Johnik, (imagine it 2 more times for affect)
I am fully aware of the nature of trusts, but thank you for the suggestion.
We do not know the terms of the trust at all, much less as it relates to distribution.
What is clear is that Mr. Wesson's position is substantially reduced as clearly identified in the Form 4 disclosure-- and that is setting aside the timing coincidence which may or may not be under a mandated and or/time specified distribution...
... and therefore, the further disposition of those shares will not be known without extraordinary effort. (Perhaps there will now be a new harassment conspiracy spawned off that last sentence.) The minimum point is to duly note a sizable share block lost-- in essence -- accountability. This understanding should be considered much the same as when restricted shares come off restriction. Accounting for the tradable float is something most traders try to do.
However, Rule 144 is the applicable rule to Mr. Wesson's direct holdings-- specifically the "trickle" portion which is less restrictive in terms of volume limitation than his current (newly added to) direct holdings. Additionally, as stated previously, 144s do not have to be filed electronically and Form 4s are filed after the fact.
Time will have to tell the tale as an historic event unless his 144 filing shows up the same as Mr Kaplanis' and Mr Weber's. This is typical and useful to (logically) cloud the present and then take up a "so what" position when it becomes the past :-(
The trick is making reality and illusion be seen as one to meet the vision. Trick(s) work...
have a nice weekend yourself :-)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
