james: that is a good question, one I am trying to find a reasonable explanation for. The fact is that the lock-up provisions are contained in an agreement between YA and Neom, not involving a 3rd party. So, among the various explanations, it could be that YA has required the inclusion of these provisons in its Investment Agreement with Neom because YA is acting on behalf of an undisclosed 3rd party.
Asking clarification on 120 day period of no sale... Does this mean YA cannot dillute for the next 3 months, and that the only dillution is coming from common shareholders dumping?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
