Marpai (MRAI) insider amendment: 75,000 RSUs vested, ownership corrected to 147,000
Rhea-AI Filing Summary
Marpai, Inc. (MRAI) director Shiv Sagiv amended a Form 4 to correct reported beneficial ownership after the vesting of restricted stock units (RSUs). The amendment shows 75,000 Class A common shares were acquired on 08/19/2025 through RSU vesting at no cash price, and the Reporting Person now beneficially owns 147,000 shares. The filing states the RSUs vested in three equal tranches of 25,000 shares at three, six and nine months after the grant date, and the amendment corrects an earlier filing that misstated the post-transaction ownership total.
Positive
- Amendment filed to correct prior error, improving disclosure accuracy
- 75,000 RSUs vested through scheduled tranches, consistent with typical compensation practices
Negative
- Original Form 4 misstated the total securities beneficially owned, indicating an administrative reporting error
Insights
TL;DR: Routine insider stock vesting with an amended filing to correct ownership; limited market impact.
The filing documents a director receiving 75,000 Class A common shares from RSU vesting on 08/19/2025 at no cash cost, increasing reported beneficial ownership to 147,000 shares. The amendment corrects a prior Form 4 error that misstated the post-transaction total. For investors, this is a standard compensation-related transfer rather than an open-market purchase or sale, so it does not signal a change in trading intent or immediate liquidity events. The correction improves disclosure accuracy but is not material to the companys operating performance.
TL;DR: Administrative correction to insider reporting; minor governance note on initial misstatement.
The report indicates RSU vesting mechanics (three equal tranches of 25,000 shares) and an amended Form 4 to fix an earlier ownership tally. Timely and corrected disclosure is important for compliance with Section 16 rules; filing an amendment demonstrates remediation. The initial misstatement is a governance oversight but was corrected promptly via this Form 4/A, suggesting remedial action rather than a substantive governance breach.