Living, a lender can make a loan that is convertible into shares and 6 months later, under rule 144, he has effectively had the ability to have shares for over 6 months and they can be converted and registered for sale.
In this case, that is not the usual method lenders of this type sell shares. They sell shares short with a cooperative broker with the understanding that Radient will supply the selling broker with a certificate covering the same number of shares sold by the lender. This type of sale never shows up on the "true" bi monthly short list unless Radient failed to supply the shares.
Now, who would have been selling from Feb 11 to Jul 11? The 2010 lenders got convertible notes and warrants for their loans made in 2010. There was no "agreement from hell" with the 2010 lenders so they would have converted their notes under rule 144 whenever was the best time to sell them. Their notes had a fixed conversion price so when the fake news of the CIT deal in India was released, the 2010 lenders would have been converting their notes and warrant and selling.
Also, during that time, anyone with a broker allowing a stock of that price to be actually shorted could have been selling short.
I have never shorted nor intend to have any financial interest in this stock. I am not connected with anyone who trades, shorts or has financial interests in this stock. I only post facts and my opinions. I do not post on IHUB with different aliases.
