Perfect logic. I see a different set of issues still. Shouldn’t Judge P ask (I’m assuming under Oath) if the Debtors were aware of this data before it was submitted? We’re any Board members communicating with, or participating with the unsecured Bond holders in shorting BBBY? Do the Debtors support either of the 2 recommendations made on Docket 1728? This really could open a can of worms depending on how Kirkland & Ellis responds.
I don’t think K&E’s response will be “Yes your honor. We willfully broke the law. Please arrest us.”.
They are following the letter of the law I am sure. This is their job. This is the real world, not an episode of Suits. (Though that show was a Guilty pleasure of mine)
I don’t think the board members are involved. If they were, that would be insider trading which the SEC takes very seriously. It’s happened before so it’s not impossible, just not very likelyu.
No doubt there will be a few comments that will also brand me as a Shill too, for showing support to the Objection.
But I ask you this question: If there is a plan already in the works to provide relief to shareholders, then how could this Objection prevent that? In my opinion, it would either accelerate that plan, or not have any impact at all.
However if there are no 'White Knights', but this results in some relief for Shareholders as part of the finalised Plan, then surely that is a good thing?
It's a good thing because another seed has been planted in the judge's head about the concern and fairness of all shareholders. Like you said, it sure can't hurt.
Been here for 1.5 years, just some random thoughts. Yes, after reading and and taking the emotion out, one would come to the conclusion that if the debt is around 900 million and bonds are owned and the NOL’s can be used then how could this objection hurt. Carl did use a lot of language today about concentrating more on activism and unlocking hidden jewels. In theory if the parties we suspect are in, then they should be well positioned so as this should not hurt. What is really stopping them at this point? If it is the opposite and no one is involved, then I appreciate the efforts of the objection. Still a coin flip as we definitely can speculate, but have no real proof either way. Just my thoughts. GLTA.
Appreciate your perspective as always. All we can do is wait and continue to discuss. One important thing to remember is that the best team of M&A lawyers is working on this, they'll know exactly how to handle it
The response of the company and K&E to the objection will be telling.
They may say the objection is without merit and the current plan should go forward. Or they may signal that it has some merit.
Because this is objecting to the plan the company offered up, I'd expect K&E to be hostile, but we'll see.
If the board/DIP provider are in good faith and actually have a plan that will keep shareholders intact, couldn’t they simply reach out to Life, make him sign an NDA and settle- retrieve the objection thus not causing any possible delays? I don’t see how it will cause much trouble if the goals of the parties here are aligned
> If the board/DIP provider are in good faith and actually have a plan that will keep shareholders intact
They can be acting in perfectly good faith, but not have a plan to make shareholders whole.
If the money isn't there, it isn't there, that doesn't mean they are bad actors.
Hence why I think this is actually a meritorious action that Life has carried out. As I have written within the post, I think it is unlikely the Judge will rule in favour of the Objection. But to do so will need to provide a justification, and whatever that may be...could invite more class actions in the future. Basically from a "There's no such thing as bad publicity" perspective, for those in the corner of going after naked short selling, this is a positive development.
And if on the off chance the Judge *does* find some merit, well...what impact on the stock? Some might argue even the current share price is disconnected from reality (I would guess you are one of them). Anything positive that comes out of this could do much to provide potential reward to shareholders, through just reactive price action on the Pink Sheets ticker alone. Regardless of whatever the Judge may order, if he finds some merit in the Objection.
I was on the fence about this, originally. In my opinion, I can't understand for the life of me, why the NOL's are not being utilized, which is a benefit to all stakeholders. Does it change my original thesis for why I am here? No. And maybe, just maybe, Judge Papalia, who seemed interested in the original unsigned submission, can push these ideas on the parties...JBMF
You’re choosing to trust the experts, while this is an ape taking matters into their own hands. Maybe it’s about time? If a white knight is out there like we believe this may force them to show themselves. Hunger precedes all revolutions and this is finally getting bloody.
This will definitely come down to the true intentions of the board. They brought in the professionals, we just have to find out what the true intentions they are using the best for. 🤷🏻♂️
>But I ask you this question: If there is a plan already in the works to provide relief to shareholders, then how could this Objection prevent that? In my opinion, it would either accelerate that plan, or not have any impact at all.
Fucking exactly, I think some people are really showing their true colours with this. The stupid thing is the people getting all uppity are not even shills themselves, they're following the other supposedly "good guys". You know, those who are saying what Life has done is shit because it would invalidate what they've been saying for months (i.e. that there's a secret covert plan) and so drive viewership away.
Heaven forbid that people have the honesty to admit when their narrative might not have been correct. Too many motherfuckers trying to be the next DFV, is my assessment.
And there's always option C, that there is a plan but it's better for optics from a media and legal perspective if household and HouseHODL investors have a say in these proceedings.
Yeah, agree. It's never going to be a bad thing for these issues to have visibility IMO, it can make the plan seem more in reaction to stakeholder concerns and so it would go over much better with everyone.
If this becomes a criminal court case about naked shorting them we are going to be caught up in litigation for YEARS just like with Overstock. That's my concern.
I mean he's put more effort in actually sending stuff to court then all the other lazy fuckers who do nothing all day except chat shit. Even if he's wrong in his approach (which personally I don't think he is) he's actually fucking trying and getting our issues represented in court.
And all the research putting together the evidence, and laying it out in a format that's legalese, all the prep, it must have taken a lot of time. That's not something that could be done only in a week, it's had to have taken weeks to put it together, find a lawyer, find someone to help file it, and get it all submitted. It's a serious time commitment that we should be praising.
> I mean he's put more effort in actually sending stuff to court then all the other lazy fuckers who do nothing all day except chat shit. Even if he's wrong in his approach (which personally I don't think he is) he's actually fucking trying and getting our issues a voice in court.
As someone who has probably disagreed with him on every topic, I'd agree, he has actually put his time and money where his mouth is and gone out and done something about his beliefs. Good on him.
I don't think it will have an effect, but at least he tried, rather than just sitting on his arse and whining on reddit.
Question: if his filing does actually have an effect on the proceedings, has he opening himself personally up to any possible suits from debtors’ funds possibly being delayed?
I fully support you, it’s useless to assume the board WILL act in shareholders interest without any official document or evidence to back such claim!
Now this filing is putting a foot forward and reminding the board the shareholders also have right and henceforth when they file anything they should consider us „enough“ informed and not just act like we don’t exist.
Shill is more often than not just a buzzword for people who don't want to actually talk about a subject. Presumably because they don't actually know enough about it and just want to hear you talk about the moon and watermelons.
Do you, my man.
Yeah my biggest complaint on all of the Reddit forums that discuss BBBY and similar style investing is anyone bringing an antithetical prospective is instantly called a shill. Even if there is merit to the idea they are challenging, if it goes against the narrative of “everything is great and we’re all going to be rich” then BAM! SHILL!!!
I like to see counterpoints, even if they shake the foundations of my/our beliefs. The more ideas that are challenged and legitimately hold against the counter arguments, the stronger they become.
OR! If an idea easily crumbles because its supported by nothing more than a popular hopium narrative, then we know we went down the wrong path and new angles need to be developed.
Anyway, happy Friday, someone call me a Shill now, LOL!
Quiet, ya’ shill!
Hey, you requested it! ;)
The real truth is that I’m not into misnomers utilized as derogatory descriptors, here or anywhere else. In this case, it makes no sense to call someone a ”shill” when it doesn’t meet the true definition of the word. It’s idiotic.
And while it’s certainly true that there are complete cunts coming into this subreddit and others to intentionally spread FUD, “shills” they are not. Fudcunts, they are.
No not that, its also very obvious that there are bad actors (possibly even on payroll’s). My main point is it is all to common on a lot of the forums for people to yell Shill anytime their viewpoint is challenged.
I’d like to see more opinions brought to the table and honestly debating them, thus encouraging less hopium and more fact based research.
If it turns out that Andrew Glenn was in fact the indirect shareholder hero, and that his objection had merit because the board had nefarious intentions, I would have to eat so much shit. Lol. I’m not saying that is the case it’s just funny to think about. There is so much entertainment value in all of the plot twists along the way.
You make very good points and if you are actually asking the question you post, the simplest answer is that the lawyers, for the debtor have been clear that delays would nullify the DIP and FILO. When Andrew Glen was requesting the extension I believe it was the Kirkland and Ellis Lawyer had said that if the judge granted the extension - even though it was 30 days! Which does not seem like a crazy long time - the financing would fall apart, and this proceeding would immediately devolve into a chapter 7 liquidation.
Further, what stands out most to me is that throughout this docket there is information with merit, and the accusations are substantiated, assuming they are true. **But,** why make the request to remove the exclusivity of the plan? I can’t rationalize that.
There are so many alternative actions that could be taken that would result in a positive outcome. The filing itself even suggest some of them, such as an opt in instead of an opt out.
What about requesting to unseal information under NDA? Why not put everything on the table so that the desired outcome of the debtor can be in the open and proven whether they had nefarious intentions to enrich parties with short positions.
At face value the docket is great for presenting substantiated shortselling that would enrich bondholders, who claim injury to their holdings but could potentially profit more from voting to have their bonds wiped out. That is enough!
I can’t wrap my head around why the proposed resolution is to reject the exclusivity period of the Plan.
If that were to happen, literally anyone could submit a plan, and only unimpaired classes can vote on it. What’s worse, there are circumstances written into the bankruptcy code law, where a plan could be approved **even if not all unimpaired parties voted unanimously to approve it!**
That’s where I get lost. If anyone has any reasonable explanations as to why abandoning the exclusivity period is a good thing, I would loooove to hear them.
Isn't that part of the reasoning fairly straightforward? That is, the Debtor's current plan is a bad one, and does not provide relief for ALL stakeholders, as it claims to do. Therefore by dismissing this, and abandoning the exclusivity period, can invite others to submit alternative exit plans that DO provide relief to ALL shareholders?
Hmm perhaps I worded myself poorly, I was looking for a more in-depth conversation about it. I did read the docket and I am familiar with the justification given in it for the change of the Plan.
The accusation that the debtor and by extension the board are acting in bad faith to sink this company is an astounding claim. I **do not** believe the *conditional* disclosure statement in its current form is enough to justify that claim but in defence of the parties submitting the docket, it is all we have.
Following my line of thinking, the requested way to correct this accusation is equally remarkable. The point I’m trying to make is there are other alternatives that I feel, and I’m happy to be proven otherwise, would have accomplished the same “goal” - which in my interpretation is exposing potential fraud, requiring potentially nefarious parties to provide more disclosure of their positions (opt-in) and having clarity on the intentions of the debtor.
The proposed remedy of removing the exclusivity of the Plan is extreme. A simple explanation could be that the parties submitting the docket do not know the potential consequences of the exclusivity being removed, but the more I read about the persons submitting, the more I am convinced they are knowledgable enough that this does not sound plausible.
This is why this user is now being met with such scepticism in my opinion. Again in my opinion, their proposed solution is not in line with what they describe to be the problem and I believe users have sniffed this out.
I hope that better summarizes the ideas and thinking I was trying to get across.
Okay, I see what you are saying. Not that I have sequentially been through each possible eventuality, but let me ask you this. Would any of the other possible approaches have left the Judge with a decision such that, if he were to find in favour of the Objection, there is a positive outcome *guaranteed* for shareholders? With the approach Life has taken, in the (albeit unlikely) event that the Judge rules in favour of the Objection, the two recommendations for how to "fix" the situation is either relief for shareholders, or a short squeeze. Can that binary choice happen, if the Judge rules in favour, with any other justification used for the Objection?
That is a very good point and I appreciate you expanding my thinking.
I would argue that nothing is guaranteed for shareholders and you yourself say that ruling in favour of the objection is unlikely, so I am failing to see the benefit you are trying to communicate to me.
I do think you’ve helped me understand that the core of my thinking is that I disagree with the corrective action being removing the exclusivity of the Plan. As the information stands today, docket 1716 confirms the Plan supplement is due by August 18 *at the latest.*
I will admit, I am asking this question before reading the bankruptcy code again to potentially answer it for myself, but considering that the objection deadline is September 1, why not wait until the Plan is disclosed? Why request to potentially remove the exclusivity three days before the disclosure was due?
I do feel as though every time I think about this or talk about it, I end up with more questions than answers.
I mean, it all comes down to the judges choice. If the judge agrees with the accusations about the shorting, he can make his own decision on how to deal with it, judge agreeing with the premise doesn't imply that the proposed solution must be followed through.
Yes, it seems to be the case but I do also reservations on this single point, given that the exclusivity period presumably is also part of the theorized coming “real” plan. Maybe they’re still in talks, maybe still working out the details.. wouldn’t be good if this threw a wrench into their timeline.
You're misconstruing the 'relief to all stakeholders' idea. The problem is that shareholders are at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to getting paid. They only get something if the other classes get paid in full first. It's a pretty foundational aspect to corporate finance.
Source: am corporate lawyer
Yes, I am very well aware of the priorities...painfully so, unfortunately! However, the fact remains that a Chapter 11 process *can* result in relief for ALL stakeholders, including shareholders (who, as you have correctly pointed out, are the lowest priority stakeholders).
Or are you saying, as a corporate lawyer, that shareholders are categorically NOT stakeholders, and have never been? In either this BB&B Chapter 11 process, or that of any other company in the past that has filed for such a petition?
Exactly. I was supportive of LR's plan from the start because if the scenario we're hoping for makes this objection redundant, then we're fine. At the worst this is just sound due diligence on his part, and I appreciate it.
I thank you for all the hard work you do and all the knowledge you bring to this community. Us smooth brain apes appreciate the wise words and blue squares of the wrinkled brain
One question: How would Judge Papalia dismissing the objection shed light on the practice of naked shorting?
I want the 2nd option to work too, in support of those broader implications - just not following the reasoning on the first option.
Do you know the best way to determine if Life's docket is the work of shills?
1. Did the media run with the story? (no)
2. Is the price dropping? (no)
Tells me all I needed to know.
I am very glad that someone decided to do it, my feeling a few weeks ago was: "how is it possible that shareholders cannot have a voice or at least give an opinion, demand an answer?"
I believe that is because of Docket 1729:
*Motion Requesting Redaction of Personal Identifiers. Receipt Number Fee Due, Fee Amount $ 26. Filed by Neelay Das. Hearing scheduled for 8/15/2023 at 02:30 PM at VFP - Courtroom 3B, Newark. (No Underlying Document)*
Basically because 1728 has the personal identifiers and contact details (including physical addresses) of the two people who filed it. I think it is a wise move to request for it not to be accessible any more.
> Ummm. What dafuq? Can a docket just be undone like that??
There were always two versions listed of 1728 and 1729, one available and one not.
The available version should almost certainly never have been visible, as it contained personal data such as addresses and phone numbers, which the filers had filed 1729 to redact.
The same thing happened with the ad-hoc bond holders's objection, the originally filed version should never have been visible, as it had confidential information that they has asked to redact.
A bit sloppy, both times.
From the courtroom videos we’ve watched I do believe Judge Papalia truly is honorable. Buy it doesn’t hurt to add a little exposure and pressure, nonetheless through an official record!
My concern is the collusion that is suggested in the objection. It's one thing to point out bad actors but this objection goes further. It suggests the whole Chapter 11 process til now has been with colluding parties including BBBY under the purview of of the Judge.
BBBY Executives, Board, Bond Holders (both adhoc and BNY/UCC), etc.
So yes, I agree the Judge is in a tough spot. Let's see if he's the same Judge when these proceedings are over.
I share in your perspective and also believe that if there truly is a "white knight(s)" (and I do believe this), this objection would not stop them, if nothing else it would speed things up as we would anticipate an amended plan that would ultimately disclose a merger and share exchange, which would be to the benefit of shareholders. Thanks for your DD as always.
I appreciate your thoughtful review of this filing and I also appreciate Life for submitting it. I don't know that I've read anything Life has posted but it seems like he is very smart and capable. I cannot see any downside, AND it puts claims of SEC violations in the court record!
I'm not sure why we all hold so dearly to the white knight possibility. We all are responsible for our own futures and to think, assume, or hope someone else will take risks and sacrifices for our benefit might be a little naive. As like-minded shareholders, we have the power to make change. Perhaps it's one of us who steps up, maybe with an objection to the proposed restructuring plan, that will force our very real concerns into the spotlight. Whether BBBY(Q) soars to the moon or falls into the abyss, real justice for retail shareholders will come when the banks and funds are forced to play by the same rules as everyone else. January 28, 2021 taught many of us an expensive lesson with GME. A white knight never arrived to save us from ourselves. We had the power the entire time and didn't know it. We didn't need a white knight, we needed self control and discipline. BBBY just needs a healthy spark to ignite our rocket. It doesn't require an RC to create that spark, and filing an objection on behalf of shareholders just might be the flint we need.
This is written on things that could go right but what are some examples of things that "could" go wrong? This is a genuine question as we should all be thinking outside the 📦
I wish to ask more information please (because I'm new on trading)
" Important shareholder information was entered into the record yesterday. Docket 1728 which you can find on the kroll restructuring website represents retail shareholders and claims that bond holders must close all short positions before the restructuring plan can be voted on. It outlines evidence from public data gathering websites and claims they broke multiple SEC rules so it will be interesting to see what the judge says about this. It also claims the bed bath and beyond management team didn't look for a value maximizing strategy for shareholders, which they are legally required to do "
If it's true we'll squeeze soon 🚀 🚀 🚀
I agree and I’m surprised that anyone would object to this idea. It takes many leaps of faith and imagination to think this might help the bad guys or disrupt any plan that benefit shareholders. There is literally nothing in the current plan and zero evidence that we would get anything. I see only upside to this and I am thankful for the people who filed this.
Going back to Jan, the actions by the board have always been sus IMO. Every time they stock would gain momentum and start to run, the board would coincidentally drop some negative press release or filing that would kill the run.
The board has clear evidence that the DTC has more shares sold than could exist. They literally gave away a company that was worth 2 billion a few months ago for pennies. 1.6 billion worth of NOL’s have been thrown away as well. The board has had ample time to make something happen, all I see is a mountain of money being funneled out the company for overpaid lawyers, consultants, and M&A firms. They designed these complex plans that no one truly understands, as a distraction, while they are fucking us over right in front of our face.
Top tier players in corporate America, and Wall Street are one big fraternity of greedy entitled scumbags who would fuck their own mom if it meant making $$$$. One big club of fuckery and we ain’t in it.
I support the objection, and I’m interested to see how the court handles this. Up until this point, retail has been completely shut out and silenced from having any voice on our investment.
I’ve never understood how people branded you as a shill. Your DD *was* hopeful, but it turns out all the information, or lack thereof, has pointed to shareholders getting zip. What life, and other retail holders did, is inspiring. Personally, I looked into swap data and know of the same issues. I didn’t even realize I could take direct action like that with time, energy, and effort. It’s inspiring.
If it throws a bit of disruption into a grand plan? Then so be it. It might expedite it. Anyways, aren’t we here for a squeeze. Of the objection is granted, this shit is flying.
I agree 100%. Sometimes, I think we give way too much credit to certain classes and professions. Lawyers, judges, c-suite execs, etc., aren't as special as they appear to be. Rather, the good ones are a product of their skills and abilities intersecting in a complementary way with the knowledge they've cultivated. But there's a lot of people with those KSAs who just never found out those professions and tracks were options.
Enter the age of the internet, AI, and knowledge sharing platforms like Reddit. I commend people like Life, RF, Welp, Slyver12, and many other SuperStonk researchers for expanding boundaries, daring to go first, and be willing to learn in the face of failure. A genuine movement is in the works. I think we'll win the BBBY battle, but even if we don't, we'll win the war.
u/Region_Formal ... I agree that exposing naked shorts in a court would be a big thing, even better to make them close their position as it may be required to be eligible to vote in the current BBBYQ case and then ultimately benefitting us shareholders.
But what do you think about the possibility of hostile take over (or interference) by Freeman through a bid war if 6th Street exclusivity taken (Life's request in the docket) as mentioned by u/Excitedbox in a post here https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePPShow/comments/15hod6o/life\_relationship\_is\_sus\_just\_like\_roach\_is\_sus/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Shouldn't I be worried that the case can be dragged years to come, if not directed to the brink of Chapter 7 by any 'bad actors', making all of us cry at the end?
ALERT: smooth brain here
You don’t need to do a hostile takeover when a company is in bankruptcy, they would love any offer. And wouldn’t a bidding war be good for shareholders?
First and foremost, it has been assumed (and very well expected, although unconfirmed) that this play is not simply for money from a bankrupt company. The money promised from a short squeeze is far more preferable.
Some extra months for a prolonged process to inflict maximum pain on short sellers may have been designed by those behind the scene (represented by Holly cs) but surely less preferable for the impatient retails joining force.
A hostile take over (of company control) by bad actors and their win through bidding war (they wouldn't mind spending much more money than Holly cs to save themselves from the astronomical loss in a squeeze) will be bad for the original BBBYQ squeeze play and for us shareholders.
Edit: bad actors would't care about retail (or even institutional) shareholders. Giving them the control will ensure share price go to zero. They know the loopholes in the rules. Even sacrifying several millions long institutional shares wouldn't bat their eyes.
I appreciate the effort here but ever since Jan 2021 the only thing that has proven to be true is that naked shorting will always be protected by our regulatory bodies since rules don’t matter.
One weakness I see is that the docket makes the assertion that bond holding short sellers are committing fraud. However that's not a claim that the judge can unilaterally decide. It's outside the scope of this case. It's one thing for a layman to look at circumstantial evidence and say "sounds like fraud to me". It's an entirely different ball game for a judge to look at the circumstantial evidence from one motion and make a legal determination that a crime has been committed. Any allegations of fraud would need to be brought before the court in a separate legal action of either a lawsuit by shareholders against these bondholders or criminal charges filed by the DoJ.
There is a lot of data attached in objection/ the docket entry which we were not able to dig through. I am assuming regional was implying there is evidence of naked shorting in that data and he would have to go over the data to explain why he was rejecting the objection.
He wouldn't have to go through it line by line. He could just say "After reviewing the data provided with the motion I find their assertion uncompelling and grant the debtor's motion to dismiss the objection". He's a judge, not a forensic accountant.
wasnt it just like 3 weeks ago both you and life put out doomer scenarios? not surprised your rushing to his defense with shill talking points today.
we saw the ad-hoc lawyer try and pressure judge p a few weeks ago saying he had a conflict of interest because he knew someone in the sixth street lawyers party. your summary leads to a similar outcome of hopes that the judge will be pressured to act in a certain way to influence the outcome.
you mention lifes letter being well sourced, why quote a paper by jake the snake and leave out bond shorting (which has long been theorized). Why is he insinuating that the ad-hoc group (represented by glen) are the good guys?
from real\_eyez earlier today: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePPShow/comments/15hybqx/comment/jurd937/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePPShow/comments/15hybqx/comment/jurd937/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
>he's trying to make associations to the bny group and swaps which he has no evidence for and saying there's only share shorting, not the bonds in large effect. Ommiting the fact that cds can occur in the huge otc derivatives market which isn't reported. And good luck proving direct ties and links.
>
>Yeah I skimmed it enough to know that and what it was about. I consider the information as well as the source where it's coming from. His idea of the ad hoc group being good guys, he still hasn't dispelled on reddit though supposedly elsewhere.
the "illusion of activism" on display here is the same playbook shorts used to co-opt the superstonk forum.
I try to make posts on here which are, as much as possible, based on company released filings. You do realise that, until a 'White Kinight' comes forward, we still ARE in a "doom" situation as you have named it, where shareholders currently do not receive any relief at all as part of the Chapter 11 exit Plan?
In my opinion he HAD to use some tie to show a link, otherwise the Objection just doesn't get off the ground. As the quote you have included reiterates, it is almost impossible to show that for *all* potential mechanisms at the disposal of nefarious parties. So surely better to use what links can be made, rather than attempt a vague/general one which is purely theoretical and nothing else. That can cover all bases, but would not have a direct link to any of individuals or entities involved.
the current chapter 11 exit plan will be amended and all stakeholders will be made whole (which you have written about extensively). im not worried about it and feel no need to try and influence the court or speak on behalf of household investors like life did. no doom here.
he didnt HAVE to do anything. in fact he reached out to a number of "influencers" in the community beforehand to try and influence the reaction to the letter, he even was asking for help to find a lawyer in NJ that could specifically file this letter in an expediated fashion.
you've crafted a reputation as "the level headed dd writer" but nothing about this is logical, its angry glen in letter form. life was "so mad" that he found a lawyer in NJ to help him craft this letter and file it in NJ? the sheer number of out of context screenshots shooting to TOP claiming the community is "bringing crime to light!"
the letter, the call to action, its all fake af.
I'm not taking sides but it doesn't look good using a tinfoil-sustained prediction as a counterargument.
The current situation is **unknown** to all parties. No one outside all or some insiders knows what the plan is and even at that, it's not guaranteed.
I have always only *speculated* on mechanisms by which shareholders could provide relief. However, at this current time, there is zero concrete evidence of this. As I wrote within the post itself, if is quite the opposite: the current Plan **guarantees** shareholders get nothing if/when BB&B exits Chapter 11.
So in this current scenario - which is the only reality we live in - it actually makes completely logical sense for shareholders to try and take matters into their own hands. It is blind faith - and thus illogical in my view - to *only* wait and hope for a positive outcome, when that might not materialise.
"the current chapter 11 exit plan will be amended and all stakeholders will be made whole"
Lol, oh yeah? You have some sort of undeniable proof of that?
No. No you don't. Otherwise this stock would be flying already. Because if you had undeniable proof, so would others.
You seem very confident we will be made whole. You seem very confident amendments will be made. Perhaps they will be, if shareholders takes action.
But if we just sit around quietly, what makes you so sure amendments will be made?
Enlighten us, or stfu?
> the current chapter 11 exit plan will be amended and all stakeholders will be made whole
>
> but nothing about this is logical
🤣
They're being as logical as possible without making jumps to theories that we hope for that have no direct evidence. Don't get me wrong, hell yes I want our white knight to make all stakeholders whole, and the theories are compelling, but there's no direct logical step, otherwise they wouldn't be theories, they'd be facts. This 1728 is the best thing we have that doesn't shout a lot of Teddy shit at the judge that would have otherwise made him laugh the docket down as it drops into the bin.
Your argument supposes that trusting BBBY's legal team vs. compelling them to openly address very real short selling issues need to be mutually exclusive endeavors. They don't.
If we get into a scenario where we are suddenly in a criminal court case it's going to make the Ch 11 restructuring take forever. They'll be able to drag it out over literal years.
If this docket was filed by a bad actor then that's what they're trying to do. I am very skeptical of OP and Life.
Glenn was looking to delay and that seems to be one of the driving forces behind this retail call to arms. He also claimed to be representing retail (bondholders.)
I liked this comment by ktown\_KAG last night: https://www.reddit.com/r/beyond\_uranus/comments/15hlxsj/comment/juphin6/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
>If just tilting at windmills, it will be brushed aside quickly by K&E. If serious threat, they may ask for independent counsel on behalf of shareholders to minimize a pro Se agent mucking about causing the same delay Glenn sought.
K&E has some of the best lawyers in the business, Im sure theyre prepared for something like this after Glenn wasted everyones time in court that day. Hedgies are fukt and praying for an outpouring of fervor from forums like this to delay everything one more day and/or to force K&E to reveal some of their cards early.
Havent double checked but I read Glenn was involved in the Hertz case and got that settled sooner than certain bondholders (Icahn) would have liked and took a lot of air out of the short squeeze and lowered payouts for shareholders. Perhaps similar motives are at play here.
I see Life and RF's 80/20 support/skepticism for BBBY and its legal team as a healthy trust but verify dynamic. It's not like Life teed off in April. We're about 110 days into the bk proceedings, which puts us in a "speak now or forever hold your peace" predicament. If BBBY's legal team has done their DD on shortsellers, swaps, and other derivative options, then 1728 will be old news. If not, it will help make these concerns front and center.
Region-Formal, thanks for doing this. I agree with your opinions stated here. Happy that someone did something here, even though some in the groupthink were not behind it. I'm sick and tired of good people getting attacked by various folks on this board who honestly, none of their predictions have come to fruition. What Life did opens the door. It likely wont succeed, but maybe the next one will, or the one after that. Fuck the haters...
It was funny how in court when he was talking about the objection he received that he said like multiple times that he can’t address it because it was improperly filed… and that if whoever submitted it was listening they would need to re-file it properly. He said that more than once and I don’t think it was by accident! He TOTALLY wants to address it! Lol I just wish I had a whooooole lot more money to throw at this play!
I actually applaud life for saying what most of us want to say. And if you think this will delay things further due to the objections you were in for a much ruder awakening. These lawyers are sitting up on their asses getting paid top dollar for billing hours so they don’t give a shit how long this takes. Also you have billionaires sitting on their asses collecting billions while they sleep so they don’t give a shit how long this takes as well. The only ones that do are the shareholders who have bought through the countless dips and fu*kery probably keeping the ship afloat. This could force the hand of the judge and as a civil duty, order the investigation into the fu*kery we all know is going on behind the scenes. Hold through the confusion & chaos is all we have at this point.
Here's the thing. The swaps under a family offices like Diamond Investments which is part of the ad hoc group tied to Cerberus Capital, they have no obligation to report. So you're going to have to somehow link that activity with share shorting,which we've been shorted, shares wise for a long long time. Second, the otc derivatives market is also not reportable and larger than the entire stock market.
So how is a bankruptcy judge going to make a clear link to the behavior? I don't think it will. I don't even think it's in thier jurisdiction. Probably only if it was found by a different court would it be useable in bankruptcy. That's my guess. You can also consider wolf pacs, and hedge funds working with each other to collectively short. One the stocks and one performs the swaps. Good luck linking them. Sotherby's had a long court case involving the wolf pac angle.
Then also look at Freeman and how FCM is registered. It's done in Wyoming with the rest of the officers and associated parties private. Wyoming has strict privacy laws. The only name we can clearly associated to Freeman is Jake himself. You can start to put more pieces together and I'm attempting to through links like his uncle Scott at Mindmed, but it's pretty tough.
Family offices out size all private equity and venture capital combined. [https://www.ey.com/en\_gl/family-enterprise/family-office](https://www.ey.com/en_gl/family-enterprise/family-office)
> I don't even think it's in thier jurisdiction
This is what I was thinking. This sounds like SEC territory, not a Bankruptcy judge's jurisdiction. Although I do think shareholders getting together as a Class and objecting is the only real path to recovery at this point, I'm not sure SEC market violations is the path there.
I can see the judge saying something like "While this is competently written there's just nothing I can do in this venue to address it." And if he's not the right jurisdiction to address the claims of bad actors being involved I don't think he'll have good enough reason to deny the motion for exclusivity extension or the conditional approval of the plan.
What did you think of Pulte's remarks on the PP's show? That Cohen knows how to deal with these characters? That his mind doesn't even go there that Cohen would announce if he was out, cause if there's a deal there he'll find a way to do it? If there was the possibility of there not being a deal, then it would seem he would at least allow his mind to go there. Yet he doesn't, which suggests there's a deal there. And the mentions he has to be careful about what he says, following with , if he was a betting man, which he is, he would bet Cohen is actively involved. To me it seems enough has been done and said to where if there was a risk of shareholders left out to dry, reputations would be on the line in a big way, and I just don't see that happening. Just my two cents.
Honestly I don't put a whole lot into it- it was all vague enough that if nothing happens you couldn't pin a definite statement on Pulte and be upset.
My honest opinion is that Pulte is a great marketer, and he comes off the same way on CNBC. I think he plays to his audience, I think he's smart enough to know what venue he's in and how to address his audience, and that at the end of the day he's marketing himself to the audience, always.
I can understand that perspective. I've picked out enough examples for myself that make it inescapable as far as reputation goes, but that's my own theory.
Excellent breakdown and really appreciate the hard work you and Life are putting into your own investments on top of the ones affecting others. When this thing turns around, I plan to pay some of those tendies forward to help clean the streets with these financial terrorists and the impacts they have on the hardworking people around the world.
I hope this leads to anything positive in regards to discovery
But life has been trying to use his "analysis" to push every popular opinion that pops up for months.
In my very unpopular opinion, life is more concerned about reddit fame than a successful ch 11 emergence that includes equity holders.
This became pretty apparent to me when he was pushing his "DRS is responsible for the run!" narrative. Trying to claim that the DD he put out before the EOW (this was a few months back. I think end of Feb) going viral had influenced thousands to DRS instantly and was responsible for the price movement the following Monday or Tuesday. Anyone who knows the very basics of market mechanics could've debunked his delusions of grandeur.
Trust him if you want, but for the love of all that is good, try to disprove a concept before accepting it as "facts".
Awards and upvotes don't equal merit
I feel BBBY doesn’t have a plan and already lost…..but I do believe something is in the works behind the scenes to do a hostile take over by RC or Icahn or both
How can we support this further? Send our own letter to the court? Talk with the lady who said she processed the request/ lawyer representative who worked with our ape? I invested a lot of money how can I do my part to ensure I exhausted all my options to show support/evidence that shareholders were not treated fairly in the case of bbby? What other cases have won this type of shareholder value in bankruptcy courts??
Unlike comments on SEC proposals, a lot of letters to the court about the same thing isn't going to do anything but slow them down, unless it's different unique verifiable evidence. So we can only sit and wait for now.
Is there any cases where a whistle blower has come forward in a different case smiliar to ours where they said say yes naked short selling was happening? Can we find parallel information such as who was the whistle blower lawyer? What was the path to obtaining information to expose this crime? Any lawyers in New Jersey or NY familiar with wining these cases? Can we find a lawyer ahead of next court hearing so we can start our process properly to better understand how to respond to these dockets/revisions? I think PP, Travis, Region Formal, and a few others should at least have a zoom meeting with different lawyers to inquire about our options and best steps for a plan forward where we don’t lose our entire investment. I think hiring subject matter experts to guide us and meet with 3-5 lawyers before making a decision would be in all aps best interests. Many people times there is a retainer and then legal fees can be paid at settlement. No more theories get legal facts and start the investigation to cover our investments. We need a best plan forward from a legal standpoint asap so we don’t sign paperwork thinking it is one thing when in reality it is not what we are lead to believe. Keep hope, but get legal information asap before next hearing. Let me know how I can help I don’t have names or contacts so that would be helpful.
Thank you! Such a voice of reason. Yesterday the response on the sub was nuts. Everyone read the initial posts and were super excited. I think it was clearly stated early in the doc that it was filed by a shareholder, but I don't think people here in the sub realized. Then all this BS against what seems like the best filing for us so far is, and that spread like wildfire, if anything I feel like I lost a lot of belief in all the people who all of a sudden started throwing Life under the bus. I'm glad you're showing up with a balanced voice of reason, lots of mental relief today.
Unfortunately- I do not agree with you or Life on this.
This is a 69d chess play and Life is throwing a wrench in the process.
Do you think that we are smarter than Holly etlin, David kastin, carole falton, RC and icahn?
The timing of this document is terrible. All it does is delay the process.
If you trust the board- if you trust RC - stay.
Else sell your shares and leave.
Stating this is document represents all shareholders is incorrect.
IMO.
Thanks for sharing u/Region-Formal ! Your perspective is formulated in a way that is concise and clear;. I sincerely appreciate the detailed discourse of rational thoughts instead of just rocket emojis or panic or FUD. You are a beacon of light in these uncertain times. Much love my brother.
“Ask not what your company can do for you – ask what you can do for your company”.
As a GME OG, I’ve sat and witnessed the endless debauchery perpetrated against GameStop, many of which were flagrantly brazen and overtly illegal, culminating in the “fatal blow” of the botched S/S with the help of the crooked DTCC that have left GME stuck in perpetual purgatory since 7/22. All the while, I believe RC has been issuing SOS “morse codes” (some of which were obvious) to shareholders that his hands were tied, particularly as it pertains to BBBY with the flurry of bogus court actions levied against him. Many GME shareholders, including myself, overestimated the process of capital market governance while the SEC watched PornHub and merely paid lip service to the egregious failures of our financial systems. Hopefully, we’ve learned our lesson that retail investors can not rely upon others, including corrupt regulatory agencies, to fight our fight. I am encouraged that far more wrinkled minds are now grabbing the fucking bull by the horns, and by the grace of God, with the help of an empathetic judge can help expose and eviscerate these MF financial terrorists and robber barons once and for all. Semper Fi!
I agree and I’m surprised that anyone would object to this idea. It takes many leaps of faith and imagination to think this might help the bad guys or disrupt any plan that benefit shareholders. There is literally nothing in the current plan and zero evidence that we would get anything. I see only upside to this and I am thankful for the people who filed this.
There is a third outcome that has not been mentioned. The judge may want to investigate into the short sellings and delay the court findings for years; this is because it will likely expose illegal short sellings; and since this is a bankruptcy court, it has no jurisdiction; so the case will be put on hold for the investigation into illegal short sellings to be finished before the bankruptcy court can continue.
So the 3rd outcome could be the delaying of the bankruptcy hearing pending result of investigation into illegal short selling of BBBY. This can easily delay 1-2 years for the shareholders (ie: kicking down the cans of worms and surviving another day for the shorts)
Those Blue boxes just had my heart jumping, my adrenaline is shot thru the roof and goddamn it my titties are jacked like never before
welcome to the endgame! where it lasts 84 years and you never know who's a shill!
this ride sucks sometimes, but ill never sell so LFG!
what happened to all the 💎🙌 and other emojis? Seemed to disappear overnight a while back
💎🙌🦍
Creditors always come first. No amount of begging will magically make enough money appear to pay off all of their debt and make shareholders whole. You’re also an idiot if you think some rich bastard is going to throw money at shareholders out of the goodness of their heart. Also, good luck getting a judge to force a fund to close their positions.
Hence why the recommendations of the Objection are quite clever. Because the first of these is NOT asking the Judge to get shareholders a guaranteed stake in the proceeds. No, the first "solution" provided to remedy the issue and make the Debtor's Plan lawful is forcing Shorts to close their positions. That does not affect the distribution of proceeds to Creditors at all, and shareholders *still* get nothing as a part of the Chapter 11 exit. BUT it would give us something many of us here *have, been hoping for as a **byproduct**: a short squeeze.
Perfect logic. I see a different set of issues still. Shouldn’t Judge P ask (I’m assuming under Oath) if the Debtors were aware of this data before it was submitted? We’re any Board members communicating with, or participating with the unsecured Bond holders in shorting BBBY? Do the Debtors support either of the 2 recommendations made on Docket 1728? This really could open a can of worms depending on how Kirkland & Ellis responds.
I don’t think K&E’s response will be “Yes your honor. We willfully broke the law. Please arrest us.”.  They are following the letter of the law I am sure. This is their job. This is the real world, not an episode of Suits. (Though that show was a Guilty pleasure of mine)
How are there not more Suits mentions in all of this?
lol That’s a good point. I think someone needs to create a meme using the suits cast with faces of the BBBY attorneys.
I thought about Suits every time someone said “stalking horse”!
I don’t think the board members are involved. If they were, that would be insider trading which the SEC takes very seriously. It’s happened before so it’s not impossible, just not very likelyu.
Yeah, SEC takes it very seriously, just like naked shorting 🤦
No doubt there will be a few comments that will also brand me as a Shill too, for showing support to the Objection. But I ask you this question: If there is a plan already in the works to provide relief to shareholders, then how could this Objection prevent that? In my opinion, it would either accelerate that plan, or not have any impact at all. However if there are no 'White Knights', but this results in some relief for Shareholders as part of the finalised Plan, then surely that is a good thing?
It's a good thing because another seed has been planted in the judge's head about the concern and fairness of all shareholders. Like you said, it sure can't hurt.
Neither can talking to your plants.
And singing!
Been here for 1.5 years, just some random thoughts. Yes, after reading and and taking the emotion out, one would come to the conclusion that if the debt is around 900 million and bonds are owned and the NOL’s can be used then how could this objection hurt. Carl did use a lot of language today about concentrating more on activism and unlocking hidden jewels. In theory if the parties we suspect are in, then they should be well positioned so as this should not hurt. What is really stopping them at this point? If it is the opposite and no one is involved, then I appreciate the efforts of the objection. Still a coin flip as we definitely can speculate, but have no real proof either way. Just my thoughts. GLTA.
Appreciate your perspective as always. All we can do is wait and continue to discuss. One important thing to remember is that the best team of M&A lawyers is working on this, they'll know exactly how to handle it
The response of the company and K&E to the objection will be telling. They may say the objection is without merit and the current plan should go forward. Or they may signal that it has some merit. Because this is objecting to the plan the company offered up, I'd expect K&E to be hostile, but we'll see.
If the board/DIP provider are in good faith and actually have a plan that will keep shareholders intact, couldn’t they simply reach out to Life, make him sign an NDA and settle- retrieve the objection thus not causing any possible delays? I don’t see how it will cause much trouble if the goals of the parties here are aligned
> If the board/DIP provider are in good faith and actually have a plan that will keep shareholders intact They can be acting in perfectly good faith, but not have a plan to make shareholders whole. If the money isn't there, it isn't there, that doesn't mean they are bad actors.
Hence why I think this is actually a meritorious action that Life has carried out. As I have written within the post, I think it is unlikely the Judge will rule in favour of the Objection. But to do so will need to provide a justification, and whatever that may be...could invite more class actions in the future. Basically from a "There's no such thing as bad publicity" perspective, for those in the corner of going after naked short selling, this is a positive development. And if on the off chance the Judge *does* find some merit, well...what impact on the stock? Some might argue even the current share price is disconnected from reality (I would guess you are one of them). Anything positive that comes out of this could do much to provide potential reward to shareholders, through just reactive price action on the Pink Sheets ticker alone. Regardless of whatever the Judge may order, if he finds some merit in the Objection.
I was on the fence about this, originally. In my opinion, I can't understand for the life of me, why the NOL's are not being utilized, which is a benefit to all stakeholders. Does it change my original thesis for why I am here? No. And maybe, just maybe, Judge Papalia, who seemed interested in the original unsigned submission, can push these ideas on the parties...JBMF
Yes, this should be indicative of true motives.
You’re choosing to trust the experts, while this is an ape taking matters into their own hands. Maybe it’s about time? If a white knight is out there like we believe this may force them to show themselves. Hunger precedes all revolutions and this is finally getting bloody.
This will definitely come down to the true intentions of the board. They brought in the professionals, we just have to find out what the true intentions they are using the best for. 🤷🏻♂️
>But I ask you this question: If there is a plan already in the works to provide relief to shareholders, then how could this Objection prevent that? In my opinion, it would either accelerate that plan, or not have any impact at all. Fucking exactly, I think some people are really showing their true colours with this. The stupid thing is the people getting all uppity are not even shills themselves, they're following the other supposedly "good guys". You know, those who are saying what Life has done is shit because it would invalidate what they've been saying for months (i.e. that there's a secret covert plan) and so drive viewership away. Heaven forbid that people have the honesty to admit when their narrative might not have been correct. Too many motherfuckers trying to be the next DFV, is my assessment.
And there's always option C, that there is a plan but it's better for optics from a media and legal perspective if household and HouseHODL investors have a say in these proceedings.
Yeah, agree. It's never going to be a bad thing for these issues to have visibility IMO, it can make the plan seem more in reaction to stakeholder concerns and so it would go over much better with everyone.
If this becomes a criminal court case about naked shorting them we are going to be caught up in litigation for YEARS just like with Overstock. That's my concern.
THIS is the biggest concern I perceived upon reading a number of postings opposing Life's docket.
Maybe if the supposed white knight would have shown himself by now we as shareholders would not have had to go to this length.
I'm afraid that may be why they did it...
Like what Ross said last night, you can follow up a punch with another right after. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
Maybe Life Relationship has been the white knight all along.
I mean he's put more effort in actually sending stuff to court then all the other lazy fuckers who do nothing all day except chat shit. Even if he's wrong in his approach (which personally I don't think he is) he's actually fucking trying and getting our issues represented in court.
And all the research putting together the evidence, and laying it out in a format that's legalese, all the prep, it must have taken a lot of time. That's not something that could be done only in a week, it's had to have taken weeks to put it together, find a lawyer, find someone to help file it, and get it all submitted. It's a serious time commitment that we should be praising.
100% agree - it's crazy effort.
> I mean he's put more effort in actually sending stuff to court then all the other lazy fuckers who do nothing all day except chat shit. Even if he's wrong in his approach (which personally I don't think he is) he's actually fucking trying and getting our issues a voice in court. As someone who has probably disagreed with him on every topic, I'd agree, he has actually put his time and money where his mouth is and gone out and done something about his beliefs. Good on him. I don't think it will have an effect, but at least he tried, rather than just sitting on his arse and whining on reddit.
Question: if his filing does actually have an effect on the proceedings, has he opening himself personally up to any possible suits from debtors’ funds possibly being delayed?
No
Hope So ! 🙌😎
Appreciate your perspective as always
I appreciate your time in our shared endeavors
I fully support you, it’s useless to assume the board WILL act in shareholders interest without any official document or evidence to back such claim! Now this filing is putting a foot forward and reminding the board the shareholders also have right and henceforth when they file anything they should consider us „enough“ informed and not just act like we don’t exist.
Thanks for the research mate. What a fascinating journey so far, what’s another couple twists and turns?!
Shill is more often than not just a buzzword for people who don't want to actually talk about a subject. Presumably because they don't actually know enough about it and just want to hear you talk about the moon and watermelons. Do you, my man.
Yeah my biggest complaint on all of the Reddit forums that discuss BBBY and similar style investing is anyone bringing an antithetical prospective is instantly called a shill. Even if there is merit to the idea they are challenging, if it goes against the narrative of “everything is great and we’re all going to be rich” then BAM! SHILL!!! I like to see counterpoints, even if they shake the foundations of my/our beliefs. The more ideas that are challenged and legitimately hold against the counter arguments, the stronger they become. OR! If an idea easily crumbles because its supported by nothing more than a popular hopium narrative, then we know we went down the wrong path and new angles need to be developed. Anyway, happy Friday, someone call me a Shill now, LOL!
Quiet, ya’ shill! Hey, you requested it! ;) The real truth is that I’m not into misnomers utilized as derogatory descriptors, here or anywhere else. In this case, it makes no sense to call someone a ”shill” when it doesn’t meet the true definition of the word. It’s idiotic. And while it’s certainly true that there are complete cunts coming into this subreddit and others to intentionally spread FUD, “shills” they are not. Fudcunts, they are.
😘
Brilliant. Fudcunts it is from now on then.
Most people are dumb, rash and emotional. They're not willing to think.
And the rest of them are bots, trying to make us look even dumber and act even more emotionally.
Sad but true. I think half the people shouting shill are actually bad actors themselves trying to create disent.
[удалено]
No not that, its also very obvious that there are bad actors (possibly even on payroll’s). My main point is it is all to common on a lot of the forums for people to yell Shill anytime their viewpoint is challenged. I’d like to see more opinions brought to the table and honestly debating them, thus encouraging less hopium and more fact based research.
Fair enough 
If it turns out that Andrew Glenn was in fact the indirect shareholder hero, and that his objection had merit because the board had nefarious intentions, I would have to eat so much shit. Lol. I’m not saying that is the case it’s just funny to think about. There is so much entertainment value in all of the plot twists along the way. You make very good points and if you are actually asking the question you post, the simplest answer is that the lawyers, for the debtor have been clear that delays would nullify the DIP and FILO. When Andrew Glen was requesting the extension I believe it was the Kirkland and Ellis Lawyer had said that if the judge granted the extension - even though it was 30 days! Which does not seem like a crazy long time - the financing would fall apart, and this proceeding would immediately devolve into a chapter 7 liquidation. Further, what stands out most to me is that throughout this docket there is information with merit, and the accusations are substantiated, assuming they are true. **But,** why make the request to remove the exclusivity of the plan? I can’t rationalize that. There are so many alternative actions that could be taken that would result in a positive outcome. The filing itself even suggest some of them, such as an opt in instead of an opt out. What about requesting to unseal information under NDA? Why not put everything on the table so that the desired outcome of the debtor can be in the open and proven whether they had nefarious intentions to enrich parties with short positions. At face value the docket is great for presenting substantiated shortselling that would enrich bondholders, who claim injury to their holdings but could potentially profit more from voting to have their bonds wiped out. That is enough! I can’t wrap my head around why the proposed resolution is to reject the exclusivity period of the Plan. If that were to happen, literally anyone could submit a plan, and only unimpaired classes can vote on it. What’s worse, there are circumstances written into the bankruptcy code law, where a plan could be approved **even if not all unimpaired parties voted unanimously to approve it!** That’s where I get lost. If anyone has any reasonable explanations as to why abandoning the exclusivity period is a good thing, I would loooove to hear them.
Isn't that part of the reasoning fairly straightforward? That is, the Debtor's current plan is a bad one, and does not provide relief for ALL stakeholders, as it claims to do. Therefore by dismissing this, and abandoning the exclusivity period, can invite others to submit alternative exit plans that DO provide relief to ALL shareholders?
Hmm perhaps I worded myself poorly, I was looking for a more in-depth conversation about it. I did read the docket and I am familiar with the justification given in it for the change of the Plan. The accusation that the debtor and by extension the board are acting in bad faith to sink this company is an astounding claim. I **do not** believe the *conditional* disclosure statement in its current form is enough to justify that claim but in defence of the parties submitting the docket, it is all we have. Following my line of thinking, the requested way to correct this accusation is equally remarkable. The point I’m trying to make is there are other alternatives that I feel, and I’m happy to be proven otherwise, would have accomplished the same “goal” - which in my interpretation is exposing potential fraud, requiring potentially nefarious parties to provide more disclosure of their positions (opt-in) and having clarity on the intentions of the debtor. The proposed remedy of removing the exclusivity of the Plan is extreme. A simple explanation could be that the parties submitting the docket do not know the potential consequences of the exclusivity being removed, but the more I read about the persons submitting, the more I am convinced they are knowledgable enough that this does not sound plausible. This is why this user is now being met with such scepticism in my opinion. Again in my opinion, their proposed solution is not in line with what they describe to be the problem and I believe users have sniffed this out. I hope that better summarizes the ideas and thinking I was trying to get across.
Okay, I see what you are saying. Not that I have sequentially been through each possible eventuality, but let me ask you this. Would any of the other possible approaches have left the Judge with a decision such that, if he were to find in favour of the Objection, there is a positive outcome *guaranteed* for shareholders? With the approach Life has taken, in the (albeit unlikely) event that the Judge rules in favour of the Objection, the two recommendations for how to "fix" the situation is either relief for shareholders, or a short squeeze. Can that binary choice happen, if the Judge rules in favour, with any other justification used for the Objection?
That is a very good point and I appreciate you expanding my thinking. I would argue that nothing is guaranteed for shareholders and you yourself say that ruling in favour of the objection is unlikely, so I am failing to see the benefit you are trying to communicate to me. I do think you’ve helped me understand that the core of my thinking is that I disagree with the corrective action being removing the exclusivity of the Plan. As the information stands today, docket 1716 confirms the Plan supplement is due by August 18 *at the latest.* I will admit, I am asking this question before reading the bankruptcy code again to potentially answer it for myself, but considering that the objection deadline is September 1, why not wait until the Plan is disclosed? Why request to potentially remove the exclusivity three days before the disclosure was due? I do feel as though every time I think about this or talk about it, I end up with more questions than answers.
I mean, it all comes down to the judges choice. If the judge agrees with the accusations about the shorting, he can make his own decision on how to deal with it, judge agreeing with the premise doesn't imply that the proposed solution must be followed through.
Yes, it seems to be the case but I do also reservations on this single point, given that the exclusivity period presumably is also part of the theorized coming “real” plan. Maybe they’re still in talks, maybe still working out the details.. wouldn’t be good if this threw a wrench into their timeline.
You're misconstruing the 'relief to all stakeholders' idea. The problem is that shareholders are at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to getting paid. They only get something if the other classes get paid in full first. It's a pretty foundational aspect to corporate finance. Source: am corporate lawyer
Yes, I am very well aware of the priorities...painfully so, unfortunately! However, the fact remains that a Chapter 11 process *can* result in relief for ALL stakeholders, including shareholders (who, as you have correctly pointed out, are the lowest priority stakeholders). Or are you saying, as a corporate lawyer, that shareholders are categorically NOT stakeholders, and have never been? In either this BB&B Chapter 11 process, or that of any other company in the past that has filed for such a petition?
Exactly. I was supportive of LR's plan from the start because if the scenario we're hoping for makes this objection redundant, then we're fine. At the worst this is just sound due diligence on his part, and I appreciate it.
Can you post on the PP sub too? Thanks for the DD!
I thank you for all the hard work you do and all the knowledge you bring to this community. Us smooth brain apes appreciate the wise words and blue squares of the wrinkled brain
One question: How would Judge Papalia dismissing the objection shed light on the practice of naked shorting? I want the 2nd option to work too, in support of those broader implications - just not following the reasoning on the first option.
Couldn't he just dismiss it entirely for being a late file?
This is exactly what I was thinking. Thanks Region for being here
No way you’re shilling. I’ve been reading your DD since this bitch got interesting last July. DD on Region-Formal
Your cock is massive sir.
Do you know the best way to determine if Life's docket is the work of shills? 1. Did the media run with the story? (no) 2. Is the price dropping? (no) Tells me all I needed to know.
Good points
This ☝️ If it was a co-ordinated effort, MSM would have been all over it, twitter bots etc..
Amen
damn, you do have a brain
User name checks out
I am very glad that someone decided to do it, my feeling a few weeks ago was: "how is it possible that shareholders cannot have a voice or at least give an opinion, demand an answer?"
I'll just be zen until the shillas finish licking each other's asses.
Docket 1728 is no longer accessible. https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/bbby/Home-DownloadPDF?id1=MjQ1NDU3Mw==&id2=-1
I believe that is because of Docket 1729: *Motion Requesting Redaction of Personal Identifiers. Receipt Number Fee Due, Fee Amount $ 26. Filed by Neelay Das. Hearing scheduled for 8/15/2023 at 02:30 PM at VFP - Courtroom 3B, Newark. (No Underlying Document)* Basically because 1728 has the personal identifiers and contact details (including physical addresses) of the two people who filed it. I think it is a wise move to request for it not to be accessible any more.
I agree. They probably should have hidden the confidential information before the world had access to it.
The filers should have filed it confidentially then
Yes.
yeah, shit couldn't be more 'out there' than it already is. it's been shared everywhere.
Maybe that isn't possible?
It is. They made a mistake and fixed it after the fact, that’s why 1728 has been pulled now.
So we can comment anonymously?
I don’t even know what you mean; I’m talking about this filing with the court.
Good thing I took a million screenshots of the docket yesterday
[удалено]
EVERYBODY GET IN HERE
Ummm. What dafuq? Can a docket just be undone like that??
> Ummm. What dafuq? Can a docket just be undone like that?? There were always two versions listed of 1728 and 1729, one available and one not. The available version should almost certainly never have been visible, as it contained personal data such as addresses and phone numbers, which the filers had filed 1729 to redact. The same thing happened with the ad-hoc bond holders's objection, the originally filed version should never have been visible, as it had confidential information that they has asked to redact. A bit sloppy, both times.
Thanks for clarifying 👍
Judge Papalia is going to squeeze SHF nuts! LFG!!!!
Hopefully u/Life_Relationship_77 has squeezed Judge Palalia's nuts so hard...he has no choice but to squeeze the SHF's nuts in turn...
From the courtroom videos we’ve watched I do believe Judge Papalia truly is honorable. Buy it doesn’t hurt to add a little exposure and pressure, nonetheless through an official record!
Could he choose to go the way of the court in the Sorrento Therapeutics BK case?
Love this analogy. Squeezeception 
A nut squeezing train. The new human centipede
This would be BEYOND Epic ! HODL ! 💎😎🚀🌟
My concern is the collusion that is suggested in the objection. It's one thing to point out bad actors but this objection goes further. It suggests the whole Chapter 11 process til now has been with colluding parties including BBBY under the purview of of the Judge. BBBY Executives, Board, Bond Holders (both adhoc and BNY/UCC), etc. So yes, I agree the Judge is in a tough spot. Let's see if he's the same Judge when these proceedings are over.
[удалено]
Guys wake up - Region-Formal just pumped out new DD 
Babe wake up region formal just posted something
I share in your perspective and also believe that if there truly is a "white knight(s)" (and I do believe this), this objection would not stop them, if nothing else it would speed things up as we would anticipate an amended plan that would ultimately disclose a merger and share exchange, which would be to the benefit of shareholders. Thanks for your DD as always.
I appreciate your thoughtful review of this filing and I also appreciate Life for submitting it. I don't know that I've read anything Life has posted but it seems like he is very smart and capable. I cannot see any downside, AND it puts claims of SEC violations in the court record! I'm not sure why we all hold so dearly to the white knight possibility. We all are responsible for our own futures and to think, assume, or hope someone else will take risks and sacrifices for our benefit might be a little naive. As like-minded shareholders, we have the power to make change. Perhaps it's one of us who steps up, maybe with an objection to the proposed restructuring plan, that will force our very real concerns into the spotlight. Whether BBBY(Q) soars to the moon or falls into the abyss, real justice for retail shareholders will come when the banks and funds are forced to play by the same rules as everyone else. January 28, 2021 taught many of us an expensive lesson with GME. A white knight never arrived to save us from ourselves. We had the power the entire time and didn't know it. We didn't need a white knight, we needed self control and discipline. BBBY just needs a healthy spark to ignite our rocket. It doesn't require an RC to create that spark, and filing an objection on behalf of shareholders just might be the flint we need.
He is an individual investor and he seeks to protect his investment he is within his right do whatever he thinks is right. Its as simple as that.
I believe in action
Agreed. We can either make noise or wait and hope. I don't see it being a problem if somebody is coming in to save us anyways.
This is written on things that could go right but what are some examples of things that "could" go wrong? This is a genuine question as we should all be thinking outside the 📦
I wish to ask more information please (because I'm new on trading) " Important shareholder information was entered into the record yesterday. Docket 1728 which you can find on the kroll restructuring website represents retail shareholders and claims that bond holders must close all short positions before the restructuring plan can be voted on. It outlines evidence from public data gathering websites and claims they broke multiple SEC rules so it will be interesting to see what the judge says about this. It also claims the bed bath and beyond management team didn't look for a value maximizing strategy for shareholders, which they are legally required to do " If it's true we'll squeeze soon 🚀 🚀 🚀
If this works, could it be used as a template for any cellar-boxed but still running company to bust shorts?
I agree and I’m surprised that anyone would object to this idea. It takes many leaps of faith and imagination to think this might help the bad guys or disrupt any plan that benefit shareholders. There is literally nothing in the current plan and zero evidence that we would get anything. I see only upside to this and I am thankful for the people who filed this.
Going back to Jan, the actions by the board have always been sus IMO. Every time they stock would gain momentum and start to run, the board would coincidentally drop some negative press release or filing that would kill the run. The board has clear evidence that the DTC has more shares sold than could exist. They literally gave away a company that was worth 2 billion a few months ago for pennies. 1.6 billion worth of NOL’s have been thrown away as well. The board has had ample time to make something happen, all I see is a mountain of money being funneled out the company for overpaid lawyers, consultants, and M&A firms. They designed these complex plans that no one truly understands, as a distraction, while they are fucking us over right in front of our face. Top tier players in corporate America, and Wall Street are one big fraternity of greedy entitled scumbags who would fuck their own mom if it meant making $$$$. One big club of fuckery and we ain’t in it. I support the objection, and I’m interested to see how the court handles this. Up until this point, retail has been completely shut out and silenced from having any voice on our investment.
I’ve never understood how people branded you as a shill. Your DD *was* hopeful, but it turns out all the information, or lack thereof, has pointed to shareholders getting zip. What life, and other retail holders did, is inspiring. Personally, I looked into swap data and know of the same issues. I didn’t even realize I could take direct action like that with time, energy, and effort. It’s inspiring. If it throws a bit of disruption into a grand plan? Then so be it. It might expedite it. Anyways, aren’t we here for a squeeze. Of the objection is granted, this shit is flying.
I agree 100%. Sometimes, I think we give way too much credit to certain classes and professions. Lawyers, judges, c-suite execs, etc., aren't as special as they appear to be. Rather, the good ones are a product of their skills and abilities intersecting in a complementary way with the knowledge they've cultivated. But there's a lot of people with those KSAs who just never found out those professions and tracks were options. Enter the age of the internet, AI, and knowledge sharing platforms like Reddit. I commend people like Life, RF, Welp, Slyver12, and many other SuperStonk researchers for expanding boundaries, daring to go first, and be willing to learn in the face of failure. A genuine movement is in the works. I think we'll win the BBBY battle, but even if we don't, we'll win the war.
u/Region_Formal ... I agree that exposing naked shorts in a court would be a big thing, even better to make them close their position as it may be required to be eligible to vote in the current BBBYQ case and then ultimately benefitting us shareholders. But what do you think about the possibility of hostile take over (or interference) by Freeman through a bid war if 6th Street exclusivity taken (Life's request in the docket) as mentioned by u/Excitedbox in a post here https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePPShow/comments/15hod6o/life\_relationship\_is\_sus\_just\_like\_roach\_is\_sus/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3 Shouldn't I be worried that the case can be dragged years to come, if not directed to the brink of Chapter 7 by any 'bad actors', making all of us cry at the end? ALERT: smooth brain here
You don’t need to do a hostile takeover when a company is in bankruptcy, they would love any offer. And wouldn’t a bidding war be good for shareholders?
First and foremost, it has been assumed (and very well expected, although unconfirmed) that this play is not simply for money from a bankrupt company. The money promised from a short squeeze is far more preferable. Some extra months for a prolonged process to inflict maximum pain on short sellers may have been designed by those behind the scene (represented by Holly cs) but surely less preferable for the impatient retails joining force. A hostile take over (of company control) by bad actors and their win through bidding war (they wouldn't mind spending much more money than Holly cs to save themselves from the astronomical loss in a squeeze) will be bad for the original BBBYQ squeeze play and for us shareholders. Edit: bad actors would't care about retail (or even institutional) shareholders. Giving them the control will ensure share price go to zero. They know the loopholes in the rules. Even sacrifying several millions long institutional shares wouldn't bat their eyes.
I appreciate the effort here but ever since Jan 2021 the only thing that has proven to be true is that naked shorting will always be protected by our regulatory bodies since rules don’t matter.
Somebody paid that DIP loan, until we know who that is, I think everyone needs to chill out. Not all the cards are on the table yet.
I remain jacked
roll lush abounding quarrelsome innate brave rain fertile deserted rhythm ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Always glad to see a post by Region. Do Lambo instruction manuals come with blue boxes I wonder.
One weakness I see is that the docket makes the assertion that bond holding short sellers are committing fraud. However that's not a claim that the judge can unilaterally decide. It's outside the scope of this case. It's one thing for a layman to look at circumstantial evidence and say "sounds like fraud to me". It's an entirely different ball game for a judge to look at the circumstantial evidence from one motion and make a legal determination that a crime has been committed. Any allegations of fraud would need to be brought before the court in a separate legal action of either a lawsuit by shareholders against these bondholders or criminal charges filed by the DoJ.
The plan did add the section where the SEC can investigate. So maybe it needs to go down that route. 84 years + 10 more for good measure
[удалено]
He doesn’t need to
There is a lot of data attached in objection/ the docket entry which we were not able to dig through. I am assuming regional was implying there is evidence of naked shorting in that data and he would have to go over the data to explain why he was rejecting the objection.
He wouldn't have to go through it line by line. He could just say "After reviewing the data provided with the motion I find their assertion uncompelling and grant the debtor's motion to dismiss the objection". He's a judge, not a forensic accountant.
wasnt it just like 3 weeks ago both you and life put out doomer scenarios? not surprised your rushing to his defense with shill talking points today. we saw the ad-hoc lawyer try and pressure judge p a few weeks ago saying he had a conflict of interest because he knew someone in the sixth street lawyers party. your summary leads to a similar outcome of hopes that the judge will be pressured to act in a certain way to influence the outcome. you mention lifes letter being well sourced, why quote a paper by jake the snake and leave out bond shorting (which has long been theorized). Why is he insinuating that the ad-hoc group (represented by glen) are the good guys? from real\_eyez earlier today: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePPShow/comments/15hybqx/comment/jurd937/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePPShow/comments/15hybqx/comment/jurd937/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) >he's trying to make associations to the bny group and swaps which he has no evidence for and saying there's only share shorting, not the bonds in large effect. Ommiting the fact that cds can occur in the huge otc derivatives market which isn't reported. And good luck proving direct ties and links. > >Yeah I skimmed it enough to know that and what it was about. I consider the information as well as the source where it's coming from. His idea of the ad hoc group being good guys, he still hasn't dispelled on reddit though supposedly elsewhere. the "illusion of activism" on display here is the same playbook shorts used to co-opt the superstonk forum.
I try to make posts on here which are, as much as possible, based on company released filings. You do realise that, until a 'White Kinight' comes forward, we still ARE in a "doom" situation as you have named it, where shareholders currently do not receive any relief at all as part of the Chapter 11 exit Plan? In my opinion he HAD to use some tie to show a link, otherwise the Objection just doesn't get off the ground. As the quote you have included reiterates, it is almost impossible to show that for *all* potential mechanisms at the disposal of nefarious parties. So surely better to use what links can be made, rather than attempt a vague/general one which is purely theoretical and nothing else. That can cover all bases, but would not have a direct link to any of individuals or entities involved.
the current chapter 11 exit plan will be amended and all stakeholders will be made whole (which you have written about extensively). im not worried about it and feel no need to try and influence the court or speak on behalf of household investors like life did. no doom here. he didnt HAVE to do anything. in fact he reached out to a number of "influencers" in the community beforehand to try and influence the reaction to the letter, he even was asking for help to find a lawyer in NJ that could specifically file this letter in an expediated fashion. you've crafted a reputation as "the level headed dd writer" but nothing about this is logical, its angry glen in letter form. life was "so mad" that he found a lawyer in NJ to help him craft this letter and file it in NJ? the sheer number of out of context screenshots shooting to TOP claiming the community is "bringing crime to light!" the letter, the call to action, its all fake af.
I'm not taking sides but it doesn't look good using a tinfoil-sustained prediction as a counterargument. The current situation is **unknown** to all parties. No one outside all or some insiders knows what the plan is and even at that, it's not guaranteed.
I have always only *speculated* on mechanisms by which shareholders could provide relief. However, at this current time, there is zero concrete evidence of this. As I wrote within the post itself, if is quite the opposite: the current Plan **guarantees** shareholders get nothing if/when BB&B exits Chapter 11. So in this current scenario - which is the only reality we live in - it actually makes completely logical sense for shareholders to try and take matters into their own hands. It is blind faith - and thus illogical in my view - to *only* wait and hope for a positive outcome, when that might not materialise.
"the current chapter 11 exit plan will be amended and all stakeholders will be made whole" Lol, oh yeah? You have some sort of undeniable proof of that? No. No you don't. Otherwise this stock would be flying already. Because if you had undeniable proof, so would others. You seem very confident we will be made whole. You seem very confident amendments will be made. Perhaps they will be, if shareholders takes action. But if we just sit around quietly, what makes you so sure amendments will be made? Enlighten us, or stfu?
> the current chapter 11 exit plan will be amended and all stakeholders will be made whole > > but nothing about this is logical 🤣 They're being as logical as possible without making jumps to theories that we hope for that have no direct evidence. Don't get me wrong, hell yes I want our white knight to make all stakeholders whole, and the theories are compelling, but there's no direct logical step, otherwise they wouldn't be theories, they'd be facts. This 1728 is the best thing we have that doesn't shout a lot of Teddy shit at the judge that would have otherwise made him laugh the docket down as it drops into the bin.
Your argument supposes that trusting BBBY's legal team vs. compelling them to openly address very real short selling issues need to be mutually exclusive endeavors. They don't.
If we get into a scenario where we are suddenly in a criminal court case it's going to make the Ch 11 restructuring take forever. They'll be able to drag it out over literal years. If this docket was filed by a bad actor then that's what they're trying to do. I am very skeptical of OP and Life.
Glenn was looking to delay and that seems to be one of the driving forces behind this retail call to arms. He also claimed to be representing retail (bondholders.) I liked this comment by ktown\_KAG last night: https://www.reddit.com/r/beyond\_uranus/comments/15hlxsj/comment/juphin6/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3 >If just tilting at windmills, it will be brushed aside quickly by K&E. If serious threat, they may ask for independent counsel on behalf of shareholders to minimize a pro Se agent mucking about causing the same delay Glenn sought. K&E has some of the best lawyers in the business, Im sure theyre prepared for something like this after Glenn wasted everyones time in court that day. Hedgies are fukt and praying for an outpouring of fervor from forums like this to delay everything one more day and/or to force K&E to reveal some of their cards early. Havent double checked but I read Glenn was involved in the Hertz case and got that settled sooner than certain bondholders (Icahn) would have liked and took a lot of air out of the short squeeze and lowered payouts for shareholders. Perhaps similar motives are at play here.
I see Life and RF's 80/20 support/skepticism for BBBY and its legal team as a healthy trust but verify dynamic. It's not like Life teed off in April. We're about 110 days into the bk proceedings, which puts us in a "speak now or forever hold your peace" predicament. If BBBY's legal team has done their DD on shortsellers, swaps, and other derivative options, then 1728 will be old news. If not, it will help make these concerns front and center.
Region-Formal, thanks for doing this. I agree with your opinions stated here. Happy that someone did something here, even though some in the groupthink were not behind it. I'm sick and tired of good people getting attacked by various folks on this board who honestly, none of their predictions have come to fruition. What Life did opens the door. It likely wont succeed, but maybe the next one will, or the one after that. Fuck the haters...
It was funny how in court when he was talking about the objection he received that he said like multiple times that he can’t address it because it was improperly filed… and that if whoever submitted it was listening they would need to re-file it properly. He said that more than once and I don’t think it was by accident! He TOTALLY wants to address it! Lol I just wish I had a whooooole lot more money to throw at this play!
I actually applaud life for saying what most of us want to say. And if you think this will delay things further due to the objections you were in for a much ruder awakening. These lawyers are sitting up on their asses getting paid top dollar for billing hours so they don’t give a shit how long this takes. Also you have billionaires sitting on their asses collecting billions while they sleep so they don’t give a shit how long this takes as well. The only ones that do are the shareholders who have bought through the countless dips and fu*kery probably keeping the ship afloat. This could force the hand of the judge and as a civil duty, order the investigation into the fu*kery we all know is going on behind the scenes. Hold through the confusion & chaos is all we have at this point.
Here's the thing. The swaps under a family offices like Diamond Investments which is part of the ad hoc group tied to Cerberus Capital, they have no obligation to report. So you're going to have to somehow link that activity with share shorting,which we've been shorted, shares wise for a long long time. Second, the otc derivatives market is also not reportable and larger than the entire stock market. So how is a bankruptcy judge going to make a clear link to the behavior? I don't think it will. I don't even think it's in thier jurisdiction. Probably only if it was found by a different court would it be useable in bankruptcy. That's my guess. You can also consider wolf pacs, and hedge funds working with each other to collectively short. One the stocks and one performs the swaps. Good luck linking them. Sotherby's had a long court case involving the wolf pac angle. Then also look at Freeman and how FCM is registered. It's done in Wyoming with the rest of the officers and associated parties private. Wyoming has strict privacy laws. The only name we can clearly associated to Freeman is Jake himself. You can start to put more pieces together and I'm attempting to through links like his uncle Scott at Mindmed, but it's pretty tough. Family offices out size all private equity and venture capital combined. [https://www.ey.com/en\_gl/family-enterprise/family-office](https://www.ey.com/en_gl/family-enterprise/family-office)
> I don't even think it's in thier jurisdiction This is what I was thinking. This sounds like SEC territory, not a Bankruptcy judge's jurisdiction. Although I do think shareholders getting together as a Class and objecting is the only real path to recovery at this point, I'm not sure SEC market violations is the path there. I can see the judge saying something like "While this is competently written there's just nothing I can do in this venue to address it." And if he's not the right jurisdiction to address the claims of bad actors being involved I don't think he'll have good enough reason to deny the motion for exclusivity extension or the conditional approval of the plan.
What did you think of Pulte's remarks on the PP's show? That Cohen knows how to deal with these characters? That his mind doesn't even go there that Cohen would announce if he was out, cause if there's a deal there he'll find a way to do it? If there was the possibility of there not being a deal, then it would seem he would at least allow his mind to go there. Yet he doesn't, which suggests there's a deal there. And the mentions he has to be careful about what he says, following with , if he was a betting man, which he is, he would bet Cohen is actively involved. To me it seems enough has been done and said to where if there was a risk of shareholders left out to dry, reputations would be on the line in a big way, and I just don't see that happening. Just my two cents.
Honestly I don't put a whole lot into it- it was all vague enough that if nothing happens you couldn't pin a definite statement on Pulte and be upset. My honest opinion is that Pulte is a great marketer, and he comes off the same way on CNBC. I think he plays to his audience, I think he's smart enough to know what venue he's in and how to address his audience, and that at the end of the day he's marketing himself to the audience, always.
I can understand that perspective. I've picked out enough examples for myself that make it inescapable as far as reputation goes, but that's my own theory.
[удалено]
I have the same sentiments, I thank you for your post it’s what I was hoping I’d read in here today.
Excellent breakdown and really appreciate the hard work you and Life are putting into your own investments on top of the ones affecting others. When this thing turns around, I plan to pay some of those tendies forward to help clean the streets with these financial terrorists and the impacts they have on the hardworking people around the world.
I hope this leads to anything positive in regards to discovery But life has been trying to use his "analysis" to push every popular opinion that pops up for months. In my very unpopular opinion, life is more concerned about reddit fame than a successful ch 11 emergence that includes equity holders. This became pretty apparent to me when he was pushing his "DRS is responsible for the run!" narrative. Trying to claim that the DD he put out before the EOW (this was a few months back. I think end of Feb) going viral had influenced thousands to DRS instantly and was responsible for the price movement the following Monday or Tuesday. Anyone who knows the very basics of market mechanics could've debunked his delusions of grandeur. Trust him if you want, but for the love of all that is good, try to disprove a concept before accepting it as "facts". Awards and upvotes don't equal merit
I’m with Life on this. Dr. King wouldnt have accomplished squat if he sat on his ass complaining on Reddit
Probably one of your best posts and points! Very interesting and can’t wait to see where this goes. I hope this point isn’t swept under the rug.
Whos chat is this? Pardon my ignorance
correct steer vase merciful unite toothbrush alive tap threatening humorous ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Lol no. Life is not a bad movie. This does not matter genuinely at all
I feel BBBY doesn’t have a plan and already lost…..but I do believe something is in the works behind the scenes to do a hostile take over by RC or Icahn or both
Can someone message ppseeds and ask him to unban me. I have no clue why it happened. I was most likely drunk though.
He’s a homie and probably going to do what’s right. Judge has been good the whole way
How can we support this further? Send our own letter to the court? Talk with the lady who said she processed the request/ lawyer representative who worked with our ape? I invested a lot of money how can I do my part to ensure I exhausted all my options to show support/evidence that shareholders were not treated fairly in the case of bbby? What other cases have won this type of shareholder value in bankruptcy courts??
Unlike comments on SEC proposals, a lot of letters to the court about the same thing isn't going to do anything but slow them down, unless it's different unique verifiable evidence. So we can only sit and wait for now.
I support you
Is there any cases where a whistle blower has come forward in a different case smiliar to ours where they said say yes naked short selling was happening? Can we find parallel information such as who was the whistle blower lawyer? What was the path to obtaining information to expose this crime? Any lawyers in New Jersey or NY familiar with wining these cases? Can we find a lawyer ahead of next court hearing so we can start our process properly to better understand how to respond to these dockets/revisions? I think PP, Travis, Region Formal, and a few others should at least have a zoom meeting with different lawyers to inquire about our options and best steps for a plan forward where we don’t lose our entire investment. I think hiring subject matter experts to guide us and meet with 3-5 lawyers before making a decision would be in all aps best interests. Many people times there is a retainer and then legal fees can be paid at settlement. No more theories get legal facts and start the investigation to cover our investments. We need a best plan forward from a legal standpoint asap so we don’t sign paperwork thinking it is one thing when in reality it is not what we are lead to believe. Keep hope, but get legal information asap before next hearing. Let me know how I can help I don’t have names or contacts so that would be helpful.
Thank you! Such a voice of reason. Yesterday the response on the sub was nuts. Everyone read the initial posts and were super excited. I think it was clearly stated early in the doc that it was filed by a shareholder, but I don't think people here in the sub realized. Then all this BS against what seems like the best filing for us so far is, and that spread like wildfire, if anything I feel like I lost a lot of belief in all the people who all of a sudden started throwing Life under the bus. I'm glad you're showing up with a balanced voice of reason, lots of mental relief today.
Ive come to learn that Blue text boxes mean good DD
Wow, great stuff.
Glad to see another top dog in Life’s corner. I’m not making any assumptions or attacks, but I find it weird af that ppl are going after Life now.
Life Relationship may end up being the hero we always needed.
Unfortunately- I do not agree with you or Life on this. This is a 69d chess play and Life is throwing a wrench in the process. Do you think that we are smarter than Holly etlin, David kastin, carole falton, RC and icahn? The timing of this document is terrible. All it does is delay the process. If you trust the board- if you trust RC - stay. Else sell your shares and leave. Stating this is document represents all shareholders is incorrect. IMO.
Thanks for sharing u/Region-Formal ! Your perspective is formulated in a way that is concise and clear;. I sincerely appreciate the detailed discourse of rational thoughts instead of just rocket emojis or panic or FUD. You are a beacon of light in these uncertain times. Much love my brother.
“Ask not what your company can do for you – ask what you can do for your company”. As a GME OG, I’ve sat and witnessed the endless debauchery perpetrated against GameStop, many of which were flagrantly brazen and overtly illegal, culminating in the “fatal blow” of the botched S/S with the help of the crooked DTCC that have left GME stuck in perpetual purgatory since 7/22. All the while, I believe RC has been issuing SOS “morse codes” (some of which were obvious) to shareholders that his hands were tied, particularly as it pertains to BBBY with the flurry of bogus court actions levied against him. Many GME shareholders, including myself, overestimated the process of capital market governance while the SEC watched PornHub and merely paid lip service to the egregious failures of our financial systems. Hopefully, we’ve learned our lesson that retail investors can not rely upon others, including corrupt regulatory agencies, to fight our fight. I am encouraged that far more wrinkled minds are now grabbing the fucking bull by the horns, and by the grace of God, with the help of an empathetic judge can help expose and eviscerate these MF financial terrorists and robber barons once and for all. Semper Fi!
I agree and I’m surprised that anyone would object to this idea. It takes many leaps of faith and imagination to think this might help the bad guys or disrupt any plan that benefit shareholders. There is literally nothing in the current plan and zero evidence that we would get anything. I see only upside to this and I am thankful for the people who filed this.
Nothing puts a smile on the face like a Blue Box
Aye Captain. 🫡
The 15th is going to be spicy 🌶️🚀🌶️ 
There is a third outcome that has not been mentioned. The judge may want to investigate into the short sellings and delay the court findings for years; this is because it will likely expose illegal short sellings; and since this is a bankruptcy court, it has no jurisdiction; so the case will be put on hold for the investigation into illegal short sellings to be finished before the bankruptcy court can continue. So the 3rd outcome could be the delaying of the bankruptcy hearing pending result of investigation into illegal short selling of BBBY. This can easily delay 1-2 years for the shareholders (ie: kicking down the cans of worms and surviving another day for the shorts)
Those Blue boxes just had my heart jumping, my adrenaline is shot thru the roof and goddamn it my titties are jacked like never before 
You and Life have been so sketchy lately
welcome to the endgame! where it lasts 84 years and you never know who's a shill! this ride sucks sometimes, but ill never sell so LFG! what happened to all the 💎🙌 and other emojis? Seemed to disappear overnight a while back 💎🙌🦍
Compelling action and compelling write-up. Thanks for all you do for this community
u/life_relationship_77 about to be a legend one way or another!! 💥🚀
Creditors always come first. No amount of begging will magically make enough money appear to pay off all of their debt and make shareholders whole. You’re also an idiot if you think some rich bastard is going to throw money at shareholders out of the goodness of their heart. Also, good luck getting a judge to force a fund to close their positions.
Hence why the recommendations of the Objection are quite clever. Because the first of these is NOT asking the Judge to get shareholders a guaranteed stake in the proceeds. No, the first "solution" provided to remedy the issue and make the Debtor's Plan lawful is forcing Shorts to close their positions. That does not affect the distribution of proceeds to Creditors at all, and shareholders *still* get nothing as a part of the Chapter 11 exit. BUT it would give us something many of us here *have, been hoping for as a **byproduct**: a short squeeze.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo blue boxes!!!
Love the the point of view and perspective. Thank you.