realwhiz1- Technically it should, but in my opinion the hang up here is that the company was "hijacked" and illegal/unregistered shares were sold into the market. That is obviously bad.
But the system chugged along and turned those unregistered/illegal shares that entered the market into illegal 'air shares' (i.e. naked shorting) and took a risk. A risk that had worked like a charm over and over again.
We all know there is a lot of nonsensical talk down here in the pennies regarding naked shorting. A lot of that is BS Ihub talk to get people to buy in while others sell on the way up with no real "naked short" position.
This situation is unique in that the naked short is frozen in time for all to see. And the brokers are on he hook for quite a bit of cash.
The regulators need to do something aside from watching porn.
Obviously we all want this to trade, but I have come to the conclusion that even if this goes to court we will win.
I will not let this die.
My fear is the scumbags that the crooks that took our money are calculating that it will be "cheaper" to take this to court rather than abide by security laws that are intact to let it trade.
Rule 203 comes to mind. Is there anyone here that can tell my why 203 should not be implemented here? JANICE... PAGING DR. JANICE.
If we go the court route so be it. We will eventually win in court. With that settlement I will make it my lifelong mission to take those very entities (i.e SEC, FINRA, DTCC) back to court for breaking security laws to let it get to court. Class action after we get our settlement could be cool.
Does that make sense?
I will chase these cockroaches wherever they go!
Cheers!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
