thanks mainuh
so let's say, hypothetically (but certainly not well beyond the limits of possibility), an MM is short a substantial amount of ISBL and cannot cover by the end of the day. They would be short of BGGR by 1/30 of their ISBL short count, but being as though they'd be naked shorting, how are they not walking into a trap that could be a lawsuit against the shorting MMs? their position is evidence that they've been naked shorting in such a manner that could be detrimental to both ISBL and BGGR.