Your understanding is correct.... This is true: "Once the total outstanding share count approaches 600 million, Leo needs to ask permission from shareholders for more. " This is the tricky part based on the most recent example: "I'm hoping the majority of shareholders know what Leo is up to and vote no, but I doubt that'll be the outcome." (note: it's important to distinguish between the majority of shareholders and the number of votes due to the Class B 10 vote/share voting rights.)
Results of the last vote to increase: "The Company held a Special Meeting of Stockholders (the “Special Meeting”) on September 19, 2019. The number of votes cast for or against, as well as abstentions and broker non-votes, as applicable, with respect to each matter is set out below.
Proposal 1. Increase in Authorized Shares of Class A Common Stock By the vote reflected below, the stockholders approved an amendment to Article III of the Company’s Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of the Company’s Class A common stock from 300,000,000 shares to 600,000,000 shares: For 150,323,670
Things are different now but but not that different so is there really a reason to expect a different outcome? The basics are the same....in your words "If Leo does not have permission for more authorized shares, game over." Pretty much as true then as it is now. I had trouble understanding those numbers at the time. According to the proxy statement issued prior to that vote: "As of that date, there were 205,620,200 shares of our Class A common stock and 909,090 shares of our Class B common stock outstanding" Based on that there were a total of 215M VOTES available to be cast in the election. Yet only 165M were cast and the majority opted to support the increase. Whether the support reflected a fear of the outcome ("game over") should the vote fail or overwhelming support for management can't be known. To this day I don't understand 1)why 50M votes didn't care enough about the issue to show up and 2)why the holders of shares representing 90% of the votes that were cast elected to double the share authorization.
But just because I don't understand it doesn't mean that the outcome will be different so I think this is reasonable: "I'm hoping the majority of shareholders (edit: votes) know what Leo is up to and vote no, but I doubt that'll be the outcome."
There have been no significant issuances through the latest reporting. (456,580,514 Class A out as of 2/5 per 10Q and the same amount out at 4/1 per OTCMarkets). Since the last of the Preferred has been converted and access to Aspire has been unavailable there have been no significant share issuances reported. The remaining authorization (~150M) shares would only fetch ~$4M at current MARKET prices. One of the obvious questions is "If we have $10M in the bank and we can bump up the authorization and find a willing financier (think discounted shares), how can we use the money to further the pipeline, such as it is?". Maybe the coming 10Q will provide a hint or two. Will it be a credible hint?
ps. I noticed this in looking back at the previous election of Directors (I think it has been the ONLY election of Directors): "At the Annual Meeting, the Company's Board of Directors recommended, and approximately 52% of the stockholders voting on the proposal (not including 79,381 abstentions) chose, to have the Company hold future advisory votes on executive compensation on an annual basis. In light of the foregoing, the Company intends to hold future advisory votes on executive compensation on an annual basis."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
