There is something I don't understand about the two...

There is something I don't understand about the two announcements made by CVS about substantial holders, following the recent capital raising.

EUR got 25,000,000 shares for zilch payment.

Alan and Edna Smith dwarfed EUR's allocation of shares by getting 35,631,322 - but they had to shell out $300,000 for them.

Clearly Alan and Edna Smith's allocation of shares benefitted CVS financially, but EUR's dilution did no good for CVS that I can see.

What's the reason for this seeming discrepany in treatment of two shareholders? Presumably something technical that I am missing.