If that is the case, then why would there be a record date at all? Sounds to me like the only date that would be necessary would be the issuance date!?
You're right, the record date is superfluous. It's totally meaningless, redundant, irrelevant, and inconsequential. There are times when it does matter (e.g., shareholders of record on a certain date get to vote on a particular matter), but in the case of warrants it doesn't. Yet every corporate act pertaining to shareholders must have a record date and, where applicable, a date where the act in question is actually effected. So usually the officers and directors just set a single record date for a group of corporate events (voting, issuing new shares/warrants/dividends, whatever) because they have to pick some date to be the record date.
Yes, warrants can be sold instead of exercised. That depends on the terms of the warrant. But now we're starting to stray from the original question, which (as I understood it) was a concern that new buyers were now somehow getting less than earlier buyers of XYBR. My point was that if the warrants haven't been distributed, there's nothing to worry about because the record date doesn't mean jack, to repeat an earlier phrase. |
