POETfablight: It was a sort of material  technical update to competitors and potential clients , and  both do not speculate on the stock market but do the business by their own...

Maybe you are right, POETfablight. At least I cannot see anything that would make this news release material in the view of the regulator. Anyway, regarding the $0.75 warrants, this raises the question, why they did not shape the news release in a way that investors and journalists could understand better. Possible answers:

• They do not want the warrants to be exercised (because that would cause dilution of their own personal holdings), or at least they don’t care. Which raises another question: Why did they extend the expiry multiple times in the first place? A possible answer might be that financial strain has been relieved, for example, because expenses have been reduced or income resp. foreseeable income has been increased.
• They do want the warrants to be exercised, but are simply incapable to communicate what we have in a way that not only competitors and potential customers would get a clue, but also investors and journalists would a) understand what this is all about and b) get excited and invest resp. report better and with deeper insight.

I do hope that the first answer is the correct one, but I must admit I am not too sure …