Replies to post #6118 on Destiny Media Tech Inc (DSNY)

[grubstake]

Remember, the day they announced the plan for developing G2 (Nov. 2011), the silent enemy came out to announce a lawsuit against Destiny going back to over a decade prior. Why would someone be so closely watching DSNY, and come out like a frightened specter the day of their announcement of a new disruptive technology unless this specter is very concerned about what is taking shape here?

[brooklyn13]

I agree with you - this is a massive bet, in the form of profit taking, against the credibility of the timeline laid out by the CEO. The supposedly naked shorts would be down maybe 1.50 a share at most, they could cover, take their losses, go long and make a lot more, if Clipstream is all that. Even if they can deny Destiny's uplisting at this point the company can try again in the near future.

It's also troubling that the MPE revenues have been in steady decline for three years, someone seems to be negotiating poorly with the major labels or there's just not that much money in the digital watermarking of musical files. The company, at this point, has to prove itself to investors at the next level, which it really hasn't done.

[Justfactsmam]

Sorry Kmikesara...you just dont know enough about Naked Shorting and those who have misjudged a company's ability to succeed while over-estimated their strength.

1. There has been NO fanfare about the launch...intentionally
2. The naked short seller IS selling more...because it must keep the price under some control (Containing its margin is dependent on contain the price above the short sale stock price...well under $1.00)
3. Short Seller knows it will lose total control if and when DSNY uplifts...so it is trying to keep it under $2 to kill the 90 day run)
4. IMHO...THERE IS NO AVAILABLE STOCK TO BUY...when it is estimated it is short in the millions of shares...share price could go up to $5 in no time...doubling its loss. (it is NAKED SHORTING...it is not "borrowing" stock and selling it)
5. No doubt they believe they have bought another 90days before having to address the Nasdaq uplisting again.

Launching and the PR AFTER the launch and the "customers" announced...will prove to be the dagger in the Funds heart.

[einstock]

Kmike,

This link will get you caught up on who/why they are short sellers in DSNY.

http://ragingbull.com/forum/topic/574932

Here's the gist of it though:

Destiny's response to the claim, filed on Monday, Dec. 12, contends that Noramco used the private placement agreement to obtain confidential information that it would not have otherwise been able to receive. It then began an "aggressive and secret campaign" to push down the stock through naked shorting and other unspecified methods. It continued to short the company as a means of keeping the price down so it could defer or avoid having to cover its naked short positions at a loss, the response states.

The private placement, as described in the response, was first proposed in June, 2000. Destiny's officers had recently met a man called Paul Louie who said he represented Mr. MacDonald and others, including now-defunct brokerage Thomson Kernaghan & Co. Ltd. and its chairman, Mark Valentine. (Thomson Kernaghan, which was known for death spiral financings under Mr. Valentine, collapsed in scandal in 2002. Mr. Valentine later pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the United States for market manipulation and received four years of probation.)

Mr. Louie told Destiny that he was interested in arranging a $35.6-million financing for the company through Noramco and Thomson Kernaghan, the response states. The amount was substantial to Destiny, as it had never had a financing larger than $1-million at the time. The company says that it agreed to some initial terms, in which it provided confidential information to Noramco and did not pursue any other sources of financing. In August, 2000, it received the now-disputed $100,000 (U.S.) from Noramco as part of that arrangement.

Although Destiny understood that the $100,000 (U.S.) was provided for a share subscription, it says that it did not execute any share purchase agreement. This was partly because it could not get Noramco to agree to a price. The parties discussed $1.50 and 75 cents, but ultimately did not agree on anything. Destiny says that Noramco intentionally avoided setting a price so it could depress the stock sufficiently to pressure the company into accepting a lower subscription price.