|
|
Post by markado on Sept 11, 2019 9:51:15 GMT -5
I thought I remembered Mike indicating that they were supported by "friends" of the company. Is it possible UTHR could hold those warrant rights off the radar, as warrants do not have the value of shares until materialized.
If so, (speculating), realizing the warrants would trigger a buy-in announcement due to the % of ownership it would yield, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Sept 11, 2019 10:40:33 GMT -5
The warrants went to those who invested in the last round of financing. Regardless of who that may have been, if the value of the shares acquired plus any conditional shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants exceeded 4.9% of the outstanding shares, then a disclosure obligation would exist. In other words, exercise of the warrants into actual shares would not trigger a new disclosure since the warrants themselves have to be disclosed. Since we have not seen a Regulation 13 filing by UTHR you can safely assume that they are not the holders.
|
|
|
|
Post by markado on Sept 11, 2019 10:51:27 GMT -5
The warrants went to those who invested in the last round of financing. Regardless of who that may have been, if the value of the shares acquired plus any conditional shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants exceeded 4.9% of the outstanding shares, then a disclosure obligation would exist. In other words, exercise of the warrants into actual shares would not trigger a new disclosure since the warrants themselves have to be disclosed. Since we have not seen a Regulation 13 filing by UTHR you can safely assume that they are not the holders. Unless the portion they own equates less than 4.9% or they are being held in a manner indirectly related to UTHR. There's no "safely assuming" anything, when it comes to MNKD - that much, we already know. |
|
|
|
Post by traderdennis on Sept 13, 2019 13:28:36 GMT -5
Deerfield held some of the warrants, as they required the company to purchase them prior to paying off their debt.
|
|
