- is the likelihood that the shares being issued are being used by our newly found "institiutional" friends will be used to cover (naked?) massive short positions that were taken by people very much "in the know" as can be witnessed posthumously by the sheer size of the short positions going into the trial results. Someone was VERY confident, so much so that they were willing to short MILLIONS of shares without the responsibility of borrowing them first (as in evidence in the REG SHO filings). So who were these people and what did they know? Are they covering now, "at market"? If so, this is hardly a benefit to shareholders. Whereas their buys to cover would have ordinarily created upward pricing pressure in an environment where all things are fair and equal, these sob's got the benefit of covering without consequence. I am calling the management out on misrepresentation here. The shareholders would have been better served by finding real institutional backing by way of one of the Wall St underwriting firms and then forcing these shorting charlitans to cover their shares on the up and up. If you care to do a little research on your own, find out the names of our new "benefactors" and check to see if they have any legal or corporate entanglements with firms based in the Carribean or Swiss safe haven anonymous banking systems or that they're registered in the states of Nevada, Delaware or Dade County Florida. All utilized for the purpose of anonymity, usually for the benefit of tax avoidance, but ever more frequently for the obfuscation of illegal activity in the realm of SEC required constraints. I for one will volunteer to be a "lead plaintiff" and recommend anyone who lost more than 1000 dollars here to join me in that.
well if they naked short that's an issue, but those new shares won't get into the float until the share price is much higher. Either way, it's still a buy now, whether there is a short squeeze or not depends also on the shorts that were not naked-but yea, naked shorting is not fair and is supposed to be illegal, isn't it?