Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
BOO! 👻
lol.
“Others profit from it on purpose;”
LMAO! Of course they do! It this how it is SUPPOSE to work.
As does anyone who lends an asset, they get consideration for doing so.
Like getting interest on a loan or rent on a house.
smh.
“A bit paranoid too if you ask me“
Lol…like the person who got taken to the cleaners by Rory Cutaia, and scuttled away two years ago…and came back to follow me to this board.
Have I been living in your head rent free for that long?
LMAO.
By the way…I am a dude. But you always did fall for false narratives.
BTW your formerly favorite stock is a disaster. Exactly as I always predicted.
GL!
I have already addressed this one. And once again Wes is making something rather mundane and the normal course to sound nefarious.
So let’s cover it again.
Newly issued free trading stock does not show up as a DTC deposit until it has been first sold into the market. I could provide a detailed explanation as to why, but I doubt it would get anywhere…lol.
Therefore the DTC deposits are going to be less than a Broadridge reported share count or any count of non-restricted stock…especially while it is being issued…as there is a lag. The difference in the numbers is simply the amount of issued stock that has not been sold into the market.
Go look at OTC Markets where share structures are regularly reported now. You will not find a single instance of the DTC deposits being more than the unrestricted share count…and usually it is less.
This claim is therefore just more bullshit to dupe the believers and deflect from the real culprit.
I could not care less what people think.
lol.
And I see we have another one who doesn’t know how to use the reply button.
The non-reply reply.
That is one of the more ridiculous claims…that Wes created out of whole cloth and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work.
That paragraph is a bunch of word salad.
But we are back to the basic claim that brokers used their customers stock in unauthorized ways…which there is no way Mullen would even know this.
Once again, that is only between the broker and their clients. If such activity occurred the client should report it to FINRA. If they have a cause of action they can sue their broker.
The company has nothing to do with it. None
But people are falling for this nonsense. Many of these claims will be dismissed out of hand…if it ever even gets that far.
“The defendant now has two options, one is the prove the claim has no basic…“
I assume you mean “basis”.
That is a funny take on the legal system in the US.
The defendant has to prove something??? Really?
LMAO…this place cracks me up.
I think you have that backwards.
No defendant has to prove anything.
smh.
You are kinda making my point. Any issue with a brokerage lending out or selling stock from a customer account without permission of some form is entirely an issue between the broker and their customer.
Not the company.
Ergo the claim is bogus.
And when I said “they” had no way to know…I wasn’t referring to the customer.
I was referring to Mullen. There is no way to for them to know what they allege.
I guess I have to be completely clear.
A broker is only allowed to lend out shares of a margin account according the the margin account agreement.
Now if they get permission from a cash account holder fine, but that is a one off and requires a request.
So your argument seems to be that the brokers were lending stock out of cash accounts without the holders permission…otherwise it is unclear what you are talking about.
I am simply working with that assumption.
My comment still stands.
1) how would they know?
but more importantly….
2) such activity by a broker is between them and their customer.
Well let’s just assume you are correct…and that the brokers were lending shares out of customers cash accounts without their permission…which BTW they would have no way to know.
That is solely an issue between the customer and their broker and has zero to do with the company.
That is yet one more example of why the claims are BS.
Lost? Not a single person has refuted the observation I made about the very first claim and the fact it was entirely contradicted by the company’s OWN filings.
LMAO.
Can you?
“This Lawsuit only covers the last four months, May through August.“
Which is when most of the dilution BY THE COMPANY was occurring.
The OS grew by 1100% in those four months.
Coincidence? lol.
Oh I understand what is in the lawsuit, probably better than most apparently…I am just pointing out it doesn’t make sense with how things actually work.
Stock lending and borrowing for the purposes of shorting have some pretty defined processes. And when one understands how that works they can pretty quickly see the ridiculousness of the claim.
There are other examples.
They are relying on the ignorance of most penny players to those important details in trying to sell the deflection from the only real culprit. The company itself.
Umm…stock can only be lent from a margin account.
So in order to make any sense of what they are saying the restricted stock would have to have been sitting in a margin account.
Not a cash account.
And your “borrowing fees” statement makes zero sense. LOL.
Again…everything they talk about along this line is between a broker and their customer…not the company.
Then why has Christian never won any of his supposed “naked shorting” lawsuits.
I have yet to find one.
Hope will spring eternal…lol.
But that is how it goes in the penny world…ignore what is actually said and speculate on what wasn’t said.
Akin to sticking one’s head in the ground to avoid the reality.
First of all, brokers can lend out stock from a margin account. Nothing illegal about that.
Second, in most cases restricted stock can’t be lent out because it is not liquid…and certainly not to cover a short already sold into the market as that is skirting Rule 144.
But in a case were the conditions exist for it to be lent out, it would be part of the brokerage agreement with the client.
But last and most importantly the process of lending out stock to deliver for a short position is completely normal. If it was lent out without the account owners permission or in violation off their account agreement that is broker and their customer…not MULN.
And there is no way to cover an open short position with more borrowed stock. That fairly complicated “loophole” was closed many years ago.
Yet another example of a claim that has no basis in reality. They are just throwing shit up there.
I don’t think the Christian is clueless…but he has been pushing this conspiracy theory for years and years…with little to no actual success. But that isn’t really the point for him. He is providing a service for which there is a market, penny stock CEO’s looking to deflect blame for a falling share price.
This claim is just a little more ridiculous than most…
I will explain it once more.
The majority of the complaint alleges supposedly “illegal” activity or “fraud” by persons who received stock issuances from the company.
That stock would have been received by them and then sold into the market via a brokerage.
Hence the reason they say “or their customer accounts” in the complaint.
The ONLY people or entities that received stock from the company are those already known to Michery…his financiers primarily and perhaps others.
And he agreed in writing and filed with the SEC to let them do exactly what he alleges is illegal or fraud…so how on earth can it be fraud if he agreed to it?
And shorting against the box, as they did, is not illegal.
So he does not have a claim based on the facts as we know them, or the law.
I understand why some people want to ignore all that…but it’s there in the filings black and white.
I don’t think it will ever get to the point where he discloses the John Doe’s unless someone wants to be the sacrificial lamb with no real impact to them in the settlement. Heck some of them may even being using the hype of this lawsuit to sell more…although the stock price has not responded the way some have hoped.
Limited evidence…it’s in the filings and the complaint.
Did Michery issue stock to someone he had no agreement to do so?
Of course not.
These guys are hoping on their believer’s ignorance to forget or ignore what they have already disclosed as it contradicts their claim.
There is such a thing as informed speculation. The evidence supports what I “speculate”.
And prominent law firm?
LOL…he has been peddling this shit for years.
Forbes article worth a read.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonkochkodin/2023/06/22/the-loony-conspiracy-theory-threatening-wall-street/?sh=57590c24ba1c
Here’s a hint of how we know it is them…
Because the claims mostly relate to shorting against a future issuance by the company.
That means anyone who had entered into an agreement with the company to be issued shares (for whatever reason) are the ones potentially covered by the complaint.
And we know who alot of those people were.
It’s only a question of who was using TDA, Schwab and NFS.
These people aren’t some random parties that had no dealing with Michery. These are people HE DEALT WITH.
Mostly the financiers.
And as I have pointed out many times, the complaint alleges activity which the company SPECIFICALLY agreed to.
That is why this “lawsuit” is going no where.
What is funny as hell is that the claims ALL lead back to their financiers and those they issued shares to.
That is why this is so ridiculous and only for show. They aren’t going to bite the hand that feeds them.
Is he really going to sue his financiers for doing exactly what he agreed to allow them to do?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172715779
That’s why they are John Doe’s. LMAO
MULN was naked shorted for a time when it was on the threshold securities list for a number of months.
What people fail to recognize is that naked shorting was being done by the financiers in advance of an issuance to them as the share purchase agreement allowed.
They had 35 days to deliver the shares on the naked short before a buyin was forced.
As I point out in the post below, one of the claims Michery is making in his lawsuit is that they did exactly what the agreement allowed them to do. Did he not remember?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172715779
“I also find it narcissistically odd that people think I attempt to reply to their posts instead of just making new posts with quotes from other posts to expose FUD.“
Ahhh…I see…usually interpret a post, like the one below with “you”s as a reply to me.
Ooooh, I'm happy for you!
Unfortunately (for you), it's just more FUD again. I said "almost never". I still stand by what I had said.
The naked shorting WAS the dilution. It amazes me people don’t get this.
From a market dynamics perspective “dilution” from naked shorting (being covered by the issuance) and dilution directly from the issuance is a distinction WITHOUT any practical difference other than timing.
If using the company’s own words to point out a huge contradiction between their complaint and their SEC filings makes me an “expert basher” then I fully accept the label.
Also…did no one teach you how to use the reply button? LOL.
I always find it odd that people chose to reply to a post…without actually “replying”.
And don’t forget DelPack….
“I said "almost never". I still stand by what I had said.”
Ah…so I am the exception. LMAO.
I know my post is uncomfortable for the believers to read since it points out a rather significant contradiction in what the company has said in its SEC filings and what they claim in the complaint…using their own words.
I wonder if Wes was aware of the language in the prospectus…
I think not.
“My posts were about illegal naked shorting, not Michery or any of MULN PR's, but keep posting that FUD and switching topics. It's quite typical of bashers imo.”
LOL…Have you forgotten what you said in the post just prior?
“Kind of like stock bashers, they almost never show proof or links to back up their FUD, but instead hope that their intended targets settle with their flawed arguements.”
I showed proof to back up my argument.
The company’s own words.
That lawsuit is slowly going to fall apart…it appears to be pretty sloppy.
Flawed argument? LOL. So where is the flaw in this argument? …complete with the company’s OWN words….
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172715779
Did Michery forget what he put in his own filing or was Christian unaware of it…?
That was a remarkably clueless claim to make…given what they are accusing the defendants of is EXACTLY what they allowed for in the share purchase agreement.
I kinda hope TDA et al come back at them like a ton of bricks…given the new level of nonsense in that complaint.
Thought you might like this one…
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172715779
“Financiers are not TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, National Finance Services, and others.“
Of course they aren’t…but they are “customers” of some brokerage.
So let me give you one concrete example of what I am talking about with the ridiculous nature of the claims.
This is from the very beginning of the claim.
In furtherance of their scheme, Defendants and the John Doe Defendants unlawfully: (1) sold fictitious Mullen shares in advance of the issuance of new shares by the Company for either their own proprietary accounts or their customers’ accounts
The Selling Stockholders may participate in short sales of our Common Stock. They may enter into hedging transactions with broker-dealers, which may in turn engage in short sales of the shares of Common Stock in the course of hedging in positions they assume. The Selling Stockholders may also sell shares of Common Stock short and deliver shares of Common Stock covered by this prospectus to close out short positions and to return borrowed shares in connection with such short sales. The Selling Stockholders may also loan or pledge shares of Common Stock to broker-dealers that in turn may sell such shares. Such activity could cause a decline in the market price of the shares of our Common Stock
Well here it is…
https://docdro.id/TiO5BWY
I have trouble getting beyond “fictitious shares”. LMAO.
The reason the threshold list closed out as I predicted it would is because the financiers stopped selling short and used the newly issued stock to cover….EXACTLY as the agreement allowed them to.
The rules allow a naked short against a future issuance to cover to be open for up to 35 days before the stock has to be deliver or a buyin is forced.
Both of those lawsuits were settled. Nothing was proven or admitted.
In Overstocks case Byrne was ultimately fired by the BOD. The dude is always been a bit of a conspiracy minded nut case.
Assuming any of Mullen’s claims survive…there will no doubt be a “settlement” at some point…and the lawyers will get paid…with not much else. lol.
The ShareIntel data is useless, and Christian has never actually “won” any of the stupid “shorting” cases he has brought…and his MMTLP one is in the rocks…lol.
This is quite simply Wes cashing in on the fact that there are many diluted pos stocks where the CEO needs to create a distraction and he is only too happy to oblige.
Usually when someone claims someone else has broken the law, you take it to the authorities…
…except, well, when the “law” really hasn’t been broken but you simply want to shout it out in a civil suit. LOL.
At some point I will get my hands on all 47 pages…it sounds like it will be entertaining reading.
Jesus…what a bunch of malarky. Some of the pages of the claim are making their way to various sites and boards and so far it is astounding how dumb they are.
There is a reason that the Broadridge numbers and the DTCC deposits don’t match…the supposed “imbalance” is because not all shares end up in DTCC right away. They only end up as a DTCC deposit once they have been first sold into the market. It is why DTCC deposits ALWAYS lag unrestricted issued share counts.
The other one I saw was on the first page where they are complaining that the brokers were (illegally) short selling stock (on behalf of their clients) and then covering with the newly issued stock.
First, that is NOT illegal.
And second, and most laughable is the FACT that Mullen’s financing agreement SPECIFICALLY allowed this type of activity to occur. So they are complaining about activity that they allowed to occur in the first place?
In another item I saw about the brokers supposedly selling stock they were meant to hold for their clients…it’s almost as if they have never heard of or are totally unfamiliar with how “book entry” works.
I can’t wait to see some of the responses from the brokers.
The more stuff I see the stupider it gets.
Defendants claimed? Where?