Thanks, FJ, you know a while back I saw what you posted or a reference to it, about the pricing of the warrants, and I posted something to the effect then that you were much closer to the value of the warrants than was I. 

I will say this about that assigned value - I would buy all I could at that price (and so would everyone here).  I believe the price was set arbitrarily and was low-balled, not sure why (my guess below), but those warrants, at the time they were issued were surely worth more than $0.035 (I don't think you have to cut the price in half) - the warrant enables you to buy half share, right.  It was the warrant that was priced at 3.5 cents, so it could have been for 1/100 of a share or one full share, and it wouldn't matter, cuz that's the price (value) of the warrant, and it is that "value" that you subtract from .55 to back into the price per share.

Needless to say, that's my opinion, but it is based on nothing other than years of experience, which is worth something (heck, perhaps even something positive).

My guess is that for the sake of optics, the Company and the underwriters did not want it looking like the share price was valued low, as it would be if the value of the warrant were set at a dime, for example.  Also, shareholders don't like it when they see others making off with something of great value, or, let's say, of greater value than there efforts and/or risk assumption justified.