@cowgun
Post #: 77591962
Oh dear.
All that form tells us, afaik, is that they are not restricted securities for the purposes of the listing rules, and that they have not been subject to voluntary escrow.
Your claim:
"AGY has no ability / mechanism to prevent ATL from legally doing whatever they like..."
is fundamentally flawed, since the above does not prove this, afaict.
It is indeed possible, afaict, that the parties have a legally-binding agreement in place that specifically includes a restriction on ATL's holding, and that the securities were not required to be classified as restricted securities for the purposes of the listing rules, nor required to be placed in voluntary escrow.
I don't claim to know the specific circumstances/details of the agreement; I am simply noting that the info in the form you reference does not prove, afaict,that there is no legally-binding restriction on these securities.
If you are aware of a specific rule/s, that requires those securities, which ATL have agreed fo be placed into a 12-month standstill period, to be classified as restricted securities for the purposes of the listing rules, and/or requires them to be placed in voluntary escrow, then please share and reference that information.
The only way, afaict, that your claim could be a known fact:
a/ A legally-binding agreement of this nature (12-month standstill period) requires voluntary escrow. Does it? Why?
or
b/ An agreement is in place between the 2 parties, it does not require voluntary escrow via the listing rules, but it is not legally binding. Do you know this? How?
I welcome the facts, but don't confuse guesses or assumptions with factual statements.
Is it (a) or (b) (or c???)...? How? Why?
Enlighten us.
imo
dyor
(20min delay)