Fabius, the wording on the offering that you are referring to is standard. they always leave an open period for the shares to sell. in most circumstances they sell to a underwriter who then places them for sell on the market. f in this case it was a private purchaser who bought all of them. so its standard to give a time period when the offer to complete the transaction is closed.
my initial comments regarding the strange language was in regards to the warrants. I do not recall ever seeing language as normal where they state the warrants are not registered and can not be sold in the US without another registration. they should have been covered under the shelf offering. so in my opinion there is something strange about this. possibly a good thing that they are indeed restricted. I do not know at this point.
as for what I can not discuss, all I can say is like I stated to Doog. Whether we agreed with the merits of the case or not. whether we felt one should be filed or not was irrelevant. The fact was, right after adcomm one was filed. At which point, my logic was then why not go for control and then at least someone who cares about the company is in control. Then use that to effect changes. we shall see. The financial got that right. there are only three and they will get rolled into one in the end. Its the one who is chosen as lead then gets to dictate the outcome. so my thought was wouldn't it be nice for it to be someone who actually cares about the company? I really cant say much more. but I will say, for those who want to refer to lawyers as ambulance chasers etc, I can post the statement out of my contract where I take nothing extra. so, we will leave it at that.people will either believe and understand my intentions or they wont. I cant change what people think.
