But thinking about this more, and playing devil's advocate, why not secure the lockup as part of the merger? When asked the question on the call, Doug only addressed the 25% of shares that are effectively locked up as being controlled by management. But what about the other 75%? Did they ask ask for the lockup? If they did, and got denied, that is not a huge vote of confidence that the shares will not get dumped back into the market. I know Doug was very upset about what Barry did to him and the company, but now he appears to be entering into another transformative event based on trust along. Fool me once shame on you...but fool me twice...
Also, I believe some are negatively reacting to Doug's comment that if we have a positive revenue event in the interim, it will not effect the terms of the merger (nor would there be a dividend event pre-merger). Hopefully the same goes for Uniloc so that we would get the benefit of any of their revenue events as well. But also, I suspect this is the case because the parties likely agreed to rough the split early on when the MARA stock price was much higher (as Doug stated, they started speaking in March). Thus, it likely was not effected when we took the Schrader trial loss haircut nor would it have been effected had we won...and by extension no future positive revenue event would change the split. Just my 2 cents on this.
Market Data 
Markets 
