PDF (5 Pages): 20210218-Cohodes Submission Against Petit
“Second, Mr. Cohodes has never engaged in naked short selling (that is, he trades through brokers who find shares for him to borrow and he pays high interest fees to maintain his short positions). He was never part of any concerted illegal campaign to target MiMedx; his actions were his own.”
Comment: The above statement by a lawyer is easily challenged in court with evidence. Mr. Cohodes appears to be panicking. This time around it will cost him 10X to 100X what he was forced to pay Patrick Byrne. We have it all. The matter of compromised judges and DOJ and SCC as a RICO organization are also on the table. DTCC will not survive a Special Prosecutor.
Naked and Confused
Forbes, 12 February 2007
How a tiny software outfit fell victim to an illegal but unrestrained practice known as naked short-selling.
Most investors have never heard of Sedona (otcbb: SDNA.OB – news – people ) Corp., a piddling Pennsylvania outfit that sells customer relationship management software for small U.S. banks and credit unions. But to a rogue band of short-selling hedge fund managers, Sedona was prime meat.
‘Naked’ short selling is center of looming legal battle
Companies on the defensive seize upon an aggressive form of shorting
MarketWatch, 14 June 2006
By one contentious estimate, it’s a big problem plaguing more than 10% of stocks on the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. An NYSE probe into whether naked shorting was used to force down shares of Vonage Holdings Corp. VG, +3.53% lower during the Internet phone company’s May initial public offering has added fuel to the fire. See full story.
Continue reading “Article: ‘Naked’ short selling is center of looming legal battle”
Stockgate Report: Investrend Article on Targeting of DTCC by NASAA members for Subpoenas
FinancialWire cited by Sanity Check via Wayback, 14 February 2006
FinancialWire has learned from a highly-placed informed source that the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. appears to be a target of an enforcement action by the multi-state task force formed by the North American Securities Administrators Association.
If so, this would explain a recent flurry of posts and press releases by the DTCC denying any complicity in the exploding national illegal manipulative trading scandal known as StockGate, embroiling Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX), Overstock (NASDAQ: OSTK), Krispy Kreme Donuts (NYSE: KKD) and Martha Stewart OmniLiving (NYSE: MSO), as well as provide a measure of validation to rampant rumors that the clearing house, jointly owned by the NASD and the New York Stock Exchange has received subpoenas.
Access archived page.
Manipulation and Markets
The Boston Globe cited by RGM Communications via Wayback, 31 January 2006
American Business Financial Services Inc. was a big business with serious problems long before it ended up on the bankruptcy liquidation scrap heap. The company’s line on its own slow-motion demise relied heavily on stock market conspiracy theories.
The Philadelphia subprime lender has filed several lawsuits claiming illegal market manipulation by investors trying to profit on the company’s woes. The latest version was filed last month in federal court in Delaware by its bankruptcy trustee against Boston Partners Asset Management.
Access archived page.
The Naked Truth on Illegal Shorting
The Motley Fool cited by RGM Communications via Wayback, 24 March 2005
It’s amazing how the word “naked” can liven up a discussion. Take naked short selling, for instance. The addition of this saucy little word turns the mundane act of borrowing and selling shares of stock in hopes of buying them back later at a lower price into a raging controversy fraught with conspiracy, secret identities, public recriminations, foreign intrigue, sports team owners, and now some of the top regulators in the land.
How can one word cause so much trouble? While legal short sellers must borrow the shares they sell, naked short sellers sell shares of stock they haven’t borrowed, have no intention of borrowing, and that may not even exist. Not surprisingly, this activity is illegal and has been since the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. But for a number of reasons, regulators have overlooked it in the past.
Access archived page.