Note the lack of logic: ADXS will have to explain some day why they did it. They can’t say “we had a general hope that this unilateral, voluntary gift in our part might induce the warrant holders to buy our next offering.” Now, if there is an actual agreement on those terms that would be acceptable. But such an agreement would have to be disclosed.
So we are not supposed to believe the most obvious answer that this was done to get the Wall Street vulture investors to buy the next dilution.
Because it would have to be "written and disclosed"
Yet the same logic is not applied to the pie in the sky partnership or buyout. Why would management do the same deal without it being "written and disclosed"?
More importantly [noram], why would any partner or buyout care a rat's behind whether the warrants were redeemed as part of the deal instead of shares?
In fact, if it is a partnership or buyout coming, they would prefer that the warrant holders have to pay the Company the exercise price as it would lower the cost to the partner or acquirer. So this theory makes zero sense.
It's obvious [noram], an under the table quid pro quo is occurring to get the flippers to buy the dilution.
Hope Ken at least got a decent price on the dilution (say .40 a share instead of .25) in exchange for paying this bribe.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
