I just checked the transcript of the CC and NP did
Post# of 154840
(Total Views: 422)
Posted On: 10/09/2019 1:42:12 PM
I just checked the transcript of the CC and NP did not use the words "quiet period". Here is what he said.
IMO, we are reading too much into this. My first impression, and still my impression, is that legal counsel told him to knock it off (i.e. that he should not be using terms like "secured", as he could get in trouble with the SEC and cause legal liability.
That being said, it is my impression that we entered into a new stage vis-a-vis the NBA. Most of these agreements tend to have a "No-shop" and/or "exclusive" period whereby the two sides are working to hammer out the legalese and CYDY would be prohibited from entertaining other offers or trying to solicit other offers.
What is interesting to me is that these NBAs almost always have a non-disclosure term to them -- i.e. that CYDY would not be permitted to disclose the terms of the NBA. I am surprised that such a term was apparently not included. If I had to guess, it would be that the partner allowed disclosure of the terms but NOT their name -- and had an exclusive and/or "no shop" clause.
Also, for what its worth, typically an SEC required "quiet period" is related to upcoming earnings announcements or IPOs -- i haven't seen them related to deal announcements (outside of the above contexts).
So, IMO, I think NP has just gone dark while he and the partner are heads-down trying to iron out all the T&C's. And I would guess that the 6-weeks referenced by NP was that is when the exclusive and/or "no shop" clause terminates (the partner will be highly incentivized to get the deal done before the termination of that clause -- especially because the terms were publicly disclosed).
Quote:
I only have one question
28:58 on the September 12th shareholder
29:01 meeting you referenced that you had
29:03 secured funding through the end of the
29:05 year from people who would be funding us
29:06 could you speak on that further please
29:08 form so unfortunately because of legal
29:12 advice I'm not allowed to talk about
29:15 that but we will address that for sure
29:17 you know at the appropriate time and you
29:19 will and you will be able to understand
29:22 why I said that
IMO, we are reading too much into this. My first impression, and still my impression, is that legal counsel told him to knock it off (i.e. that he should not be using terms like "secured", as he could get in trouble with the SEC and cause legal liability.
That being said, it is my impression that we entered into a new stage vis-a-vis the NBA. Most of these agreements tend to have a "No-shop" and/or "exclusive" period whereby the two sides are working to hammer out the legalese and CYDY would be prohibited from entertaining other offers or trying to solicit other offers.
What is interesting to me is that these NBAs almost always have a non-disclosure term to them -- i.e. that CYDY would not be permitted to disclose the terms of the NBA. I am surprised that such a term was apparently not included. If I had to guess, it would be that the partner allowed disclosure of the terms but NOT their name -- and had an exclusive and/or "no shop" clause.
Also, for what its worth, typically an SEC required "quiet period" is related to upcoming earnings announcements or IPOs -- i haven't seen them related to deal announcements (outside of the above contexts).
So, IMO, I think NP has just gone dark while he and the partner are heads-down trying to iron out all the T&C's. And I would guess that the 6-weeks referenced by NP was that is when the exclusive and/or "no shop" clause terminates (the partner will be highly incentivized to get the deal done before the termination of that clause -- especially because the terms were publicly disclosed).
(4)
(0)