Seem to remember you were guy who stickied Adam Feuersteins lies about ATL-DC and DCVax-L. Well. Excuse me for not believing you are a credible source in anything regarding NWBO.
This is why we haven’t got naked short evidence at this moment.
Because market makers can simply keep it off the books by following this scheme:
That is why Laura Posner and Joshua Mitts made an amicus brief to Supreme Court regarding traceability of shares in high frequency trading.
How Traceability Applies to Naked Shorting
• Naked shorting means selling shares without borrowing or even locating them first. This creates a “phantom” short - a trade that shouldn’t legally settle.
• Traceability in this context isn’t about linking shares to a registration statement (as in Slack), but about reconstructing the trade flow to see:
• Who sold what
• Whether they had the shares
• Whether the trades ever settled properly
Tools That Make This Possible
• Audit Trails (like the SEC’s CAT system): Every order, cancellation, and execution is logged with timestamps and trader IDs.
• Broker-dealer records: These show whether shares were located or borrowed before short sales.
• Blue sheets (regulatory trading data): Detail who traded what and when, often subpoenaed in SEC or court investigations.
With these tools, regulators or plaintiffs can trace trades back to naked shorting events, exposing:
• Failure to deliver (FTDs)
• Spoofing or layering that coincides with illegal shorts
• Which market makers or hedge funds originated the trades
How This Supports NWBO’s Case
NWBO isn’t just alleging spoofing — they believe a massive synthetic short position was built using illegal methods, including:
• Spoofing to drive the price down
• Selling phantom shares during price drops
To prove this, NWBO must trace trading patterns using CAT data, FTD logs, and broker records - exactly the type of modern evidence Posner and Mitts argued should be allowed in court.
Traceability logic can help expose naked shorting, especially in lawsuits like NWBO’s.
It won’t be about registered vs. unregistered shares, but about reconstructing trading sequences to show illegal short sales, manipulation, and harm.
The regulatory infrastructure now exists to do this - and Slack v. Pirani helps normalize the use of that data in court.
How about SECs decision to make it harder to trace through CAT?
The evolving situation around the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) has implications for the traceability framework advanced by Laura Posner and Joshua Mitts - but it does not render their approach unusable. Here is a breakdown:
What’s happening with CAT
• An appeals court (11th?Circuit) recently vacated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s 2023 “Funding Order” for CAT – the part that allowed self-regulatory organizations (SROs) to pass all operating costs to broker-dealers was found arbitrary and capricious.
• The SEC issued a statement in February?2025 saying that it granted exemptive relief for certain data fields in CAT, e.g., removing certain personally-identifiable information (PII) from mandatory reporting.
• Industry commentary suggests that CAT is under review, with potential scaling back of data-collection scope or operational changes.
Does this destroy the Posner/Mitts traceability intent?
No – not fully. But it creates risks and requires adaptation.
Why it does not destroy their approach:
• Posner & Mitts argued that modern audit trails make traceability feasible. CAT remains the principal umbrella system and the legal foundation (via Rule?613) for collecting order/Execution/trader-ID data.
• Even with changes, a lot of CAT infrastructure remains in place: exchanges/SROs are still required to report, and data continues to exist for past periods and for major events.
• The traceability framework is broader than just CAT: it contemplates broker records, exchange logs, timestamped orders, cancellation/route history, etc. So even if CAT is weakened, other forms of data may fill in.
What changes threaten their approach:
• If CAT’s scope is radically narrowed (e.g., less granular data, fewer account/trader identifiers, less complete cross-market linkage), then the ability to trace precise order flow or participant identity weakens. For example, the exemptive relief removing certain PII weakens one dimension of traceability.
• If funding/operational problems delay or reduce data availability, timely discovery of order-level data becomes more complicated.
• If courts or regulators deny plaintiffs access to CAT data (or if data becomes less complete), then the “digital breadcrumbs” that underpin Posner/Mitts’ theory become harder to rely upon.
What it means for Northwest Biotherapeutics (NWBO) and discovery
For NWBO’s spoofing/manipulation case, here are considerations:
• Access to historic data matters – Even if CAT’s future scope is uncertain, data already collected remains useful. NWBO should pursue subpoenas or interrogatories aimed at historical exchange/broker logs and CAT database outputs.
• Tailor discovery requests broadly – Do not rely exclusively on “CAT” as a label. Include “order-lifecycle” data, cancellation/route logs, broker compliance reports, exchange audit logs.
• Focus on timeliness and granularity – Posner/Mitts emphasised modern traceability via timestamped orders and routing history. NWBO’s strategy should emphasise those exact metrics (e.g., spoof orders, rapid cancellations, effect on price within 1-24 hours as alleged).
• Prepare for data-gaps or resistance – Given the regulatory uncertainty, expect defendants to argue that “CAT was not fully operational” or “data is only partially available.” NWBO’s team should anticipate motions to limit discovery or argue deficiencies.
• Use the doctrinal argument as leverage – The fact that courts (via *Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani) and scholars accept that modern audit trails can enable traceability creates persuasive force: NWBO can argue that even if CAT is under pressure, the industry’s accepted standard is to trace order/participant flow. This strengthens NWBO’s position to demand full disclosure.
Summary
While CAT’s operational and funding future is uncertain, the core traceability thesis advanced by Posner and Mitts remains viable. For NWBO, the key is to act proactively: issue broad discovery requests, leverage existing data sets, and anticipate resistance on the grounds of “data unavailability.” The regulatory shift does not nullify their strategy - it makes timing, comprehensiveness of data requests, and litigation readiness more critical.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
