James Debney

Uncategorized

Debney Out at AOBC/Smith & Wesson On Eve Of SHOT Show

January 16, 2020 by 1 Comment

James Debney, CEO and President of American Outdoor Brands, was dismissed by the Board of Directors today. He had been slated to be the CEO of the American Outdoor Brands sporting goods segment when the company splits later this year.

From The Guardian

From the news release:

American Outdoor Brands Corporation, today announced that its Board of Directors has named Mark P. Smith and Brian D. Murphy as co-Presidents and co-Chief Executive Officers of American Outdoor Brands Corp., effective immediately.   Smith was most recently President of the Manufacturing Services Division of the company, while Murphy was most recently President of the Outdoor Products & Accessories Division.  In their co-leadership roles, Smith and Murphy succeed James Debney, who has separated as President and Chief Executive Officer and as a Director of the company, following the determination by the Board of Directors that he engaged in conduct inconsistent with a non-financial company policy.

The “inconsistent” conduct was not specified in the release.

Mark Smith was already slated to head the new Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. after the spin-off.

Brian Murphy is now going to become the CEO and President of American Outdoor Brands, Inc. after the company is split into a sporting goods segment and a firearms segment.

Coming just before SHOT Show starts in less than a week, this is an interesting development.

The new release goes on to quote the Chairman of the Board Barry Monheit as saying:

We appreciate James’ contributions toward the growth and development of our company and its infrastructure.  The Board believes the company is fortunate to have two highly capable and experienced leaders in Mark Smith and Brian Murphy.  Each has played a critical role in the development of our strategic plans, including our intention to establish each business as an independent, publicly traded company.  In addition, Mark and Brian have each demonstrated, through years of leadership and service, their extensive knowledge of and passion for our company, our customers, and our industries.  Their capabilities and objectives position them well to share the combined CEO role as the team completes the separation of our two businesses later in 2020.  The Board has every confidence that they will provide the vision and determination to lead each independent company and its highly respected brand portfolio toward a successful future.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the spokesperson for the company did not provide any details on why Debney was fired beyond what is contained in the news release. Their article also takes note that the firing occurred just days before the SHOT Show was to begin.

Debney earned $3.76 million in compensation for the last year. Most of that compensation was due to bonuses and stock awards on top of his $750,000 salary.

Uncategorized

More On S&W Changes

November 15, 2019 by

American Outdoor Brands Corporation held a shareholder update webcast on the plans to split the company. The webcast last for about 30 minutes if you want to listen to it. It can be found here.

I have embedded the slides for the presentation below. It shows which brands will go to Smith & Wesson and which brands will stay with American Outdoor Brands.

AOBC CEO James Debney acknowledged there had been significant changes in the political, financial, and insurance arenas over the past five years. Based on that, they decided it was in their best interest to separate into two distinct companies. It should be noted that the decision to make the split was in the works for many months. The timing of the announcement which the day after the Supreme Court’s denial of cert to Remington was merely coincidental.

AOBC Spin Off Deck Nov 2019 by jpr9954 on Scribd

Uncategorized

S&W To Become Free-Standing Company

November 13, 2019 by

American Outdoor Brands Corporation announced today that it planned to separate into two publicly traded companies. One company would be focused on firearms (Smith & Wesson) while the other company would be dedicated to outdoor products (American Outdoor Brands). The split would be finalized in the second half of 2020 according to the press release.

Bloomberg reports that the split is part of “an effort that may help it boost values that have flagged under pressure for gun reforms in the U.S.” “Gun reforms” is the euphemism that Bloomberg is using for gun control.

While something like this would have been in the works for months, I find it interesting that the announcement is being made the day after the Supreme Court denied cert to Remington. Bloomberg does make reference to this in their article as well as moves by retailers such as Dick’s and Walmart to limit what firearms and ammunition they sell.

The official rationale for the split is to let each segment concentrate on their separate markets.

The purpose of the spin-off is to enable the management team of each company to focus on its specific strategies, including (1) structuring its business to take advantage of growth opportunities in its specific markets; (2) tailoring its business operation and financial model to its specific long-term strategies; and, (3) aligning its external financial resources, such as stock, access to markets, credit, and insurance factors, with its particular type of business.

AOBC Chair Barry Monheit said, ” There have been significant changes in the political climate as well as the economic, investing, and insurance markets since we embarked upon what we believe have been our very successful diversification efforts.” It is obvious to me that Monheit is speaking about both national and state efforts to impose more restrictions on firearms ownership and possession.

The move by American Outdoor Brands is similar to that of Vista Outdoor. In that case, Vista Outdoor was the firearms-centric portion of the ATK split. While initially the stronger part of the split company, the pull back in firearm and ammunition sales hit it hard. They finally sold off the Savage Arms portion of the business this summer to concentrate on ammunition and the other outdoor portions of their business.

James Debney, the current CEO, will become the CEO of American Outdoor Brands. Mark Smith will become CEO of Smith & Wesson. He is currently the president of the Manufacturing Services Division of AOBC.

The entire press release can be found here. It goes into much more detail on the lower leadership positions, finances, etc.

Uncategorized

Stepping Up To The Plate In California

January 31, 2014 by 12 Comments

As I reported earlier this month, both Ruger and Smith & Wesson have taken a stand against the California Department of Justice Handgun Roster by letting numerous popular models of their handguns drop off the list. In other words, they refuse to make a California-only model that includes a microstamped firing pin.

Now Mike Fifer and James Debney, the CEOs of Ruger and Smith & Wesson respectively, have filed Declarations in support of the plaintiffs challenging the Handgun Roster in the long-running case of Pena v. Lindley. This is a case being brought by the CalGuns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation in US District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The Declaration of Ruger CEO Mike Fifer can be found here. In it he says that the microstamping requirement is unworkable and that no firearms manufacturer has been able to implement it.

The Declaration of S&W CEO James Debney says that the technology is unworkable and that “the state law requires the technology to perform at a level it cannot.” Debney goes on to point out that many of their handguns also do not have mag disconnects and loaded chamber indicators.

These Declarations join the amicus curie brief of Glock, Inc. in arguing against the Handgun Roster and in favor of the plaintiffs’ position.

The Second Amendment Foundation welcomed the support from all three firearms manufacturers in a release put out yesterday shown below.

SAF THANKS GUN COMPANIES FOR
SUPPORT IN CA MICROSTAMPING CASE

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation is expressing heartfelt gratitude today to three major firearms companies – Ruger, Smith & Wesson and Glock – for their supporting documents in the on-going case of Pena v. Lindley, a lawsuit challenging the California handgun roster requirements that include microstamping and magazine disconnects.

Earlier this week, Ruger CEO Michael O. Fifer and Smith & Wesson President and CEO James Debney submitted declarations to the court, explaining their respective companies’ positions on the California microstamping requirement. Late last year, attorneys representing Glock, Inc. filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the SAF case.

“SAF will be eternally grateful for the timely support from all three companies, which we believe strongly reinforces our case,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The statements from Messrs. Debney and Fifer confirm what we have argued all along, that California’s requirements place an undue burden on both consumers and manufacturers.”

In his statement, Fifer bluntly observed, “There is no workable microstamping technology today, and Ruger believes that California’s microstamping regulations make compliance impossible.”

Debney concurs in his statement, noting, “Smith & Wesson does not believe it is possible currently to comply with California’s microstamping regulations. Quite simply, the state law requires the technology to perform at a level that it cannot.”

In its earlier brief, submitted by attorneys Erik S. Jaffe of Washington, D.C. and John C. Eastman of Orange, Calif., Glock maintained that neither its pistols nor any other handgun in common use can comply with California’s microstamping mandate.

“You cannot regulate handguns out of existence or out of the marketplace by mandating technology that doesn’t work,” Gottlieb observed. “Now three major gun companies have weighed in and we’re confident their opinions will carry a lot of weight.”

The impact of the microstamping requirement on handguns available for sale in California can be seen in this infographic from the CalGuns Foundation.  It is not a pretty picture and not a Constitutional one in my opinion.