Release: Explains Illegal Naked Shorting Being Perpetrated By Major Market Makers on MAXD Shares

Release

Explains Illegal Naked Shorting Being Perpetrated By Major Market Makers on MAXD Shares

8,117,878,650 shares shorted in the past year, which is more than 40% of MAXD’s total trading volume

We have analyzed the last year of daily short volume data and correlated it to recent market making activity in MAXD.  In 27 of the past 31 trading days, 87% of the time, the combined selling and short selling in MAXD has far exceeded the amount of buying (See NetNet column below).  Market makers, by definition, are required to PROVIDE LIQUIDITY not extract or remove liquidity. The math provided below demonstrates that instead of matching orders, market makers, Knight/Virtu, Cantor Fitzgerald, Canaccord Genuity, Citadel, eTrade/G1 are heavily shorting MAXD stock BOTH on the offer and on the bid, which by definition means they have a “speculative short selling strategy” running on MAXD. They are carrying net short positions overnight and continuing to claim the market maker’s exemption, which is in VIOLATION of the Fair Market Making Requirements of Regulation SHO.  We are able to mathematically prove this because there is not enough BuyVol (buy volume) to match the amount of selling and short selling. The chart below identifies the top 5 market makers, in MAXD for May 2018 (highlighted below) accounting for 2,257,870,595 shares of trading, or 88.22% of total trading volume in May.

Total Volume   Name
(Last Month)

643,662,180    Knight/Virtu,
154,447,100    Cantor Fitzgerald,
203,762,081    Canaccord Genuity,
769,731,954    Citadel,
247,276,817    Trade/G1

As is common during these orchestrated short selling campaigns, bad actors with no real interest in MAXD’s success, or any small public company for that matter, has consistently engaged in false accusations and libel on the Company’s stock chat boards in attempts to scare and demoralize MAXD’s legitimate shareholders. It is noteworthy that as soon as Max Sound sent this report to the market makers perpetrating the naked short sales on the company, the bad actors disappeared at least for the time being.

Article: In Pursuit of the Naked Short by Alexis Stokes

Article - Academic

In Pursuit of the Naked Short

Alexis Stokes, Texas State University

Journal of Law and Business 5/1 (Spring 2009)

This article explores the origins of naked short-selling litigation; considers
the failures of significant naked short-selling lawsuits in federal court;
surveys the obstacles erected collectively by constitutional standing requirements, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, brokerage firms, death spiral financiers, and the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation; examines the efficacy of Regulation SHO, SEC rule 10b-21, and new FINRA rules; discusses recent state legislation and state court litigation; and identifies non-litigation options to curb naked short-selling. Ultimately, this article seeks to answer the question: If manipulative naked short-selling is more than a mythological scapegoat for
small cap failure, what remedies are, or should be, available?

PDF (62 Pages): Article In Pursuit of the Naked Short

Web: Rod Young, Eagletech CEO’s Open Letter on the Shorting Scandal, a Classic

Web

Rod Young, Eagletech CEO’s Open Letter on the Shorting Scandal, a Classic

Bud Burrell, Rod Young

Sanity Check via Wayback, 17 January 2006

Today, more than one month later, the records have not been forthcoming as ordered by the court. Instead, as First Deputy General Counsel for the DTCC, I believe you have undertaken a campaign to disseminate misinformation, lies, and half-truths when confronted with facts made public by your detractors.On March 5, 2005 one day after the announcement of the aforementioned court ruling, your interview @dtcc.com, entitled “Naked Short Selling and the Stock Borrow Program”, stated: “One of these companies has been cited for failing to file financial statements since 2001.” Congratulations! You did get one right. On February 15, 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission deemed it necessary for the protection of investors to institute proceedings pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 In the Matter of Eagletech Communications, Inc., Respondent.

Access archive page.