I'm sorry, but the quote from the article doesn't support your assertion.
1. "The SEC found that Goldman Sachs was mismarking logs and allowed customers to engage in short selling without determining whether the securities could reasonably be borrowed at settlement."
This falls under my "technical recordkeeping failures at brokerages". Note that it doesn't allege any actual naked short selling.
2. "In 2013, a Charles Schwab subsidiary was found liable by the SEC for a naked short-selling scheme and fined $8.2 million."
This violation didn't involve the sale of shares at all. It involved a complicated options trade. (IPIX doesn't have any publicly traded options).
Hence my "manipulative derivative trading" description.
3. "The SEC charged two Merrill Lynch entities in 2015 with using “inaccurate data in the course of executing short sale orders”, fining them $11 million”.
A combination of "failures of brokers to follow their own internal guidelines" and ""technical recordkeeping failures".
....In sum, "but little about naked short selling."
I'm not saying that NSS doesn't exist. The VAST MAJORITY of it is undertaken by market makers as part of their regular daily operation and is 100% legal. The positions are typically closed during the same trading day.
What I am saying is that there are rules in place to expose abusive naked short selling and that those rules show that there is no naked short interest in IPIX....except maybe 2,983 shares worth as of January 13, 2021.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
