InvestorsHub Logo

invest2992

06/01/20 9:31 PM

#277467 RE: IslandOfMisfitToys #277466

It might be more palatable if they ever set stretch goals for their compensation, but they don't. They get max payout for attendance and wearing a coat and tie.

MontanaState83

06/01/20 9:47 PM

#277469 RE: IslandOfMisfitToys #277466

All the same, I’m voting No. Also voting No on Eckman and JZ.

oneragman

06/01/20 10:08 PM

#277471 RE: IslandOfMisfitToys #277466

TTE, you are correct. Those 20 million shares if issued will be over a number of years. It's not like they are issuing all 20 million in the next year though some probably think that is the case.

fsulevine

06/01/20 10:08 PM

#277472 RE: IslandOfMisfitToys #277466

Yep... you are correct. This is standard.

ziploc_1

06/02/20 7:11 AM

#277496 RE: IslandOfMisfitToys #277466

TTE...QUOTE..."I would not overreact to this. This is standard corporate operations. This is intended to last for another 10 years most likely."

Let's suppose the striking price of the options is set by management at the PPS of Amarin in the near future and let's assume that the PPS at the time of the grant is slightly lower than the PPS is now(just from the 6% dilution due to the addition of 20 million shares to the present 350 million shares already owned)...Then if we lose the appeal and management sells Amarin to a BP at somewhat higher prices than the striking price of their options...all management's options immediately become active due to the sale and management is rewarded by making a profit on these options...while shareholders who bought in at higher prices lose...this would not be fair.

It would be fair to set the striking price at much higher than current prices(let's say at $25/sh) and then, if Amarin wins the appeal, both management and shareholders can be winners.