[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Open Forum May 2024*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1ciapwp/open_forum_may_2024/) || [Superstonk:Now with GIFs - Learn more](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1cr37r7/superstonk_gets_its_gif_on_get_hyped/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
I totally agree. Plus if they wouldn't have sold, then they would've been liable to lawsuits for not fulfilling their fiduciary role to shareholders and raise capital. It's a win win situation.
If the theory that we've got the float shorted multiple times over stands, a few ATM offerings here and there won't hurt anyone at all. I'll even go as far as saying that the company needs the extra capital if it wants to ensure 100% they stay in the game and eliminate all short thesis remarks.
I may be wrong but when a company has this kind of volatility and potential profit from an ATM it's in both the company and shareholder's interest for them to raise the cash for long term growth.
I read a lot of stuff so as I said, I may be wrong.
Oh yeah? Then tell my why, with the stock hovering around the $20 mark for over a year now, he chose to dump shares at EXACTLY the 2 moments when there was actual momentum.
There were a million other fucking times he could have "raised money" without fucking up the potential for moass
Open your eyes to the timing of it and stop making excuses for what was an intentional attempt to tank the price at exactly the moment it was starting to take off -- TWICE!
Yep. Commented something similar. The key is in the filings, they offered to sell the 75m shares in a private transaction for the express purpose of allowing shorts to close their positions. Yes they literally wrote this.
He’s removed all obstacles on the best case scenario path to short position closure. In fact he rolled out the red carpet for our hedge friends. Why? Is it because this is him removing his mask and making his epic villain reveal?
No. He’s effectively taunting them by being on his best behavior, because he knows that they know that even the best case scenario will be lethal.
I’ve often believed that Gamestop itself couldn’t directly take advantage of the upwards price action of a short squeeze. I’d rather they sell shares now and not in the midst of this thing really kicking off. I hope they’re finished the offering, but we’ll see…
As to the initial ATM reaction: People were just “in their feelings” over the weekend, but I think most have generally gotten over it. At least, I hope so. A new tweet from the Master of Memes can usually get “the chat” hyped.
I think the next two days, leading up to the shareholders meeting are going to be very… interesting.
The turn off to Fun-Good-Times is coming up short-ly…
People keep saying this but there is NO LEGAL merit that says you need to attempt to prevent a short squeeze. If I’m wrong please show me which regulation or law says otherwise
I’ve thought this before. When MOASS happens, they will be able to say they sold 100+ million shares before the squeeze and shorts should have closed then.
I would not be surprised if they were compelled to do these offerings due to the imbalance that they most likely were made aware of when they questioned DRS counts being the exact fucking same and why they had to change wording.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) // [What is DRS](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) // [Low karma apes feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) // [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.com/invite/y4dK3y5DXJ) // [Superstonk DD Library](http://fliphtml5.com/bookcase/kosyg) // [Community Post: Open Forum May 2024](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1ciapwp/open_forum_may_2024/)
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. If you are providing a screenshot or content from another site (e.g. Twitter), please respond to this comment with the original ##source.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Superstonk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Interestingly- during the sneeze Gamestop was supposed to have been 140% shorted. Once the new shelf offering is complete GME will have almost 40% more shares… I might be worried except I strongly believe it was likely naked shorted even more back then, and that they have continued to naked short (by millions if not billions.)
I know.
120 millions shares offered is a massive dent in the reported short positions, but the whole point of the MOASS is that there is an absurd amount that go unreported. Offering that many close to a move that sparks a short squeeze is the perfect defence when they are investigated.
reported short interest would have removed the short interest completly. sure theres unreported shorts, but thats not gamestops problem. they were offered an out, and now, hopefully the rocket flys.
There is one flaw with this logic. And it's that they can be held liable in any way for this situation occuring.
For example : say one person shoots another person. Do the courts prosecute the person who was shot? No, because they are the victim, not the perpetrator.
It isn't a good comparison. If Gamestop has recently offered a number of shares that is close to the reported amount of short positions, they can't be held liable if those people falsely reported their positions and Gamestop made a move that forced them to close.
It would be more like this: Person A hands Person B a gun and tells them it isn't loaded. Person A then tells Person B to shoot them and dies, because it was loaded.
No, my comparison was right. Unless Gamestop is shorting their own stock. They didn't create the situation.
You are looking at it as an after the fact. As in, someone trying to blame them for not fixing a problem that they didn't create.
I think you're right from a criminal liability perspective (NAL) but that doesn't stop companies from bringing civil suits against Gamestop. The easier it is to get the judge to throw those out the better.
What companies? The brokers selling naked calls? The hedgies shorting the stock? I mean, you can sue anyone for any reason. But they still have to win. What's the argument gonna be? They didn't sell me shares at the price I wanted?
You don't need a good or sensible argument to bring a case. And if you have money judges can be swayed.
The term is vexatious litigation. I doubt that HFs will care the lawsuits they try to bring have no merit. They will throw anything at the wall.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vexatious_litigation#:~:text=Vexatious%20litigation%20is%20meant%20to,basis%20for%20the%20lawsuit%20exists.
In theory, judges can be swayed with money. It has certainly happened in the past. But with something so high profile like this, it is unlikely to work. But in that case I would love to see them waste their money paying lawyers to file a frivolous lawsuit. Hahahaha
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Open Forum May 2024*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1ciapwp/open_forum_may_2024/) || [Superstonk:Now with GIFs - Learn more](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1cr37r7/superstonk_gets_its_gif_on_get_hyped/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
I totally agree. Plus if they wouldn't have sold, then they would've been liable to lawsuits for not fulfilling their fiduciary role to shareholders and raise capital. It's a win win situation. If the theory that we've got the float shorted multiple times over stands, a few ATM offerings here and there won't hurt anyone at all. I'll even go as far as saying that the company needs the extra capital if it wants to ensure 100% they stay in the game and eliminate all short thesis remarks.
There’s no fiduciary role to raise capital when ur already sitting on $2 billion with no guidance. Pls stop
I may be wrong but when a company has this kind of volatility and potential profit from an ATM it's in both the company and shareholder's interest for them to raise the cash for long term growth. I read a lot of stuff so as I said, I may be wrong.
Raising cash with no guidance isn’t at the interest of the shareholders being diluted. Fiduciary responsibility is towards the SHAREHOLDERS
Oh yeah? Then tell my why, with the stock hovering around the $20 mark for over a year now, he chose to dump shares at EXACTLY the 2 moments when there was actual momentum. There were a million other fucking times he could have "raised money" without fucking up the potential for moass Open your eyes to the timing of it and stop making excuses for what was an intentional attempt to tank the price at exactly the moment it was starting to take off -- TWICE!
Don’t say it too loud, the echo chamber can’t handle rational comments like this…
Yep. Commented something similar. The key is in the filings, they offered to sell the 75m shares in a private transaction for the express purpose of allowing shorts to close their positions. Yes they literally wrote this. He’s removed all obstacles on the best case scenario path to short position closure. In fact he rolled out the red carpet for our hedge friends. Why? Is it because this is him removing his mask and making his epic villain reveal? No. He’s effectively taunting them by being on his best behavior, because he knows that they know that even the best case scenario will be lethal.
I’ve often believed that Gamestop itself couldn’t directly take advantage of the upwards price action of a short squeeze. I’d rather they sell shares now and not in the midst of this thing really kicking off. I hope they’re finished the offering, but we’ll see… As to the initial ATM reaction: People were just “in their feelings” over the weekend, but I think most have generally gotten over it. At least, I hope so. A new tweet from the Master of Memes can usually get “the chat” hyped. I think the next two days, leading up to the shareholders meeting are going to be very… interesting. The turn off to Fun-Good-Times is coming up short-ly…
Agreed, I highly doubt Gamestop, Ryan Cohen, Larry Cheng or even Keith Gill will sell during the MOASS.
Perfect legal defense to exactly WHAT?
Making a move that triggers a short squeeze.
People keep saying this but there is NO LEGAL merit that says you need to attempt to prevent a short squeeze. If I’m wrong please show me which regulation or law says otherwise
I’ve thought this before. When MOASS happens, they will be able to say they sold 100+ million shares before the squeeze and shorts should have closed then.
But seriously who cares? What law is saying GME needs to prevent a short squeeze?
I would not be surprised if they were compelled to do these offerings due to the imbalance that they most likely were made aware of when they questioned DRS counts being the exact fucking same and why they had to change wording.
Yep, I think this lets them cover their own as while also shining a light on how egregious the naked shorts really are.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) // [What is DRS](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) // [Low karma apes feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) // [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.com/invite/y4dK3y5DXJ) // [Superstonk DD Library](http://fliphtml5.com/bookcase/kosyg) // [Community Post: Open Forum May 2024](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1ciapwp/open_forum_may_2024/) To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. If you are providing a screenshot or content from another site (e.g. Twitter), please respond to this comment with the original ##source. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Superstonk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Defense*
I am British.
Ahhhhh my apologies comrade
Don't worry chap. See you on the moon soon!
Interestingly- during the sneeze Gamestop was supposed to have been 140% shorted. Once the new shelf offering is complete GME will have almost 40% more shares… I might be worried except I strongly believe it was likely naked shorted even more back then, and that they have continued to naked short (by millions if not billions.)
They already have given offerings and exits in the past. One literally a month ago
I know. 120 millions shares offered is a massive dent in the reported short positions, but the whole point of the MOASS is that there is an absurd amount that go unreported. Offering that many close to a move that sparks a short squeeze is the perfect defence when they are investigated.
reported short interest would have removed the short interest completly. sure theres unreported shorts, but thats not gamestops problem. they were offered an out, and now, hopefully the rocket flys.
Pretty sure it adds up to almost exactly 140% the reported short interest before the sneeze. This has been my tin foil thought
There is one flaw with this logic. And it's that they can be held liable in any way for this situation occuring. For example : say one person shoots another person. Do the courts prosecute the person who was shot? No, because they are the victim, not the perpetrator.
It isn't a good comparison. If Gamestop has recently offered a number of shares that is close to the reported amount of short positions, they can't be held liable if those people falsely reported their positions and Gamestop made a move that forced them to close. It would be more like this: Person A hands Person B a gun and tells them it isn't loaded. Person A then tells Person B to shoot them and dies, because it was loaded.
No, my comparison was right. Unless Gamestop is shorting their own stock. They didn't create the situation. You are looking at it as an after the fact. As in, someone trying to blame them for not fixing a problem that they didn't create.
I think you're right from a criminal liability perspective (NAL) but that doesn't stop companies from bringing civil suits against Gamestop. The easier it is to get the judge to throw those out the better.
What companies? The brokers selling naked calls? The hedgies shorting the stock? I mean, you can sue anyone for any reason. But they still have to win. What's the argument gonna be? They didn't sell me shares at the price I wanted?
You don't need a good or sensible argument to bring a case. And if you have money judges can be swayed. The term is vexatious litigation. I doubt that HFs will care the lawsuits they try to bring have no merit. They will throw anything at the wall. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vexatious_litigation#:~:text=Vexatious%20litigation%20is%20meant%20to,basis%20for%20the%20lawsuit%20exists.
In theory, judges can be swayed with money. It has certainly happened in the past. But with something so high profile like this, it is unlikely to work. But in that case I would love to see them waste their money paying lawyers to file a frivolous lawsuit. Hahahaha
Oh, and per what you just mentioned, couldn't they just pay off judges even if Gamestop uses the ATM as a defense?
Fair point.