I disagree with your statement, which is based on the false premises that the recapitalization has been presented with no apparent purpose other than to force a covering of the short interest.
Then kindly state the other "apparent" purpose.
Furthermore, I do not believe that the SEC's action in a single unique circumstance is a reliable indicator of how it will treat all short positions in all stocks trading on all exchanges.
Again, per Jacobs and the majority of the longs here (and this is practically unanimous on the other boards), there is no action for the SEC to take here, that their role is little more than a rubber stamp for whatever AREM wants to do with their stock. If that is correct, then this will in no way be a "single, unique" circumstance.
Here we have a stock that has been subjected to abusive short tactics
Has a complaint been filed with the SEC?
the NSCC has documented a failure to deliver more than a million shares
I must confess to not being clear on the significance out of this. Does this mean buy-ins occurred? Were even buy-ins unsuccessful in retrieving shares? Does this mean that less than 1 million out of the 11 million short interest are "legitimate"? I couldn't find an obvious reference to the documentation on the NSCC website, do you have a link to it perchance?
the NASDAQ, is refusing to enforce UPC 11830 while its owners, the brokers, are profiting from those very abuses.
Or so it is claimed, anyway, though from what I know of the NASD I could believe that much. |
