Whampoa wrote: Like I wrote, truely appreciate information, esp from the immaculate.
Easy call PPY to find out if its definitely "benefically owned" as used also in the release.
Also if this involve hypothecation ( which I would entertain), and UGR is in default, then its a very easy NO vote especially given how this is currently structured. With a NO vote, then leverage falls into PPY management court to renegotiate a way better agreement; i.e. no bod appointments, higher deemed price (to mathamatically to get same $277 valuation ), less PPY shares, (one other thing I dont like).
It'll then be UGR and PEs to renegotiate and save their bacon. Perishable opportunity; may not be any renegotiation.
Also IF its equity, which it sounds, AND existing shareholder feel the lockup is too lienent then another they can and should vote NO.
It doesn't take your efforts to save existing shareholders, they will do it themselves with a NO vote.
You are here because you are short PPY and desire further drop for your gain.
You definitely not here to help save existing shareholders.
Regardless of lockup, these financial firms can easily short in another manner/acct, and immediate replace upon vesting. They may have already been doing so since spike high of $10.50. They're insiders, they know.
So I place very little in what I see about lock up.
And finally before you leave:
You wrote: there are rules set up that if PE exits a certain % of their shares they have to resign from the board. it's all spelled out in the PR, which means that was negotiated by each party and will be put in the merger agreement. the debt is bank debt no doubt.
Piss, this is not a "merger agreement" .