RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:HEXO WRT - Something to check outHonestly I don't think there is a hard requirement for anything on warrants during a takeover. I have been on multiple cash buyouts and a couple of mergers. The only time i was holding warrants at the time of such an annoucement was when HEXO and HIP merged. With HIP / HEXO the warrants were carried across at the same conversion rate as the shares were, strikeprice was converted while expiry remained the same.
Generally speaking companies do not tend to outright rip off / piss off, or otherwise discourage people from investing in them, any move like that would earn them a pretty bad reputation in the market. With retail investors making up the majority of shareholders in the MJ sector such a move would be especially bad for HEXO and the company making the aquistion.
What we THINK is right and wrong means nothing to what may happen. If you are considering warrants and need some assurance that HEXO will not flush them down the toilet on a buyout or merger then it would be best to try your luck with their Investor Relations folks. I was chatting with Jenn over there, very helpful lady, I'm sure she would do everything she can to address the question.
Q
Slomoo12 wrote: Cash offer needs to address all investment vehicles? Help me out on that one please. If somebody offers cash why would HIP warrants have to be addressed as they are buying the company outright - not offering a share purchase or trade and HIP warrants are out of the money so would not become owners of HEXO or become part of the deal.
flyboy27 wrote: Slomoo12 wrote: Hypothetical acenario:
Canopy offers $5 per share to close in four months no warrant provision. $5 only a third of the A strike making them worthless. Are you going to maintain that HIP A wt holders would have enough HEXO shares to vote that ‘double your money’ deal down?
How about $7.50, $10?
quinlash wrote: The merger of HIP and HEXO resulted in the HIP warrants being carried over. Excluding WRTs from a aquistion or merger puts any vote by shareholders at risk of failing. I haven't seen a merger where wrt holders had their holdings outright taken away however I have seen wrt expiry dates excelerated post aquistion.
Q
Slomoo12 wrote: These ones are risky in that while SP might well reach strike and beyond the MJ industry is prone to mergers, takeovers and acquisitions where wts are not part of the deal and thus the wts would need to reach strike prior to finalization if any of those.
So on one hand they have three and a half years to reach $15 during those three years there had better not be any change of ownership and control.
This is total BS jack..... any offer,. if there ever was one, would need to address all investment vehicles owned by the company...Period!