Joby - I think you are right on the Class A common. At page 24 of the 10K filed with the SEC today, Item 12 "Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management" (which is a table listing owners, # shares, and %) says that, as of March 5, 1999, Aladdin owned 2,531,307 Class A shares (which is stated as 8% of the class), and footnote 10 to the Item says all these shares "are subject to warrants presently exercisable or exercisable within 60 days." The table also says Aladdin owns 335,000 Class B shares (or about 12.1% of the 2,770,991 Class B shares o/s on 5Mar99) which are *not* included in the Class A figures in the table (per footnote 1).
The footnotes to the financial statements contain additional references to Aladdin. Footnote 7 "Capital Stock" in paragraph (c) "Common Stock" (nominally pages F-19-F-20) says in 1997 WAVX issued 500,000 Class A shares to Aladdin (at fair market value) in connection with a license agreement. Footnote 8 "Options and Warrants" toward the end of (what I think is) the "Other Options" discussion (nominally at pages F-25-F-26) is a reference to a license agreement (the initial one? a new one?) noting that, on July 17, 1998, Aladdin also received two warrants. The first allows the purchase of up to 1,216,136 shares of WAVX (in 100,000 lots) at $1.70 per share. It has a life of two years (i.e., expires July 17, 2000, I bet). The second warrant provides Aladdin with the right to acquire up to 7% of WAVX's Class A stock "on a fully diluted basis for the average closing price for the 15 days trading days prior to exercise." It also notes that Aladdin exercised a portion of the second warrant in June of 1998 and purchased 1 million shares of WAVX and has the right to purchase shares approximating about 3.45% of the Class A stock. No expiration date is mentioned. The table under the discussion (nominally at page F-26) indicates that, as of 31 Dec 98, 1,216,136 warrants issued in 1997 were still outstanding, and all had an exercise price of $1.70. A footnote to the table indicates that the 3.45% option is *not* represented in the table.
What's this all mean? I dunno. That's sort of why I posted it. Anybody want to try to explain it?
Humbly,
Harry (and *that's* a position I don't often admit to!!)
|
