Yes, but I'd be willing to bet you that Howard Weill, which is a boutique, is not short or long Linn or Linnco.
Howard Weill is not a hatchet shop. They are a niche investment boutique that deals heavily in the energy sector.
If the response was pointed at Weill, it makes a mockery of Linn management, for both calling the shop anonymous and "short". On the other hand, there may be others that are indeed short that have been dealing with management. We'll likely get answers to put questions but I doubt Linn management wants to get into a shouting contest with the investment community.
The Linn response directed every thing the Weil analyst contended (plus a bit more) and there were no other reports of any other short seller claims. I agree that Linn may have been quick on the trigger to label it "anonymous short seller" but on the other hand they saw the price dropping, they didn't want to name names, and they felt a response was needed quickly. Perhaps if they had to do it over again they wouldn't have used the term.
This is just my conjecture. If there indeed was another short seller, that, along with the Barron's article (which used only Weil's article) then they have a more serious problem than is evident.
Norris the blind fool. He subscribes too barrons.I am sure he saw this article. Refused to post it even though it was related to LINE and too investors. Instead he chooses to ,live in his world of make believe that everything is all good and nothing should be posted that might inform others of what caused this drop recently. Here is a person that said he has a degree in finance. Blames another for posting relevant news about LINE for investors to see. Now he says he will drop barrons from his list of news because they can't be trusted. yet posts right from their news letters all of time. I would dare say then that everything he has posted form Barrons has been wrong. If you follow his mind set and obsurdity. Another brain fart by our resident financial officer.