I don't mean to be confrontational, but I have a problem with your statement that:

"The NDA is a legal agreement and can only be undone in a court of law, not at the whim of an incoming CEO."

IMO, the only way a court of law could "undo" an NDA is if the court found that some aspect of the NDA was illegal - which I find difficult to fathom based on the nature of an NDA.

An NDA is a contract, and IMO the only way it could get undone is if all the parties to the NDA all agreed to its disolution.

Thus, the NDA could be undone "at the whim of an incoming CEO", but only if the CEOs (authorized representatives) of the other parties to the agreement shared this whim.

I only bring this up because of my speculation that the NDA(s) could be undone, if all parties agree - if all parties saw the action as a smart strategic move. IMO, the Js wanting their competition to pay more for a license, which may be more easily accomplished with disclosure of "our deal", could be an incentive for such action.

BTW, I agree completely that the prohibition against insider buying has nothing to do with the NDA per se. The inclusion of that section of the "Note to Shareholders" was merely a citation of SEC rules (the law) against insider trading. I made this point before, and how I found it very strange that this citation was included in the Note, as the affected parties IMO would definitely be very aware of these regulations, and it certainly didn't need to be included in the Note as notification/warning to those few people. As I opined at the time, the only possible reason for inclusion of this citation in the Note was to send a loud, clear signal to shareholders - the numbers are good.

JMHOs,

SGE