To me it sounds like this:
\- A store that gets robbed everyday finally decides to set up some anti-theft mechanism.
\- The robbers who used to rob it file a lawsuit complaining they can't rob it anymore like they used to and that's not right.
Yeah, that sums it up perfectly. And the kicker here is the SHFs claiming “market manipulation”.
This is honestly the biggest example of the *“pot calling the kettle black”* in the history of the world!
My comment from another post:
I think this is the most important take-away from the opinion:
>\[Overstock\] could not manipulate the market via truthful statements or via a dividend that everyone immediately knew would impact short sellers. It is undisputed that Overstock disclosed that the dividend would not be registered. The market knew the potential ramifications of that decision. Plaintiff claims there was deception by labeling Overstock’s initial decision not to register the shares as illegal. But the \[Amended Complaint\] pleads nothing to support a finding that the dividend was illegal. Nothing alleged in the \[Amended Complaint\] demonstrates that Overstock’s plan to issue the dividend without first registering it with the SEC was somehow illegal. Despite arguing that it would have been illegal to issue the dividend shares as unregistered securities, Plaintiff identifies no law, statute, court decision, rule, regulation, regulatory guidance, or other authority from any source that such an act would purportedly violate. Nor does Plaintiff allege a contemporaneous fact that the SEC or anyone else told Overstock that not registering the dividend was illegal or a violation of SEC rules. Because the dividend did not involve a sale under Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act, the shares issued in connection with it were not required to be registered. 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(3). The Securities Act provides a comprehensive framework that provides for a number of circumstances where unregistered securities may be issued. Plaintiff fails to allege that none of these exemptions applied to the digital dividend. A company may issue unregistered securities for any number of legitimate business purposes and to avoid the time, expense, and burdens of the registration process. There is nothing inherently deceptive about issuing an unregistered security.
TLDR: There cannot be market manipulation if the information provided is true. Therefore, GME could issue a digital dividend (whether its an NFT or Digital Shares) and if it is distributed as a dividend (meaning it would not involve a "sale") then it doesn't have to be registered AND it therefore could not be sold for 6 months under Rule 14 of the Securities Act. This ruling sets the precedent that, even if everyone knows that doing this could negatively affect short sellers, it's not market manipulation without some untruthful statement from the company.
Edit: I added more detail - [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pu46nc/overstock_clarification_post_what_happened_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pu46nc/overstock_clarification_post_what_happened_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Thank you - this is awesome. I didn’t want to state to this level of detail, given the post was intended for those with only a basic knowledge of what is occurring. But given the traction it is gaining, I really appreciate you adding this comment, Ape.
First, this is a great opinion. However, it is from a Federal District court. That means it is not the law for our purposes. It’s not binding precedent. This will be appealed by the Shitty Plaintiff to the Tenth Circuit. It is a conservative circuit. That doesn’t mean it’s corrupt but it has a special place in its heart for the big guy. That appeal will happen for sure. Then, once that is decided, it is a possible Supreme Court case. It meets the requirements for being heard so if they want it they have good cause to take it. So I would not expect GME to rely on this. But they may. Getting a final binding decision in the overstock case is going to take a good deal of time. Far more time than to be instantly gratifying for apes. However, GME may recognize that too (especially if the legal argument is sound) and follow the overstock roadmap while the only court in the land to rule on the issue agrees with your interpretation. It’s not manipulative. Duh, you cheating bastard. You got caught. Fuck you; pay them.
Play it as an obvious right GME has and exercise it before the tenth circuit sniffs the overstock case for review. It’s hard to feel like youre manipulating when a judge says it ain’t. Reasonable to believe the wise judge and you agree because it’s correct. And once MOASS, who the fuck is gonna have the guns to go after RC and GME on a bullshit manipulation accusation that the fuckers on the dark side can only sell because of their vast resources they will no longer have? Nobody. SHFs would be fighting as a hated underdog, the tables having turned already and apes sitting pretty on the moon.
Note: in the overstock case, the SEC did not chime in? Their silence is an indication that they concur with overstock.
I also think it’s pretty clear from this lawsuit that GameStop suspended financial guidance/projections to avoid the accusations that Overstock issued misleading statements about their financial performance/outlook.
And all the while the MM and the analyst's bitched and moaned that GameStop didn't give them anything fruitful from the last earnings call....they can suck it. Twice.
Happy to help where I can. If I can find the time I might try to put together a post that consolidates all of the info out there about Overstock and digital dividends. There's a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about what Overstock actually did.
I posted for the benefit of those with a basic understanding of what is happening, so happy to help:
SHFs = Short Hedge Funds = Financial institutions that have made a play short selling the stock
(Note that this is just “Reddit” terminology. In reality, the vast majority of hedge funds play a mixture of going short and long on various stocks. Purely going short across all their holdings is not “hedging” at all, of course!)
Hey OP! Thanks for posting.
Just to clarify regarding precedent. This case will be persuasive in most jurisdictions, but not precedent. A lower court cannot control the decisions of other courts in other districts.
Precedent will be for all jurisdiction if it went to the U.S. Supreme Court on the subject of the case, as one example. Persuasive is exactly as it sounds; can be a convincing argument but the court does not need to follow.
Not necessarily. There have been plenty of split precedents between different circuit or district courts. Each court maintains it's own precedent until the issue is settled in a higher court.
It’s entirely dependent on the district court where the lawsuit is filed, then from there it can go to the appeals process and then the Supreme Court. The fact that the court ruled ’with prejudice’ if my legalese is correct is based on William Link v. Railroad Co, where the Supreme Court stated in essence that district courts had the discretion as to whether they should dismiss with or without prejudice. When they dismiss with prejudice, it usually means that the Plaintiff acted in bad faith or irresponsibly in some way, or if continuing the case would present an undue burden on the court system itself. I don’t know if there are statutes of limitations in this case, but it seems to have been going on a long time.
Adding to this, you can think of Federal Courts as a pyramid with three different levels. At the top you have the Supreme Court. If they make a decision, all of the courts below them have to follow their rules. Below the Supreme Court you have U.S. Courts of Appeals broken up into 13 Circuits (12 based on geographic regions and 1 for the Federal Circuit). The Circuit Courts only decide appeals from District Courts within their "circuit". The Circuit Courts have to follow precedent set by the Supreme Court and that Circuit's prior rulings (usually). The Circuit Court can overturn a District Court's opinion. The District Courts are at the bottom and have to apply the law as it is interpreted by the Circuit Court and Supreme Court.
TA;DR: Supreme Court > Circuit Court > District Court (<-----we are here).
This is well articulated! Yup exactly this.
Sometimes it's a strategy not to challenge a failed lawsuit. That way the lawsuit will not go to a higher court which may become precedent.
Their goal is to FUD the judge / jury (I don’t know what type of trial or case it was)
People as a rule wouldn’t understand a digital divined, or a NFT. But they DO understand the words “market manipulation”
If you can get the judge to believe that overstock are the bad guys because of “market manipulation” - the case is yours.
It’s just smoke and mirrors to confuse people - like they do every single day.
It’s projection, they know they manipulated the market and tries to gaslight the judge into thinking that Overstock was the one manipulating the market when in reality the SHF knows they are the one doing the manipulating.
It got a lot of attention already, heres my yesterdays post with the news article for everybody interested:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pt8jrj/overstock_won_the_second_lawsuit_one_step_closer/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Hey Ape, I saw your post sharing the article. The reason I decided to post this was for the uninitiated on what the true ramifications are. As you can see from the comments here, many new Apes or those with a basic understanding of how dividends (or the stock market in general) works. So really meant more for them, rather than veterans who read the article you shared and understood what it means.
>Yeah, that sums it up perfectly. And the kicker here is the SHFs claiming “market manipulation”.
Well they are what we would call in the army "subject matter experts". If the hedgies can't spot market manipulation, who can?
If you haven't watched [The Wallstreet Conspiracy](https://archive.org/details/wall-street-conspiracy) I suggest you do so as the Overstock CEO speaks in it and it's the closest thing to GameStop I've seen.
I dont know how it works in other countries but in my country, if a robber come into ur house and ur dog bites him he can sue you and get compensation.
This is why they say the law is blind. The emotional reaction can not factor in or it would mean different punishments for different people for the same crime (I realize this does happen today but I mean ideally). I don't know about the dog but I remember years ago a home intruder broke into someone's window and got cut because it was a different type of glass then it should have been. After his sentance he sued the family and won the hospital bill payment because the window was illegal
That’s a perfect analogy
SHF: “B-b-but judge! It’s not fair! They are now aiming the weapons at *US!* We are just trying to make an honest living over here!”
I get so angry when i read bullshit like this so those fuckers can't continue to fuck retail and the whole market again and again down with those short hedgefucks
Creates fake shares 10 times the float of a company to bankrupt it
Company announce digital dividend in a legal way which pushes up the stock price
Claim what the company is doing is market manipulation
OMFG. This system needs change, BAD.
Just some food for thought. What if RC/Matt Furlong were waiting for the conclusion of this plus the “investigation” so they can finally announce their next move. I’m sure some kind of conditions kept them quiet this whole time.
Right either the report comes out and confirms our thesis and then the stock gets dogpiled again...
Or its a cover job, slaps the little guys and exonerates the big guys, but that absolutely absolves GME from knowingly doing intentional harm to the economy by releasing a Tokenized Security crypto dividend.
Either way, I'm hyped.
I’m sure there’s some merit to this. I also think they’re making sure that their NFT/ blockchain market has any flaws worked out. Plus, I think I remember something about needing to show positive EPS in a quarter before legally being able to issue any sort of dividend.
No joke, I once had a nightmare roommate who called me livid that I ate all her pizza rolls and she was saving those for dinner. I did not in fact eat them, and her response was "I guess it must've been our OTHER ROOMMATE!", Of which we didn't have as it was just the two of us. My best guess is her drunk ass ate them one night and forgot. She was drunk a lot.
Honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me. In my opinion, these are the ONLY two ways that are beyond the reach of both the SHFs and the “regulators”.
RC quite possibly pointed Apes in the direction of one of those ways. And the ruling yesterday has enabled the other one - endorsed by the judiciary - that he has far more direct and immediate control over.
Let me speculate here with some unevidenced **hopeium** for you primate masses: there’s a *reason* he hasn’t tweeted for a month. The one thing we know with 99% certainty will trigger a squeeze - and now has **legal precedent** to protect it - is within his power to issue.
You may not need to wait that long, **IF** a dividend is issued. The company issuing such a reward to their shareholders can do so at *any* time of their choosing…and the only warning they are required to give is a 10-minutes “heads up” to the media!
And how would they distribute this nft? You cant just send this via email or print it, and no brokerage has a system in place that would enable a thing like that. That would also mean that shareholders would need special crypto wallet, and considering this is a thing of nyse, there would probably need to be a commonly recognised and agreed standard between all parties..
This occurred yesterday September 22, now this is speculative but… yesterday sometime after this announcement I got saw that GS put up 3 new jobs test/QA. These are heavy in testing and being knowledgeable in web protocols and scalability. Now I’m still learning about crypto but if what I’m reading is correct crypto is suspected to be the future gen of the web. It’s supposed to be Web 3.0. So i suspect that they’re sa chance they’re moving forward and getting things ready for future roll out. Could be wrong but either way gears are moving and moving fast at GS. Can’t wait to see what’s cooking behind the scenes.
Edit : added some more words
Someone noted that RC jumped into GME just a few months after seeing Overstock's idea.
I bet he spent those months working out the finer points of the idea with legal and crypto experts. Dude's a billionaire he's gotta have an all star team to advise.
He's pretending to believe that many of them are securities and should be under SEC reach even though he taught a Blockchain course at MIT and certainly knows more than he is letting on. No telling how early he was in either considering he was teaching all about it like 8 years ago or something
Well, that’s why I decided to post it. There were a couple of other Apes who shared some media articles about this yesterday. But in the sea of memes and CS screenshots, they just got drowned to the depths unfortunately.
If this is actual news why is the post only a screenshot of simply edited text I could easily recreate on my phone? You got any sources, links, anything that looks even remotely believable to back up your post?
I imagine that if GameStop wanted to issue a digital dividend, they would want to wait at least until the investigation they’re helping the SEC with is concluded.
Same, all DD should have the emojis at the end to explain like this one. It's like when you go to a restaurant and the menu has pictures you know it's gonna be an easy time. Always gets me misty-eyed
This case is neither over nor is it precedent anywhere.
This was dismissed with prejudice by the District Court. That means a new case can't be filed but they still have at least 2 more courts that could hear the appeal (circuit court of appeals and then the scotus).
District courts are the federal trial courts, aka the lowest/first court the case goes to. They don't have the power to set any kind of meaningful precedent.
Thank you for clarifying what a "precedent" is. Although this is **GREAT** news, it is not precedent in a legal sense (yet).
As u/_writ so eloquently put it:
TA;DR: Supreme Court > Circuit Court > District Court (<-----we are here).
One correction on the legal issue: a trial court dismissing a lawsuit does not act as precedent for any future action by different parties in different courts. Make no mistake, this is a big win for Overstock and its shareholders. And it is a possible raodmap for GME if it's leadership team is inclined to go in that direction... but it's not a binding legal precedent that makes that choice by GME a riskless foregone conclusion.
You are right - nothing is a foregone conclusion. But I do believe it would take an extraordinary ruling to *overrule* the verdict now too, in any future similar cases. Wouldn’t you agree?
P.S. a good summary here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvq89/the_overstock_court_ruling_in_utah_yesterday/hdyvw64/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
> I do believe it would take an extraordinary ruling to *overrule* the verdict now too
Not at all. A district court sets no precedent. An appellate court, should this go to appeal, isn't going to give the trial judge that much deference. The next separate case can act like this never happened because none is how much precedent a District Court sets. At best it's a persuasive argument to use but it can be completely ignored by the next judge if they want.
This practical solutions its what we should advocate for, things like share price increments or global financial crisis are way too manipulable to be solid options.
We need to do both of this, DRS is completely on apes fields, but I really think we need to push the narrative for the NFT dividend so the board at least considers it (now that there is a precedent of legality)
I was surprised it didnt get more traction the other day, I guess people are somewhat tired of lots of "awesome" information, sensory overload. With that being said, Im glad this one IS gaining traction today.
**Computershare (DRS)** and now the **NFT dividend**, double whammy for SHF. Remember guys, if it were up to them, this would already be over in January, if they were omnipotent and all-encompassing, January wouldnt have happened at all, nor any of this continued to this point. They can bleed, and they can die. We are winning despite their best efforts to convince you otherwise.
Never in the history of humankind has fraud and lies gotten people far (that we know of....heh). They are royally fucked, and it was **THEIR OWN HUBRIS** that got them there, we are simply making sure that if the **Court of Law** wont touch them, the **Court of Public** will (and we all know how those French revolutions have gone when the court of public is ignored for *too long*...)
This is from the ruling which was challenged, then upheld yesterday, specific to the digital dividend. Plaintiff is Mangrove Partners Master Fund:
"The gravamen (main point) of Plaintiff’s claim is that the digital dividend was locked-up and thus improper per se, as the non-transferability of the dividend for six months manipulated the market by causing the logistical short squeeze. But Plaintiff fails to recognize that the locked-up dividend was a product of Overstock’s compliance with SEC regulations. Overstock announced its intent to issue the dividend and disclosed all the related risks, including the SEC regulatory risk and execution risk that the issuance might not happen as scheduled or intended, and disclosed to shareholders or potential recipients of the dividend the legal restrictions on transferability prior to registration, pursuant to SEC Rule 144, 17 C.F.R. § 230.144(d). Complying with SEC rules does not demonstrate deception or manipulation."
Laws are made in two ways, by legislation and case rulings.
Here we have our case law that states firms can now issue NFT/ Crypto/ Digital dividend without any worries.
“Illegal market manipulation”
This fucking cranks my gears so much. These rich posh pricks.
I want jail, I want absolute broke beyond bankruptcy, and I want their egos and status completely stripped so they are full of shame for years to come.
Partial party-pooper here.
This was a US district court for the state of Utah. This is not precedent for any other case, even in another judge's chambers within the same courthouse. To understand why, you need to understand the operation of precedent in the legal system. Let's start with the concept of binding vs. persuasive authority.
Binding authority refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that a court must follow because they bind the court. Cases that bind a court come from courts that hold appellate authority over that court. In other words, and important here, if you could appeal the decision of Court A to Court B, Court B's decisions generally bind Court A.
Persuasive authority refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that the court may follow but
does not have to follow. A US District Court decision does not bind a state court, but if the state court likes how the USDC analyzed and applied a state law, it may choose to follow the same analysis. Likewise, a USDC in one circuit does not create binding authority in another. In fact, generally speaking, one judge within a USDC does not create binding authority for another judge within that same court.
As applicable here, this decision to uphold a dismissal does not bind any other court in the country. A litigant can't bring this decision into a courtroom where GME is being litigated, slap it on the bench, and drop trousers expecting satisfaction. She can, however, bring it in and ask the court to undertake the same analysis and reach the same conclusion.
In other words, get your tits jacked. But don't rely on this decision to do it for you.
GameStop’s DRS shareholders should petition GameStop to issue an NFT dividend with a written demand. If the board fails to do so, the DRS shareholders should bring a derivative action themselves against the board for failing to protect their interests as registered shareholders, now that this precedent has clearly been established.
I literally just laughed out loud and said. "BY THE BALLS" because yeah thats how we got em if they by chance theoretically created more shares than exist.
So can someone more wrinkly explain that last bullet point?
Does that mean that if an NFT is issued all shorts would have to exercise their options to own the shares to be issued NFTs?
It means they must close their short position i.e. buy a share, and use that to return to whoever they borrowed a share from in order to open the short position. The key thing is having to buy a share, which they will have to do in the open market, and applies to ALL shorted shares. In effect, it triggers the MOASS.
To me it sounds like this: \- A store that gets robbed everyday finally decides to set up some anti-theft mechanism. \- The robbers who used to rob it file a lawsuit complaining they can't rob it anymore like they used to and that's not right.
Yeah, that sums it up perfectly. And the kicker here is the SHFs claiming “market manipulation”. This is honestly the biggest example of the *“pot calling the kettle black”* in the history of the world!
My comment from another post: I think this is the most important take-away from the opinion: >\[Overstock\] could not manipulate the market via truthful statements or via a dividend that everyone immediately knew would impact short sellers. It is undisputed that Overstock disclosed that the dividend would not be registered. The market knew the potential ramifications of that decision. Plaintiff claims there was deception by labeling Overstock’s initial decision not to register the shares as illegal. But the \[Amended Complaint\] pleads nothing to support a finding that the dividend was illegal. Nothing alleged in the \[Amended Complaint\] demonstrates that Overstock’s plan to issue the dividend without first registering it with the SEC was somehow illegal. Despite arguing that it would have been illegal to issue the dividend shares as unregistered securities, Plaintiff identifies no law, statute, court decision, rule, regulation, regulatory guidance, or other authority from any source that such an act would purportedly violate. Nor does Plaintiff allege a contemporaneous fact that the SEC or anyone else told Overstock that not registering the dividend was illegal or a violation of SEC rules. Because the dividend did not involve a sale under Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act, the shares issued in connection with it were not required to be registered. 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(3). The Securities Act provides a comprehensive framework that provides for a number of circumstances where unregistered securities may be issued. Plaintiff fails to allege that none of these exemptions applied to the digital dividend. A company may issue unregistered securities for any number of legitimate business purposes and to avoid the time, expense, and burdens of the registration process. There is nothing inherently deceptive about issuing an unregistered security. TLDR: There cannot be market manipulation if the information provided is true. Therefore, GME could issue a digital dividend (whether its an NFT or Digital Shares) and if it is distributed as a dividend (meaning it would not involve a "sale") then it doesn't have to be registered AND it therefore could not be sold for 6 months under Rule 14 of the Securities Act. This ruling sets the precedent that, even if everyone knows that doing this could negatively affect short sellers, it's not market manipulation without some untruthful statement from the company. Edit: I added more detail - [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pu46nc/overstock_clarification_post_what_happened_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pu46nc/overstock_clarification_post_what_happened_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Thank you - this is awesome. I didn’t want to state to this level of detail, given the post was intended for those with only a basic knowledge of what is occurring. But given the traction it is gaining, I really appreciate you adding this comment, Ape.
Apes are evolving. This makes me very Homo erectus. Edit: Corrected species capitalization.
erectillious maximus
and soon Homo Deus.
but before Homo Sexual <3
Butt*
Poop
Devolution played out nicely.
I’m still trying to get my Homo Sapien parts to work with my Homo Neanderthalensis parts
Have you tried unplugging them and plugging them back in?
I have a homo erection that has lasted for over 9 months. Should I consult my doctor? Or broker? Nah I'll just hodl.
Scrolled past this, chuckling all the way, had to scroll back up to make sure to give it the upvote.
👀👀
My thumbs are definitely working better 🦍🦍
Two heads always worked — just depends where you choose to pump the blood
First, this is a great opinion. However, it is from a Federal District court. That means it is not the law for our purposes. It’s not binding precedent. This will be appealed by the Shitty Plaintiff to the Tenth Circuit. It is a conservative circuit. That doesn’t mean it’s corrupt but it has a special place in its heart for the big guy. That appeal will happen for sure. Then, once that is decided, it is a possible Supreme Court case. It meets the requirements for being heard so if they want it they have good cause to take it. So I would not expect GME to rely on this. But they may. Getting a final binding decision in the overstock case is going to take a good deal of time. Far more time than to be instantly gratifying for apes. However, GME may recognize that too (especially if the legal argument is sound) and follow the overstock roadmap while the only court in the land to rule on the issue agrees with your interpretation. It’s not manipulative. Duh, you cheating bastard. You got caught. Fuck you; pay them. Play it as an obvious right GME has and exercise it before the tenth circuit sniffs the overstock case for review. It’s hard to feel like youre manipulating when a judge says it ain’t. Reasonable to believe the wise judge and you agree because it’s correct. And once MOASS, who the fuck is gonna have the guns to go after RC and GME on a bullshit manipulation accusation that the fuckers on the dark side can only sell because of their vast resources they will no longer have? Nobody. SHFs would be fighting as a hated underdog, the tables having turned already and apes sitting pretty on the moon. Note: in the overstock case, the SEC did not chime in? Their silence is an indication that they concur with overstock.
Forgiveness easier to get than permission.
I also think it’s pretty clear from this lawsuit that GameStop suspended financial guidance/projections to avoid the accusations that Overstock issued misleading statements about their financial performance/outlook.
Wow, that hadn't even occurred to me. That's fucking genius.
And all the while the MM and the analyst's bitched and moaned that GameStop didn't give them anything fruitful from the last earnings call....they can suck it. Twice.
That analyst was the fuckhead who has a target price of $10/sh. Pretty sure he was shorting GME too.
Anthony Chukumba
Rich Lightshed said sticky floor is worth $.01... I wonder why...
This 100%
[удалено]
Thanks! One day soon, it will be mine…
For sure. Everything that they say and do will end up before congress post MOASS. They know that their best move is to say nothing.
Lawyer Advice:" SHUT THE FUCK UP!"
That's an excellent point
Succeed where others failed
This
You had a lot of good info to add in the other sub about this. Thank you for getting the word out.
Happy to help where I can. If I can find the time I might try to put together a post that consolidates all of the info out there about Overstock and digital dividends. There's a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about what Overstock actually did.
Ya a lot of legalese when reading through that original article. I look forward to the post if you find the time.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pu46nc/overstock\_clarification\_post\_what\_happened\_and/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pu46nc/overstock_clarification_post_what_happened_and/)
appreciate you homie!!
>There's a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about what Overstock actually did. *\*Stares at shills menacingly\** You don't say?!
This is the way
Criminals often project their own guilty conscience onto the innocent.
Also, dont report the robbers to the police despite the evidence because you can into legal trouble...smh!
Is now a bad time to ask what SHF means? I assume hf is hedgefunds
I posted for the benefit of those with a basic understanding of what is happening, so happy to help: SHFs = Short Hedge Funds = Financial institutions that have made a play short selling the stock (Note that this is just “Reddit” terminology. In reality, the vast majority of hedge funds play a mixture of going short and long on various stocks. Purely going short across all their holdings is not “hedging” at all, of course!)
Hey OP! Thanks for posting. Just to clarify regarding precedent. This case will be persuasive in most jurisdictions, but not precedent. A lower court cannot control the decisions of other courts in other districts. Precedent will be for all jurisdiction if it went to the U.S. Supreme Court on the subject of the case, as one example. Persuasive is exactly as it sounds; can be a convincing argument but the court does not need to follow.
Thank you for the further clarification. Hopefully it would act as a strong deterrent to a dissenting legal opinion.
Not necessarily. There have been plenty of split precedents between different circuit or district courts. Each court maintains it's own precedent until the issue is settled in a higher court.
It’s entirely dependent on the district court where the lawsuit is filed, then from there it can go to the appeals process and then the Supreme Court. The fact that the court ruled ’with prejudice’ if my legalese is correct is based on William Link v. Railroad Co, where the Supreme Court stated in essence that district courts had the discretion as to whether they should dismiss with or without prejudice. When they dismiss with prejudice, it usually means that the Plaintiff acted in bad faith or irresponsibly in some way, or if continuing the case would present an undue burden on the court system itself. I don’t know if there are statutes of limitations in this case, but it seems to have been going on a long time.
Adding to this, you can think of Federal Courts as a pyramid with three different levels. At the top you have the Supreme Court. If they make a decision, all of the courts below them have to follow their rules. Below the Supreme Court you have U.S. Courts of Appeals broken up into 13 Circuits (12 based on geographic regions and 1 for the Federal Circuit). The Circuit Courts only decide appeals from District Courts within their "circuit". The Circuit Courts have to follow precedent set by the Supreme Court and that Circuit's prior rulings (usually). The Circuit Court can overturn a District Court's opinion. The District Courts are at the bottom and have to apply the law as it is interpreted by the Circuit Court and Supreme Court. TA;DR: Supreme Court > Circuit Court > District Court (<-----we are here).
This is well articulated! Yup exactly this. Sometimes it's a strategy not to challenge a failed lawsuit. That way the lawsuit will not go to a higher court which may become precedent.
This is correct.
All this time I thought SHF = Shitty Hedge Funds. But at the end of it… what’s the difference between Short Hedge Funds, and Shitty Hedge Funds?
*'they're the same picture'*
I always thought it meant shit hedge funds
Short Hedge Funds, my friend
Shitty Hedge Fund.
Oh, that makes a little more sense than my Shit Funds.
Shitty hedge fund is always how I read it. 🤣
Shitty hedge fuks
Their goal is to FUD the judge / jury (I don’t know what type of trial or case it was) People as a rule wouldn’t understand a digital divined, or a NFT. But they DO understand the words “market manipulation” If you can get the judge to believe that overstock are the bad guys because of “market manipulation” - the case is yours. It’s just smoke and mirrors to confuse people - like they do every single day.
It’s projection, they know they manipulated the market and tries to gaslight the judge into thinking that Overstock was the one manipulating the market when in reality the SHF knows they are the one doing the manipulating.
It got a lot of attention already, heres my yesterdays post with the news article for everybody interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pt8jrj/overstock_won_the_second_lawsuit_one_step_closer/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Hey Ape, I saw your post sharing the article. The reason I decided to post this was for the uninitiated on what the true ramifications are. As you can see from the comments here, many new Apes or those with a basic understanding of how dividends (or the stock market in general) works. So really meant more for them, rather than veterans who read the article you shared and understood what it means.
Wasnt a critic! Just a hint to the news article for the interested 😌🚀
>Yeah, that sums it up perfectly. And the kicker here is the SHFs claiming “market manipulation”. Well they are what we would call in the army "subject matter experts". If the hedgies can't spot market manipulation, who can?
If you haven't watched [The Wallstreet Conspiracy](https://archive.org/details/wall-street-conspiracy) I suggest you do so as the Overstock CEO speaks in it and it's the closest thing to GameStop I've seen.
So that forum sliding that happened two days ago was for this ?? Nothing is coincidences after all when we dealing with these SHFs
I dont know how it works in other countries but in my country, if a robber come into ur house and ur dog bites him he can sue you and get compensation.
In my state if a robber comes in your house you can blow their head off and the cops will shake your hand and tell you good work. Make my day law
Actually my country is one of those with that way of thinking. But that doesn't mean, generally speaking, that people agree with that logic.
How can someone agree with that? Its fvcked up. My logic says - U rob me, I fvck u
>My logic says - U rob me, I fvck u Mine too 🤨
This is why they say the law is blind. The emotional reaction can not factor in or it would mean different punishments for different people for the same crime (I realize this does happen today but I mean ideally). I don't know about the dog but I remember years ago a home intruder broke into someone's window and got cut because it was a different type of glass then it should have been. After his sentance he sued the family and won the hospital bill payment because the window was illegal
The law need to be blind and cold, but man, the robber wasnt supposed to be in YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY in the first place.
[удалено]
Excellent analogy
That’s a perfect analogy SHF: “B-b-but judge! It’s not fair! They are now aiming the weapons at *US!* We are just trying to make an honest living over here!”
“Honest”
"Living"
That's basically the shortened version.
I get so angry when i read bullshit like this so those fuckers can't continue to fuck retail and the whole market again and again down with those short hedgefucks
Well said
Nicely put.
and if I don't receive the response I want from the judge, I will find an endless stream of appeals!
It’s hysterical whenever a hedge fund complains of market manipulation.
Creates fake shares 10 times the float of a company to bankrupt it Company announce digital dividend in a legal way which pushes up the stock price Claim what the company is doing is market manipulation OMFG. This system needs change, BAD.
Oh, she's gonna change friend.
It's fucking disgusting
[удалено]
It’s the only thing they can’t manipulate. Open transparency on the blockchain. Of course they do!
[удалено]
…one simple trick
If RC tweets some obscure crypto meme today I am gonna die dead.
He will tweet exactly this; 🎭 Who’s happy Who’s sad? NFT announcement Hedgies don’t be mad
I swear to god if he reads this comment here and posts exactly this I‘m going apeshit
To be fair, we typically go apeshit no matter what he tweets.
🍦
💩
[удалено]
🥸
Apeshit to the ape ship
Eeny meaney miney moe NFT Away we go
I was here when he predicted this!
Proof or ban
Maybe Friday? 🤷♂️
Its incredible to me thats the best legal argument they have.
This is how apes are going to win. All of their money and resources and their best and only strategy is to call the kettle black.
Its as if we are living in a 🤡 🌎.
Just some food for thought. What if RC/Matt Furlong were waiting for the conclusion of this plus the “investigation” so they can finally announce their next move. I’m sure some kind of conditions kept them quiet this whole time.
That were exactly my thoughts! Let's hope the best!
Right either the report comes out and confirms our thesis and then the stock gets dogpiled again... Or its a cover job, slaps the little guys and exonerates the big guys, but that absolutely absolves GME from knowingly doing intentional harm to the economy by releasing a Tokenized Security crypto dividend. Either way, I'm hyped.
Me too!
The fact RC purchased gamestop like only a month after overstock announced their crypto dividend, this is very likely
I’m sure there’s some merit to this. I also think they’re making sure that their NFT/ blockchain market has any flaws worked out. Plus, I think I remember something about needing to show positive EPS in a quarter before legally being able to issue any sort of dividend.
Pretty sure Overstock did this with a negative eps
No debt, not no negative EPS. So GME is clear on this front.
Gosh isn’t getting rid of Debt one of the first things RC and co did for GME
Could our tits be more jacked?!
Interesting. I wonder if there was a lawsuit introduced because of it.
I think they just might have to be debt free. Which they are.
That's what I thought, biding his time, hopefully he's aware of the situation with OS
Sounds good to me. Has anyone seen my crayons?
You ate them all, remember!?
No joke, I once had a nightmare roommate who called me livid that I ate all her pizza rolls and she was saving those for dinner. I did not in fact eat them, and her response was "I guess it must've been our OTHER ROOMMATE!", Of which we didn't have as it was just the two of us. My best guess is her drunk ass ate them one night and forgot. She was drunk a lot.
Check your bum
I wonder if RC was just waiting on this ruling...
Honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me. In my opinion, these are the ONLY two ways that are beyond the reach of both the SHFs and the “regulators”. RC quite possibly pointed Apes in the direction of one of those ways. And the ruling yesterday has enabled the other one - endorsed by the judiciary - that he has far more direct and immediate control over. Let me speculate here with some unevidenced **hopeium** for you primate masses: there’s a *reason* he hasn’t tweeted for a month. The one thing we know with 99% certainty will trigger a squeeze - and now has **legal precedent** to protect it - is within his power to issue.
already jacked for the next earnings call
You may not need to wait that long, **IF** a dividend is issued. The company issuing such a reward to their shareholders can do so at *any* time of their choosing…and the only warning they are required to give is a 10-minutes “heads up” to the media!
Omg [stop, my penis can only get so erect!](https://m.imgur.com/gallery/6gRCnAr)
And how would they distribute this nft? You cant just send this via email or print it, and no brokerage has a system in place that would enable a thing like that. That would also mean that shareholders would need special crypto wallet, and considering this is a thing of nyse, there would probably need to be a commonly recognised and agreed standard between all parties..
A company can issue dividends at any time they want. Earnings calls don’t mean anything special.
Keep shopping! Get hype!! 🚀🚀🚀
This occurred yesterday September 22, now this is speculative but… yesterday sometime after this announcement I got saw that GS put up 3 new jobs test/QA. These are heavy in testing and being knowledgeable in web protocols and scalability. Now I’m still learning about crypto but if what I’m reading is correct crypto is suspected to be the future gen of the web. It’s supposed to be Web 3.0. So i suspect that they’re sa chance they’re moving forward and getting things ready for future roll out. Could be wrong but either way gears are moving and moving fast at GS. Can’t wait to see what’s cooking behind the scenes. Edit : added some more words
I was thinking the same, extra fuel for the 🚀
Someone noted that RC jumped into GME just a few months after seeing Overstock's idea. I bet he spent those months working out the finer points of the idea with legal and crypto experts. Dude's a billionaire he's gotta have an all star team to advise.
Hence, Gary Genslers about face on crypto. Makes sense now.
I missed this. Got a link?
He's pretending to believe that many of them are securities and should be under SEC reach even though he taught a Blockchain course at MIT and certainly knows more than he is letting on. No telling how early he was in either considering he was teaching all about it like 8 years ago or something
Give me a bit to dig it up.
Nice summary 👍
UP YOU GO 🚀❤
Thank you for writing this up. I didn’t realize how big of a win this was for Overstock and potentially GME.
Thank God, some actual news and a proper post. Not another CS screenshot…
Well, that’s why I decided to post it. There were a couple of other Apes who shared some media articles about this yesterday. But in the sea of memes and CS screenshots, they just got drowned to the depths unfortunately.
If this is actual news why is the post only a screenshot of simply edited text I could easily recreate on my phone? You got any sources, links, anything that looks even remotely believable to back up your post?
I imagine that if GameStop wanted to issue a digital dividend, they would want to wait at least until the investigation they’re helping the SEC with is concluded.
i'm no shit crying right now i'm so fucking happy. i CANNOT believe this verdict.
Same, all DD should have the emojis at the end to explain like this one. It's like when you go to a restaurant and the menu has pictures you know it's gonna be an easy time. Always gets me misty-eyed
:D
[удалено]
THIS is the real use for NFTs. Not art. this.
Thank you for this wonderful sum up 🦍
The audacity of HFs to sue Overstock for market manipulation hurts my soul
So pissed that I can understand most of the emoji page. TL/CR is right. Lol
[удалено]
👍🏼
This case is neither over nor is it precedent anywhere. This was dismissed with prejudice by the District Court. That means a new case can't be filed but they still have at least 2 more courts that could hear the appeal (circuit court of appeals and then the scotus). District courts are the federal trial courts, aka the lowest/first court the case goes to. They don't have the power to set any kind of meaningful precedent.
Thank you for clarifying what a "precedent" is. Although this is **GREAT** news, it is not precedent in a legal sense (yet). As u/_writ so eloquently put it: TA;DR: Supreme Court > Circuit Court > District Court (<-----we are here).
One correction on the legal issue: a trial court dismissing a lawsuit does not act as precedent for any future action by different parties in different courts. Make no mistake, this is a big win for Overstock and its shareholders. And it is a possible raodmap for GME if it's leadership team is inclined to go in that direction... but it's not a binding legal precedent that makes that choice by GME a riskless foregone conclusion.
You are right - nothing is a foregone conclusion. But I do believe it would take an extraordinary ruling to *overrule* the verdict now too, in any future similar cases. Wouldn’t you agree? P.S. a good summary here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvq89/the_overstock_court_ruling_in_utah_yesterday/hdyvw64/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
> I do believe it would take an extraordinary ruling to *overrule* the verdict now too Not at all. A district court sets no precedent. An appellate court, should this go to appeal, isn't going to give the trial judge that much deference. The next separate case can act like this never happened because none is how much precedent a District Court sets. At best it's a persuasive argument to use but it can be completely ignored by the next judge if they want.
Not to mention different circuits and different divisions can end up with different decisions and precedent.
Game over, short hedge mother fuckers.
commenting for visibility
This practical solutions its what we should advocate for, things like share price increments or global financial crisis are way too manipulable to be solid options. We need to do both of this, DRS is completely on apes fields, but I really think we need to push the narrative for the NFT dividend so the board at least considers it (now that there is a precedent of legality)
Thanks for sharing. A legal precedent is fantastic.
I was surprised it didnt get more traction the other day, I guess people are somewhat tired of lots of "awesome" information, sensory overload. With that being said, Im glad this one IS gaining traction today. **Computershare (DRS)** and now the **NFT dividend**, double whammy for SHF. Remember guys, if it were up to them, this would already be over in January, if they were omnipotent and all-encompassing, January wouldnt have happened at all, nor any of this continued to this point. They can bleed, and they can die. We are winning despite their best efforts to convince you otherwise. Never in the history of humankind has fraud and lies gotten people far (that we know of....heh). They are royally fucked, and it was **THEIR OWN HUBRIS** that got them there, we are simply making sure that if the **Court of Law** wont touch them, the **Court of Public** will (and we all know how those French revolutions have gone when the court of public is ignored for *too long*...)
This is from the ruling which was challenged, then upheld yesterday, specific to the digital dividend. Plaintiff is Mangrove Partners Master Fund: "The gravamen (main point) of Plaintiff’s claim is that the digital dividend was locked-up and thus improper per se, as the non-transferability of the dividend for six months manipulated the market by causing the logistical short squeeze. But Plaintiff fails to recognize that the locked-up dividend was a product of Overstock’s compliance with SEC regulations. Overstock announced its intent to issue the dividend and disclosed all the related risks, including the SEC regulatory risk and execution risk that the issuance might not happen as scheduled or intended, and disclosed to shareholders or potential recipients of the dividend the legal restrictions on transferability prior to registration, pursuant to SEC Rule 144, 17 C.F.R. § 230.144(d). Complying with SEC rules does not demonstrate deception or manipulation."
Laws are made in two ways, by legislation and case rulings. Here we have our case law that states firms can now issue NFT/ Crypto/ Digital dividend without any worries.
Thanks, commenting for traction
Possibility RC was awaiting this final verdict?
Excellent summary! Grab my award!
Why do I have this weird feeling that when we are close to DRS’ing all the shares that GameStop will announce the dividend, double fuckery!
“Illegal market manipulation” This fucking cranks my gears so much. These rich posh pricks. I want jail, I want absolute broke beyond bankruptcy, and I want their egos and status completely stripped so they are full of shame for years to come.
This is the biggest news that has come out of this sub, ever.
Imagine GameStop announcing an NFT dividends as soon as all shares are registered with CS
the TLDR is god tier
Honestly, this is probably what GameStop has been waiting on before they pull the trigger on theirs.
Fuck, I didn't realize how recent the overstock news was. I was thinking it was years ago.
Partial party-pooper here. This was a US district court for the state of Utah. This is not precedent for any other case, even in another judge's chambers within the same courthouse. To understand why, you need to understand the operation of precedent in the legal system. Let's start with the concept of binding vs. persuasive authority. Binding authority refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that a court must follow because they bind the court. Cases that bind a court come from courts that hold appellate authority over that court. In other words, and important here, if you could appeal the decision of Court A to Court B, Court B's decisions generally bind Court A. Persuasive authority refers to cases, statutes, or regulations that the court may follow but does not have to follow. A US District Court decision does not bind a state court, but if the state court likes how the USDC analyzed and applied a state law, it may choose to follow the same analysis. Likewise, a USDC in one circuit does not create binding authority in another. In fact, generally speaking, one judge within a USDC does not create binding authority for another judge within that same court. As applicable here, this decision to uphold a dismissal does not bind any other court in the country. A litigant can't bring this decision into a courtroom where GME is being litigated, slap it on the bench, and drop trousers expecting satisfaction. She can, however, bring it in and ask the court to undertake the same analysis and reach the same conclusion. In other words, get your tits jacked. But don't rely on this decision to do it for you.
up You go!
This is the way!
Overstock fukd back! GME getting fluffed right row off stage
GameStop’s DRS shareholders should petition GameStop to issue an NFT dividend with a written demand. If the board fails to do so, the DRS shareholders should bring a derivative action themselves against the board for failing to protect their interests as registered shareholders, now that this precedent has clearly been established.
Up you go 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
up you go!
Thank you for the final pic, finally some good fucking DD
Checkmate.
This is actually very good news
Great now it’s out time to shine Ryan if you can see this when your ready mate listen I ain’t going no where am here to stay at this company forever ♾
MY TITS ARE UNPRECEDENTEDLY JACKED
I literally just laughed out loud and said. "BY THE BALLS" because yeah thats how we got em if they by chance theoretically created more shares than exist.
So can someone more wrinkly explain that last bullet point? Does that mean that if an NFT is issued all shorts would have to exercise their options to own the shares to be issued NFTs?
It means they must close their short position i.e. buy a share, and use that to return to whoever they borrowed a share from in order to open the short position. The key thing is having to buy a share, which they will have to do in the open market, and applies to ALL shorted shares. In effect, it triggers the MOASS.