RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Suntrader. If I might share my thoughts on your statement...Thx for the reparte
My thinking was that Fidelity would be restricted to that 2% level also... as to
(iii) A So they may have been able to use their MM to initially short the stock...and then acquire up to about 2.9MM shares in order to cover...but then any additional would put them 'over the 2%'...and they would be out of the game as no additional Board approval may be forthcoming.
I also don't recall seeing Fidelity on the BUY side of the trade reconcilition for any large blocks.
Which they would have to be in order to cover the shorted position.
They did show up on the SELL side...
which I took to mean that Fidelity held the 3DB stock Account, and the '3rd party buyers' were buying through different houses, and Fidelity was the 'issuing house' of the block.
I didn't follow the trade reports judiciously as to daily, weekly, monthly totals of the various houses, and given the prevalence of 'Anonymous' tagged trades these days, we'll never know for sure.
Plenty of food for thought and conjecture...Thx again.
Truhlik wrote: AUborealis: Wishful thinking is not a substitute for facts. What you wrote is again, incorrect.
Please read
Section 3.1(e)(iii) of the agreement for block trades where the buyer remains under 2% of outstanding shares. What you and Researcher203 keep incorrectly referring to is Section 3.1(e)(iv) which applies to block trades without the 2% restriction, and is not relevant to what is being discussed.
Here, I will copy and paste the entire Section 3.1(e)(iii) for you:
(iii) the Securityholder may sell the Securityholder's Securities pursuant to a Block Trade to an arm's length third party to the Securityholder, provided that (A) upon completion of such Block Trade, the person to acquire the Securityholder's Securities pursuant to the Block Trade, together with all Joint Actors of such person, shall hold no more than 2.0% of the issued and outstanding Common Shares of NexOptic, calculated on a diluted basis; (B) the price per Common Share sold pursuant to such Block Trade is not less than the Discounted Market Price (as such term is defined in Policy 1.1 of the Manual); and (C) the Securityholder provides written notice of such Block Trade to NexOptic within five days of completing such Block Trade, which notice shall set out (I) the volume and price of the Block Trade, (II) the identity of the ultimate beneficial purchaser of the Securityholder's Securities and (III) the number of securities directly and indirectly beneficially owned and/or controlled by the purchaser and its Joint Actors, upon completion of the Block Trade; That’s it. As you can see,
3DB does NOT need approval from the board.
To be fair, these legal contracts are not the easiest (or fun) to read.
Good luck.
AUborealis wrote: Thx for 'refresh' on the DD Researcher 203
I remember reading it when the Agreement was filed but I was a little lazy in not digging it out again, as you have so aptly done for all of us.
Facts...
Puts to rest any questions concerning NXO management's ability to put in place agreements that have all the bases covered.
Thx RG.
And thx again Researcher 203
Researcher203 wrote: Truhlik wrote:
AUborealis: Sorry dude, but you are wrong about the 3DB share sales contract; what Damn1212 said is actually correct. Sorry Truhlik but block trades require board approval. AUborealis is correct. From the agreement: Section 3.1(e)(iv)
(A) the Securityholder provides no less than five business days advance written notice of such Block Trade to NexOptic, which notice shall set out (I) the volume and price of the proposed Block Trade, (II) the identity of the proposed ultimate beneficial purchaser of the Securityholder's Securities, (III) the number of securities that will be directly and indirectly beneficially owned and/or controlled by the purchaser and its Joint Actors, upon completion of the proposed Block Trade, (IV) the purpose of the proposed acquisition of the Securityholder's Securities by the proposed purchaser; and
(B) the proposed sale is pre-approved in writing by the Board;
Any Disposition effected by the Securityholder shall be made in accordance with applicable securities laws and, during the Restricted Period, the Securityholder agrees that it shall not issue any notice or make any announcement of its intention to sell the Securityholder's Securities that is inconsistent with the restrictions set forth in Section 3.1(e) or with this Section 3.1(f). For greater certainty, the Securityholder agrees that any notice or announcement of its intention to sell the Securityholder's Securities, including Form 45-102F1, shall indicate that the disclosed proposed disposition(s) by the Securityholder is subject to a maximum number of securities that shall not exceed the limitations set forth under Section 3.1(e)(i). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Securityholder may issue a Form 45-102F1 (i) respecting a bona fide proposed Block Trade permitted by Section 3.1(e)(iii), where it expects, acting in good faith, such Block Trade to be completed prior to the expiry of such Form 45-102F1 and (ii) respecting a bona fide proposed Block Trade permitted by Section 3.1(e)(iv) (and, for greater certainty, which has been previously approved by the Board in accordance with Section 3.1(e)(iv)(B)) where it expects, acting in good faith, such Block Trade to be completed prior to the expiry of such Form 45-102F1.
The Board has complete control for the DBros Block Trades and knows who is buying them. It is not surprising that the signicant majority of the Block Trades occurred after the ARM webinar presentation of ALIIS. More likely savvy tech entrepreneurs are buying blocks being helped by stock trashers who are trying to manipulate the stock price. Not likely that Dbros have a secret deal with a broker to cover shorts and then advise the NexOptic Board 5 days before it happens while making a SEDAR filing at the same time.