K., I did notice the material shown in the filings. However, with respect to the price at which the company part of the secondary will be offered, it may not be locked in at $62. $62 was the closing price on the day, I believe, before the filing. (Don't hold me to the exact date as I read the filing a several days ago and haven't checked it before responding, just now). I do recall, however, that these were the thoughts I had when I read the filing. My problem in comprehending SEC filings is the imprecise and often ambiguous language that the filers use without the SEC insisting on greater clarity. I do not intend to fault the SEC, which is greatly underfunded and understaffed to do the quantity and quality of work required. Another reason I have trouble understanding what is written are the numerous references to events, dates or facts that are outside the borders of the particular filing. (LRNLATN, I believe the hybrid linguistic term which may apply to this may be "dehors the record"). Nevertheless, despite these difficulties there usually is no better place to look for information than SEC filings. Perhaps, someday the SEC will be in a position to enforce plain English language requirements and eliminate some of the techniques used by lawyers specializing in Securities Law to confuse lay readers. End of pontification. I'm not all that smart or knowledgeable about SEC Law & Regulations to critique.
HO-MEE asked me to update developments. There is a more recent message on the Y board, posted by the person who furnished the information about the M & A. He now says that the $81 aspect may be the result of a glitch, which I assume to mean a computer glitch or an input error. This does erode the conclusions reached somewhat, but we will just have to wait to see.
Getting tired now and will stop. Hopefully, tomorrow I will be able to provide more material on this unfolding situation.
SS |
