InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 3
Posts 152
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/12/2005

Re: SteveSchiets post# 1345

Tuesday, 01/01/2008 3:28:21 PM

Tuesday, January 01, 2008 3:28:21 PM

Post# of 3642
If that's the case, it would have been a very shrewd transaction indeed. While my thinking may be faulty, that would 1) allow Cornell to capture some profits on a portion of it's shares without causing havoc in the trading while at the same time, 2) allow Von Ehr to exercise some of his .40 warrants (?). (I'm not sure how that would work: it assumes that he has readily exercizable warrants at .40 (the recent ones aren't exercizable until one year), and I'm not sure it's possible to exercize warrants other than directly through the company (i.e. I'm not sure TXP could pair Cornell's willingness to sell shares with Von Ehr's desire to exercise warrants at the same price. That, to me, would somehow run afoul of rules for calculating a company's fully diluted shares position: i.e. there's no dilution if, rather than issuing new shares per the rights of a warrant holder, a willing seller is simply willing to sell already existing shares at the strike price to the warrant holder).

So, it's still a bit perplexing to me. Certainly, given von Ehr's hefty share count (actual and warrants), he didn't simply say, "hey, I think I'll buy another 1.5mil").





Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.