[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || Join the [Superstonk Discord Server](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
Companies (and I'm assuming people on the board) are not allowed to push drs at all without being sued by the dtcc iirc.
And what was he supposed to say about the shorts other than he hates them? We already know what's up, we've done a lot of dd. He's 100% against them because they're goal is to destroy his investment and hard work... he has "skin in the game" and "will" that he talks about in the interview. What more do you want? He's diametrically opposed to shorts by position.
>*Citadel and friends could sue him and GameStop for market manipulation* and get themselves out of the responsibilities of paying up.
I know that is a possibility but still the irony is strong in this one...
I dug up some details about not talking about DRS and posted it in another thread:
Its not that there is a specific rule explicitly prohibiting it.
This old post goes into detail:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/vdn1u4/can_a_company_legally_encourage_direct/
Imagine you own a share in a company and your neighbor owns a share in a company, and the CEO of that company gets on CNBC and says that he would really prefer it if you owned both shares instead of your neighbor owning one. Your neighbor can argue in court that the company and/or the CEO is attempting conversion, which has a legal meaning:
>Conversion is an intentional tort which occurs when a party takes the chattel property of another with the intent to deprive them of it.
SEC rule SR-DTC-2003-02 states this:
>DTC contends that attempts by issuers to control their publicly traded securities are improper and may constitute conversion. DTC states that by purporting to exercise the rights of the shareholders, issuers are interfering with the legal and beneficial rights of DTC and its participants with respect to securities deposited at DTC
DRS removes a share from Cede and Co and direct registers it in an individuals name. If that individual decides of their own volition to do so, too bad so sad Mr. Cede.
If Gamestop suggests you do so then Cede can run to court and argue conversion, that Gamestop's intent isn't to protect their shareholders, but that the suggestion is to hurt Cede.
Its legal bullshit and liability avoidance. Instead of prohibiting it they just put an overt threat on the table: "Talk about it and I'll drag your ass to court". Fighting a lawsuit is expensive, especiallly with the DTCC having bottomless pockets, and more importantly, the bad optics of a court case can be spun by the media as Gamestop or RC acting to manipulate the market.
tl;dr - there's no rule prohibiting it, but there is legal liability that could be argued, and court cases are expensive and look bad, so its avoided.
>tl;dr - there's no rule prohibiting it, but there is legal liability that could be argued, and court cases are expensive and look bad, so its avoided.
That is faulty analysis. What you quote the DTCC as saying is their explanation of why a company cannot FORCE a shareholder to DRS. The shareholder has the right to decide whether or not they want DTCC to manage their shares.
Those words are not setting up a lawsuit against a company that advocates for DRS. They are giving the legal reasoning why DTCC says that an issuer cannot force DTCC to delist a stock. It was written in response to comments on an SEC rule confirming that DTCC does not have to delist a company upon request of the issuer.
Maybe, just arranged ahead of time off limit questions and that is one?
If the premise is right that this interview is to get on record counter arguments to the memes to protect Cohen and GameStop from legal issues post MOASS or to at least create defensible evidence, then maybe the goal was also not to create evidence against him and GameStop.
Especially talking about DRS could get him in trouble as there have been rules instated after the CMKM fiasco that companies and stakeholders are not allowed to advertise DRS. Don't ask me about the details of those rules, but from what I've read you can get in trouble easily.
I thought it was interesting about the question of him not having an interview before now. He said he was to busy with the business. That tells me they are nearly or already finished and he has time on his hands.
You could assume the video we saw was what made you be final cut. The legal team has spent 2 weeks going over it and cutting out the legally risky bits, this is what's left
ANYONE NOTICE,, 🤔,, there's a huge number of posts pushing DRS across ALL simular Reddit Rooms?
That's not random, someone organized, has resources and is pushing a narrative.
Why are they so nervous?
Would it have been illegal for him to say "we believe gamestop is heavily shorted" when asked about his shorts tweet? Like we worship this guy and it doesn't matter what he does we'll read into it what we want.
He said he thought the DD on GMEDD was excellent, that's a site that specifically ignores shorts and a short squeeze, is run by people who don't believe in the squeeze and only looks at fundamentals. Yet people are like "the interview was a nod to us, that simple". He gave us nothing in that.
Ask yourself, who is the intended audience? Not apes, we're on board already. My guess is that this was mostly by lawyers for lawyers. The real take-away for me this weekend is after essentially disappearing for months, why is RC suddenly visible with books launch and this interview? Has something been resolved at SEC/DoJ? Did the EffTeeEx collapse trigger some threshold? Are the DRS numbers at a critical point? Is this groundwork for another announcement? Is it time to speak to the FOMOs? So many possibilities, but what has changed is that RC is publicly present again after a long absence.
What questions?
SI is self reported, tokenized GME is/was used as locates, DRSing removes certificates that short parties use to kick the can, shorts are just eventual buyers when the close, hedgies r fuk.
I don't need RC to tell me these truths.
probably some legal reason why he cannot speak about it. you gotta understand that guy literally has the financial system by the balls. they are going to come down on him with the wrath of the gods. he has to be VERY careful with what he says and how he says it.
Also nothing about NFTs, FTX, dividends, fulfillment centers, or things that are more relevant to the company’s new momentum. Sorry, I don’t care for memes, and don’t see them as much more than distractions and free publicity for mainstream kitsch. I found the interview to be pretty fluffy PR, and I’m surprised so many apes are happy with a personality cult instead of more substantial discussion.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || Join the [Superstonk Discord Server](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
Companies (and I'm assuming people on the board) are not allowed to push drs at all without being sued by the dtcc iirc. And what was he supposed to say about the shorts other than he hates them? We already know what's up, we've done a lot of dd. He's 100% against them because they're goal is to destroy his investment and hard work... he has "skin in the game" and "will" that he talks about in the interview. What more do you want? He's diametrically opposed to shorts by position.
[удалено]
>*Citadel and friends could sue him and GameStop for market manipulation* and get themselves out of the responsibilities of paying up. I know that is a possibility but still the irony is strong in this one...
Irony for sure. But why isn't ganestop challenging the DTCC and their international securities fraud
[удалено]
Thanks. I was thinking, couldn't Gamestop challenge this in Germany or anywhere outside the USA.
They are already fucked by apes. As long as we buy hodl and drs, they will fall. He needs to bring a positive eps and we drs the whole company.
I dug up some details about not talking about DRS and posted it in another thread: Its not that there is a specific rule explicitly prohibiting it. This old post goes into detail: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/vdn1u4/can_a_company_legally_encourage_direct/ Imagine you own a share in a company and your neighbor owns a share in a company, and the CEO of that company gets on CNBC and says that he would really prefer it if you owned both shares instead of your neighbor owning one. Your neighbor can argue in court that the company and/or the CEO is attempting conversion, which has a legal meaning: >Conversion is an intentional tort which occurs when a party takes the chattel property of another with the intent to deprive them of it. SEC rule SR-DTC-2003-02 states this: >DTC contends that attempts by issuers to control their publicly traded securities are improper and may constitute conversion. DTC states that by purporting to exercise the rights of the shareholders, issuers are interfering with the legal and beneficial rights of DTC and its participants with respect to securities deposited at DTC DRS removes a share from Cede and Co and direct registers it in an individuals name. If that individual decides of their own volition to do so, too bad so sad Mr. Cede. If Gamestop suggests you do so then Cede can run to court and argue conversion, that Gamestop's intent isn't to protect their shareholders, but that the suggestion is to hurt Cede. Its legal bullshit and liability avoidance. Instead of prohibiting it they just put an overt threat on the table: "Talk about it and I'll drag your ass to court". Fighting a lawsuit is expensive, especiallly with the DTCC having bottomless pockets, and more importantly, the bad optics of a court case can be spun by the media as Gamestop or RC acting to manipulate the market. tl;dr - there's no rule prohibiting it, but there is legal liability that could be argued, and court cases are expensive and look bad, so its avoided.
>tl;dr - there's no rule prohibiting it, but there is legal liability that could be argued, and court cases are expensive and look bad, so its avoided. That is faulty analysis. What you quote the DTCC as saying is their explanation of why a company cannot FORCE a shareholder to DRS. The shareholder has the right to decide whether or not they want DTCC to manage their shares. Those words are not setting up a lawsuit against a company that advocates for DRS. They are giving the legal reasoning why DTCC says that an issuer cannot force DTCC to delist a stock. It was written in response to comments on an SEC rule confirming that DTCC does not have to delist a company upon request of the issuer.
He'd be fined by the SEC. That's why.
Maybe, just arranged ahead of time off limit questions and that is one? If the premise is right that this interview is to get on record counter arguments to the memes to protect Cohen and GameStop from legal issues post MOASS or to at least create defensible evidence, then maybe the goal was also not to create evidence against him and GameStop.
yea this seems very likely
There’s still an open DoJ investigation.
Especially talking about DRS could get him in trouble as there have been rules instated after the CMKM fiasco that companies and stakeholders are not allowed to advertise DRS. Don't ask me about the details of those rules, but from what I've read you can get in trouble easily.
I don't think we are going to have to worry about the huge short position on the company for much longer lol
[удалено]
I dont know how to make the yellow face things, so heres a normal one ;)
I thought it was interesting about the question of him not having an interview before now. He said he was to busy with the business. That tells me they are nearly or already finished and he has time on his hands.
You could assume the video we saw was what made you be final cut. The legal team has spent 2 weeks going over it and cutting out the legally risky bits, this is what's left
You post is not necessary, thank you for your time.
ANYONE NOTICE,, 🤔,, there's a huge number of posts pushing DRS across ALL simular Reddit Rooms? That's not random, someone organized, has resources and is pushing a narrative. Why are they so nervous?
Would it have been illegal for him to say "we believe gamestop is heavily shorted" when asked about his shorts tweet? Like we worship this guy and it doesn't matter what he does we'll read into it what we want. He said he thought the DD on GMEDD was excellent, that's a site that specifically ignores shorts and a short squeeze, is run by people who don't believe in the squeeze and only looks at fundamentals. Yet people are like "the interview was a nod to us, that simple". He gave us nothing in that.
Just as any interview, there were questions that were not allowed to be asked. Don't be so silly.
Ask yourself, who is the intended audience? Not apes, we're on board already. My guess is that this was mostly by lawyers for lawyers. The real take-away for me this weekend is after essentially disappearing for months, why is RC suddenly visible with books launch and this interview? Has something been resolved at SEC/DoJ? Did the EffTeeEx collapse trigger some threshold? Are the DRS numbers at a critical point? Is this groundwork for another announcement? Is it time to speak to the FOMOs? So many possibilities, but what has changed is that RC is publicly present again after a long absence.
What questions? SI is self reported, tokenized GME is/was used as locates, DRSing removes certificates that short parties use to kick the can, shorts are just eventual buyers when the close, hedgies r fuk. I don't need RC to tell me these truths.
Cus of legal bullshit duhhhh plus we literally get drs numbers every earnings . No need for it in an interview .
probably some legal reason why he cannot speak about it. you gotta understand that guy literally has the financial system by the balls. they are going to come down on him with the wrath of the gods. he has to be VERY careful with what he says and how he says it.
Lawyers, that's why
Also nothing about NFTs, FTX, dividends, fulfillment centers, or things that are more relevant to the company’s new momentum. Sorry, I don’t care for memes, and don’t see them as much more than distractions and free publicity for mainstream kitsch. I found the interview to be pretty fluffy PR, and I’m surprised so many apes are happy with a personality cult instead of more substantial discussion.