Replies to post #290436 on Sulja Bros. Building Supplies, Ltd (SLJB)

[EarnestDD]

Just because the naked shorters did not follow the law and cover according to the Reg Sho grand-daddy clause elimination does not, in any way, imply that there is no naked short position.
1. Sorry ... Loftwerks came into existence after the grandfather clause came into effect, so it never did apply to Loftwerks. LOL

2. There has never been one ounce of proof that a naked short position existed.

3. We do know that a Pump & Dump was executed via the Nominee Accounts.

4. The naked short story comes up as the last gasp explanation by the Koolaid Korps to explain the volume, when they can not accept that fact that management Pumped and Dumped them. LOL

[brute_force]

Just because the naked shorters
did not follow the law and cover according to the Reg Sho grand-daddy clause elimination does not, in any way, imply that there is no naked short position.

redskies, the "naked short" you refer to was orchestrated by the scammers who sold shares over the # authorized. They called their OVERISSUANCE "captured shortseller capital". That overissuance, per SEC Rule 17ad-10, has to be reconciled REGARDLESS of any "granfather clause". The insiders, who illegally traded this stock via nominee accounts, MUST COVER THEIR OVERISSUANCE, ie, "captured shortseller capital".
You are also wrong again that if a company "crashes completely" that the short "never has to be covered". SEC Rule 17ad-10 clearly defines that any "securities not readily marketable" must be bought in to adhere to 17ad-10 in order for the MM's & TA to cancel the cert issuance and balance the books before doing so.
You really need to start defering to securities laws instead of just making stuff up.