in addition to what you've said, there are other practicalities- the dance NNLX and the large companies are engaged in is a negotiation-there are written and unwritten rules, as you've said
1st, the possible purpose of a large acquisition of shares- NNLX has a poison pill which protects against takeover via share purchase -the negotiating partners via their dd would know this
but probably a greater consideration would be the known impact of a substantial acquisition of shares and what that would do to the pps curve and possible adverse consequences to the buyer
due to these and other considerations the large negotiation partners know they cannot obtain effective control of NNLX via an open market share acquisition nor can they obtain such a position at a reasonable price (a price cheaper than outright purchase of the product via an arms length negotiation) even without a poison pill
think of the pps curve resulting from an entity acquiring a large share equity position
due to the normally small volume in NNLX shares such a buyer could not acquire much without greatly increasing pps- quickly buying out short term holders-but then the resistance would catapult pps similar to a short squeeze-due to resistance from longs and shorts alike
this dynamic is why companies who want to buy back significant float make tender offers at a pps far greater than current market price rather than buying up a large portion of the float on the open market-for buying a large portion of the float would soon make the pps prohibitive
outsiders (somebody other than the co) engaged in such a large equity acquisition could invite scrutiny of agencies (resulting in various sanctions-even though NNLX is not SEC reporting- and in a SEC reporting co buyers are required to report a position in the company once they reach 5% of the shares) and non agencies (such as otcmarkets- which very well may consider this a promotion in a non current co and thus slap a ce )
none of those scenarios would benefit NNLX's negotiation partner -and likely wold harm the larger entities position with NNLX due to x entities bad faith-and the parties may have written rules against such an acquisition of shares also
so there is no effective end run by NNLX's negotiation partner around a good faith/dd arms length negotiation
1st, the possible purpose of a large acquisition of shares- NNLX has a poison pill which protects against takeover via share purchase -the negotiating partners via their dd would know this
but probably a greater consideration would be the known impact of a substantial acquisition of shares and what that would do to the pps curve and possible adverse consequences to the buyer
due to these and other considerations the large negotiation partners know they cannot obtain effective control of NNLX via an open market share acquisition nor can they obtain such a position at a reasonable price (a price cheaper than outright purchase of the product via an arms length negotiation) even without a poison pill
think of the pps curve resulting from an entity acquiring a large share equity position
due to the normally small volume in NNLX shares such a buyer could not acquire much without greatly increasing pps- quickly buying out short term holders-but then the resistance would catapult pps similar to a short squeeze-due to resistance from longs and shorts alike
this dynamic is why companies who want to buy back significant float make tender offers at a pps far greater than current market price rather than buying up a large portion of the float on the open market-for buying a large portion of the float would soon make the pps prohibitive
outsiders (somebody other than the co) engaged in such a large equity acquisition could invite scrutiny of agencies (resulting in various sanctions-even though NNLX is not SEC reporting- and in a SEC reporting co buyers are required to report a position in the company once they reach 5% of the shares) and non agencies (such as otcmarkets- which very well may consider this a promotion in a non current co and thus slap a ce )
none of those scenarios would benefit NNLX's negotiation partner -and likely wold harm the larger entities position with NNLX due to x entities bad faith-and the parties may have written rules against such an acquisition of shares also
so there is no effective end run by NNLX's negotiation partner around a good faith/dd arms length negotiation
