Did I miss a conference call?
I said, "The halt surely prevented delivery of the shares," and I got three replies all saying that the trading halt would not have prevented the TA from issuing new shares.
But I speculated the same thing weeks before. "I don't see how this adversary proceeding serves as a reason for the bankruptcy filing. The company had the money, and all they had to do was to instruct the transfer agent to issue shares to the investors by book entry, and to complete the documentation. The trading halt, or something, must come into play here somehow. I just don't have time right now to look into this further." Not one of you said anything about that at that time.
On the contrary, jimjoregon said, "I agree. The purchase paperwork was executed late afternoon of the day before MS was arrested. I assume the money was transferred to KBIO at that time. The next morning, right at market opening, the halt took effect. I imagine that kept the transfer agent from sending out the shares.
The whole suit seems based on the point that the shares weren't delivered regardless of the cause or lack of control of that action by the company."
And Jim was right. The SPA Amendment, lowering the purchase price to $24.855, was dated Dec 16th, the day before Shkreli was arrested. It also stated that the TA would issue the shares by book entry, and the Plaintiffs would receive a statement.
I don't know why that wasn't done, if in fact it wasn't. But what advantage does the company gain by not issuing the shares? If anything, it just created yet another problem for no apparently good reason.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
