explain the sudden resignation of its co-founder Robert Pedersen as its CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors on August 17. However, the company's explanation of the reasons behind Pedersen's resignation raises more questions than it answers.


On Friday August 17, 2012 Robert Pedersen resigned from his posts as CEO and Chairman of ZAGG. The company’s press release did not mention any reason for his resignation. However, on that very same day after the market closed Robert Pedersen filed a Form 4 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It disclosed that he sold 515,000 shares at an average price of $8.2214 per share on August 14, just three days before ZAGG announced that he resigned from the company. Pedersen sold 512,240 of those shares to "to meet margin calls" and 2,760 shares were sold separately. He collected $4.234 million in gross proceeds from his sales of stock and it appears that most of that amount was used to satisfy his margin call.

ZAGG contradicts Pedersen's explanation of his resignation to Salt Lake Tribune

Originally, Pedersen told the Salt Lake Tribune that he resigned to spend more time with his family. He did not mention that his resignation was due to his selling stock three days earlier to meet a margin call:

Pedersen said he resigned in order to focus on his family, his church and a family foundation. But he also pointed to a 25 percent drop in the value of the company’s shares after its guidance for this year did not meet analyst’s expectations.
"Running a public company is different than running a private company," he said Friday evening in a telephone interview from Alaska where he was vacationing with family. "And running a $250 million company is different than running a company going from zero to $250 [million in annual revenue]."

Robert Pedersen
It turns out that Pedersen's resignation on August 17 was due to his sale of stock on August 14 to satisfy a margin call.

During the conference call, ZAGG President and Interim CEO Randy Hales appears to have contradicted Pederson’s reason for resigning that he had given to the Salt Lake Tribune, saying it related to his sale of stock to satisfy a margin call:

In connection with Robert Pedersen's recently reported sales of ZAGG's shares as a result of a margin call, the ZAGG board in counsel with Robert made a mutual decision concerning Robert's ongoing role at ZAGG ...this decision upheld the board's priority to protecting shareholder value.

Why didn't Pedersen tell the Salt Lake Tribune that his resignation was a result of the margin call? Despite Pedersen's apparent lack of transparency, ZAGG is keeping him on as an executive consultant.

On August 24, 2012, Pedersen sold another 1,250,061 shares and received $8.626 million in gross proceeds to satisfy all of his remaining margin obligations.

Did ZAGG's proxy report improperly omit disclosure of Pedersen's stock pledges?

During today's conference call, ZAGG President and Interim CEO Randy Hales said that Robert Pedersen's:

departure was entirely related to the margin calls situation that started last December and unfortunately surfaced again two weeks ago. [Emphasis added.]

Last week, this blog pointed out that:

Back on December 21, 2011, Pedersen sold 345,200 shares at an average price of $7.5248 per share and received proceeds totaling $2.598 million "to meet an immediate financial obligation." No mention was made of any stock pledges at that time. I'd love to know the reason behind that "immediate financial obligation."

At that time, I suspected that Pedersen’s sale of stock to purportedly meet an “immediate financial obligation” was actually a sale of stock to meet a margin call. Now, it appears that Pedersen’s December 2011 sale of stock was to meet a margin call too. Why didn't Pedersen specify that his December 2011 sale of stock resulted from a margin call? If ZAGG had known that Pedersen had a margin call in December 2011, why didn’t it call on Pedersen to resign last December instead of last week?

Furthermore, I noted that:

A proxy report filed by ZAGG on April 27, 2012 does not mention any pledges of stock by Pedersen. Public companies must disclose stock pledges by insiders in proxy reports.

If Pedersen had stock pledges in December 2011 that were still outstanding in August 2012, why weren’t they disclosed in ZAGG’s April 2012 proxy report as required under S.E.C. rules?

Written by:

Sam E. Antar


I am a convicted felon and a former CPA. As the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie, I helped my cousin Eddie Antar and other members of his family mastermind one of the largest securities frauds uncovered during the 1980's. I committed my crimes in cold-blood for fun and profit, and simply because I could. If it weren't for the heroic efforts of the FBI, SEC, Postal Inspector's Office, US Attorney's Office, and class action plaintiff's lawyers who investigated, prosecuted, and sued me, I would still be the criminal CFO of Crazy Eddie today.

There is a saying, "It takes one to know one." Today, I work very closely with the FBI, IRS, SEC, Justice Department, and other federal and state law enforcement agencies in training them to identify and catch white-collar criminals. Often, I refer cases to them as an independent whistleblower. I teach white-collar crime classes for various government entities, professional organizations, businesses, and colleges and universities. I do not want or seek forgiveness for my vicious crimes from my victims. My past sins are unforgivable.

I do not own any ZAGG securities long or short.


Popular Posts

Did a Clever SEC Bait Goldman Sachs into Compounding Its Legal Problems With the "Kiss of Death" Message?

Updated: At 3:48 AM ET 04/20/2010 on bottom

The Kiss of Death

In filing its lawsuit against Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) on a Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission sent what I call the "kiss of death" message to the embattled company. In other words, the SEC wanted to stick it to Goldman Sachs and Fabrice Tourre, the Executive Director of Goldman Sachs International, who is also a defendant in the complaint. While the SEC as a practice does inform target companies and individuals of an impending enforcement action, it does not always tell them exactly when such an action will be filed.

Apparently, the SEC filed its lawsuit without giving Goldman Sachs the heads up that it was planning to file it that day. Business Insider observed that Goldman Sachs was clearly unprepared to respond to the complaint as news of the lawsuit dominated the headlines all day. Goldman issued a short denial around noon and issued an extensive denial late in the afternoon, after most people had … CEO Patrick Byrne Sleeps With a Gun

In numerous blog posts in the past, and in widespread media coverage, evidence has accumulated for years that CEO (NASDAQ: OSTK) Patrick Byrne has shown signs of being mentally unbalanced and paranoid.

Byrne has blamed his company's financial woes on an unnamed "Sith Lord." He hired paid goons to stalk his real and imagined adversaries and to write lengthy conspiracy theories on the Internet. Byrne has close ties with Bo Gritz. The Anti-Defamation League lists Bo Gritz as a far-right extremist with “extensive connections to both white supremacists and anti-government groups and leaders.”

Patrick Byrne's infamous temper tantrums when he doesn’t get want he wants are well documented too. He made obscene and misogynistic comments to a female reporter. He suggested that she gave “blowjobs” to Goldman Sachs traders. He suggested that a male reporter “Sucks It Likes He’s Paying the Rent.” An independent research analyst was told that “You deserve to be whippe…

Nature's Sunshine Products, Willbros Group, Cal Dive International, and BSQUARE Violate S.E.C. Rules on Calculating EBITDA

Nature’s Sunshine Products (NASDAQ: NATR), Willbros Group (NYSE: WG), Cal Dive International (NYSE: DVR), and BSQUARE (NASDAQ: BSQR) have recently issued earnings reports which include a calculation of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) that apparently does not comply with Securities and Exchange Commission interpretations for Regulation G governing such non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, their erroneous EBITDA calculations have enabled them to significantly distort their financial performance by erroneously reporting a positive EBITDA, when they should have reported a negative EBITDA in the latest quarter.

How EBITDA is supposed to be calculated under Regulation G

According to the S.E.C. Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations, EBITDA is defined under Regulation G as net income (not operating income) before net interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. See below:

Question 103.01Question: Exchange Act Release No. 47226 describes E…

InterOil, John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz: Anatomy of a Stock Market Manipulation Scheme

In this blog post, I will provide evidence of what I believe is a stock market manipulation scheme involving InterOil (NYSE: IOC), John Thomas Financial, and Clarion Finanz AG. I believe that InterOil with the assistance of Clarion Finanz concealed John Thomas Financial’s involvement in helping it raise $95 million through a private placement of convertible debt securities.

Clarion Finanz acted as a buffer between InterOil and John Thomas Financial to help InterOil hide John Thomas Financial's role in raising funds. Afterwards, InterOil filed false and misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort to conceal John Thomas Financial’s role in helping the company raise $95 million in convertible debt.

Carl Caserta, who in 1991 was barred by the Securities and Exchange Commission from “association with any broker, dealer, or investment advisor” played a role in helping InterOil use John Thomas Financial to obtain funds from investors. InterOil, John Thoma…

Class Action Complaint against Amedisys uses Sarbanes-Oxley Act Corporate Governance Provisions to Battle Alleged Corporate Malfeasance

Updated at bottom of article

Last week, Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Amedisys (NASDAQ: AMED) charging the company, its CEO William F. Borne and its CFO Dale E. Redman with securities fraud.  In the next few days, Bernstein Liebhard LLP and Finkelstein Thompson LLP filed similar class action lawsuits against the company. The lawsuits allege that Amedisys abused Medicare's reimbursement system for at-home therapy care based on a compelling analysis of company revenues in an April 27 Wall Street Journal article.

In addition, the lawsuits innovatively utilize a provision under Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 which provides a back-door way for investors to force ethical corporate governance and sue public companies for malfeasance. That provision requires Senior Financial Officers, such as the CEO and CFO of public companies, to abide by a strict code of ethics which broadly defines corporate malfeasance and effectively makes…