Replies to post #29739 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[24601]

SPIN: The clause is what it is. I would construe its words, not the circumstances that might have attended its drafting. I would not impute retroactive accrual.

I am dismayed that somebody put Wave in a position of being judged a non-performer on the basis of inaction by the SEC.

As long as I'm second-guessing these guys, I have to wonder what instrument imposes the obligation to pay liquidated damages after 90 days. I have not seen it anywhere outside the four corners of the registration statement, and I have to question whether such an obligation may be predicated solely on a unilateral declaration in a form S-3. Where's the mutuality?

Best wishes,
John

edit: This is the kind of thing I ordinarily would ask the company about. But I'm leaving that to others at this point. At least until somebody makes me a director.