We’ve had this conversation. If we find out in the 10k that the blocker is gone, I’ll believe your version. And if it’s still there, I’ll go with my version that it’s a demand by the financiers. Or is it possible she set up the blocker just to get an extension on the options/warrants? I hadn’t considered that.
That is not the case. The blocker agreement was used so that it would not trigger beneficial ownership under 13(d). There was language added in the last 10Q that stated the blocker agreement had language that the options/warrants could not be exercised unless there were sufficient authorized shares. There is never shares specifically "reserved" for options or warrants.