Carboat, there is no need for a rule of law saying it is illegal. The rule of law is that share represent a part of a company in value and representation and that if you split the shares forward or reverse, the shareholder must be in EXACT the same position before as afterwards.
If you do not split the authorised then the shareholder's vote for authorised has been 10 folded and one must ask if PPHM would have asked for 1 billion authorised shares in stead of 100 Mil if the vote would have passed.
Forget for a moment the trick with the 'broker non-votes' because that only passes because we let it pass and because we wanted the authorised increase. All know that the ATM depends on those authorised shares and that PPHM can counter unpleasant incidents such as the loan retraction in 2012 due to the sabotage of our clinical trial at our CRO, CSM in Fargo.
So I think many are 'for' a reasonable amount of authorized shares. But NOT a 3, 5 r 10 fold (depending on IF and IF then how much the RS would be).
Finally, Zacks option never withstood a court of law. One of Wall St things they do until someone reacts and a Judge agrees that shareholders in OCT 2015 voted in an accepted dilution by x% and that cannot be administratively changed by tricks such as RS.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
