Apples to oranges. Those shares were not warrants. But yes, of course, the third party investor shares were likely going to be released into the market for a profit. Therefore, depending how they were released, they would hit the float like 'warrants' to keep the price from rising until all the shares were all absorbed. That makes sense - there's no begrudging the investor of that. The third party investor deserved a profit on their loan. However, what you probably are not seeing is that in these type of repayment cases, the unrelated third party investor would not want to take a loss on their repayment. As such, the stock after the first period payout to the second period payout did not trade below $5.17. The investor would want to trade it down some so that the remainder of the balance owed to them in shares would represent a best deal, but not below a $5.17 market price. That makes sense too, and the investor likely did that too. According to the SEC statement the second release of shares means a new floor for $5.02, though the stock was trading at a higher range. Any stock sale below that $5.02 price would represent a loss, the floor was established. THERE IS NO REASON WHY LP, ACTING ON BEHALF OF COGNATE, BUT PRIVY TO NWBO INSIDER INFORMATION, NEEDED TO RAISE THE CEILING FOR THE THIRD PARTY INVESTOR TO ALLOW THE THIRD PARTY INVESTOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SELL INTO GOOD NEWS. NONE. IT WAS NOT IN NWBO SHAREHOLDER BEST INTEREST THAT SHE DO THAT, BUT YET SHE DID.