RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:diluting shareholders further
This reasoning makes sense based on their history of non-performance. We also have to look forward, taking into account their recent acquisitions, courts reopening and some of the new verticals they've gained access to. So one also has to ask why they were buying on the open market since they have an idea what the results would be like. And they also announced a private placement; not a marketed public offering. I imagine some conversations would have been had between mgt, the existing institution and the new one. Wouldn't mgt have given them some assurance that business is looking good? I'm relatively new to the story so maybe I'm still putting on rose-colored glasses.