Good questions Travel...Correct; the legit shareholders risk is only if the company flops, but also we sustain the loss of price per share as it is diluted and only those who have a nerve of steel and sound DD stay in the company, many get shaken out, which is of course, the MM s reason for the recent 'shake' for example.. The shorter has a 'trigger price' which is known to the broker who lends the shares in the first place, much like a margin call. At that point a mad scramble occurs and each MM metaphorically elbows the other out the way in order to grab the shares at the cheapest price possible.... Cue: Franky's MOASS:) The cusip change never works as a sole device for making shorts cover, in this case though, the TA is in on the trap and (I hope) will be holding the new shares preventing broker shenanigans. I dont know exactly how this will work but it is my surmise from the PR released by NWWV/Transfer Online.
Vis a vis Flirty Girl era...No, there are no issues with you buying then because even if they are what are termede 'air shares' that is not your problem but the brokers, who sold them as good to go. In other words the auspices is with them NOT you.
Re; the effect of NSS on the co. The answer is yes if all the shares are issued at once but often this is not the case and the company 'dilutes' in order to raise legitimate funds for legitimate reasons ie acquisition. If the price is reduced by illegal shorters diluting the share structure than the company itself may have to dilute 2,5,10, 100 times (depending on how chronic the NSS problem is) the amount of shares they would otherwise to enable them to raise the amount ($) needed for said acquisition. Again, reducing the value of shareholders shares.
The question of the new 60 million shares I would contend are the shares gifted as andividend in the new entity, if not, then perhaps you are correct and a new acquisition is in view.. Either way I trust them.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
