dig, I agree that a higher R/S ratio would also have been a safe approach, but I think management was reluctant to go that far due to the psychological damage it could have done to investors, many who have been involved for so long they've become fixated on the number of shares owned. If Wave were less than 5 years old and this were the first RS then a 5:1 or even 10:1 could have been reluctantly acceptable, but to put investors through a 2nd RS after they've been in Wave for 10 to 15 years or more would have been too much for many to bear IMO. I think someone at the ASM quoted Bagalay as saying a RS would be unfair to stockholders.
A principal reasoning for positioning themselves for a RS may have been to make sure they were able to increase the number of authorized shares, so when that matter passed they effectively no longer needed the RS - at least for another six months.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
