Replies to post #29830 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[SPIN]

edit: 24, presumably it is the agreement b/tw the PPers & Wave. it is a document which has not been made public so i cannot comment on the language.

but i did impute the "reach back" provision as a result of the PPers ability to secure 24% APR in the event of inexcused non-performance. it is not an unreasonable inference IMO considering the facts of Wave's financial quandry.

you wrote, "...whether such an obligation may be predicated solely on a unilateral declaration in a form S-3."

the mutuality is presumably the terms & conditions w/in a contract which was not disclosed & one to which we are not privy. nevertheless, it was Wave's filing & Wave's disclosures & as such, it does not seem unreasonable to conclude it was a negotiated term

& fwiw, i seriously doubt that any contentions of impracticability, impossibility, frustration or force majeure is gonna let Wave wriggle out of the vigorish. & based on the sitchy, i suspect that it is 6% due & payable as of IDF... maybe zen can get a copy of the agreement for you to evaluate?!?

just as a blockade of the Suez Canal was forseeable in the eyes of sophisticated commercial parties, so too is the possibility of administrative agency regulatory delay...

JMO

edit: & of course i view the Wave glass as 3/4 empty, you perceive it differently & i respect yer perspective. neither of us knows the answer here b/c we haven't seen the instrument & the mutuality question is a good one.

edit2: when you present a solid position, i am willing to note it accordingly. nevertheless, common sense dictates to me that the PPers would not have agreed to an interest free loan to Wave for a fiscal Q on top of a 16% +/- erosion in their illiquid equity... given the position of the parties at the time of execution, it is more or less nonsensical IMO.