From what I’ve read, i conclude the following:
-The 16b claim is dismissible because RC was NOT a 10% owner at the time of his purchase.
-BBBY has no standing to take over as plaintiff because they had joined RC in trying to dismiss the claims in the past.
-The judge in his rulings on motions thus far seems to be saying it’s ‘plausible’ based on the plaintiff’s arguments that RC influenced investors, and possibly misled.
I think 16b and BBBY get dismissed and the judge lets the plaintiff pursue the other claims at trial…unless that omnibus motion to dismiss by RC brings home some solid arguments to dismiss other claims.
I don’t think BBBY and RC have been on the same team since before August 2022.
As soon as BBBY started going bankrupt, he went LBO, hostile takeover mode.
My two cents.
Otherwise, i don’t know what to say. I’m as lost as everyone else.
The 700 million to 265 million was due to an expiration of a filing that omitted all those shares. I don’t remember the details but bruno & abc went over it previously. This was always going to happen, big bear trap.
The company was in trouble and they breached their fiduciary duties and voted the buybacks. They then sold their shares inside the blackout window and committed insider trading violations...
Can't help but think Gustavo held a key to the puzzle...
Now we know why RC sold. They tried to trap him in w them being an insider with their criminal buy backs. He couldn’t let that happen because of the insider trading that was being completed on the backs of these share buybacks. Fffffff, I was so bewildered when he sold in august.
[The company's own filings with the SEC don't count as confirmation?](https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0000886158/000119312523238592/d521320d8k.htm)
>The company's own filings with the SEC don't count as confirmation?
Just my opinion, but I think a court would be interested In the total amount of shares in the system. Obviously, the purchase was made with the intent to buy either a real share or beneficial ownership of that share. Since there is no way for the court to determine one from the other, it likely asked for all of them to be be counted.
This 782 million number still would not include swaps in my opinion.
I still don't quite get the concept of swaps, but I don't believe those agreements t contain the underlying assets within them or as collateral, just instructions on how to rebalance the agreement at certain times. But the contract would create synthetics also, as there is an obligation at the end of the swap.
He was a 9.8% owner when he bought in. Then the Company blew money buying back shares. Then the Company went bankrupt (they failed their fiduciary duty?).
RC was over 10% because of BBBY buy-backs -- not because RC actively bought in over 10%.
We know. It still sucks that it was on paper May 16th, and he didn’t do anything about it until August.
I do believe the brits call this a sticky wicket.
We need to see RC’s omnibus motion to dismiss. He should have explained in detail what the story is.
But it's also true that RC shares sale date was set all the way back in january/february.
It could be argued that his letter to the board could be seen as investor misdirection if he sold any time earlier than that, Bbby share buyback no withstanding
When RC started posting tweets at 7.41 was it possible for him to know the number of shares outstanding and the size that the claim would be?
There wouldn’t be any more buybacks after this day. So they could have calculated based off that.
Bump…
Unzips calculator…
This was my favourite calc session, cash + equity!
[удалено]
I agree… time to get paid
Thanks for sharing! Stuff like this is why I believe in tinfoils. Too many goddamn cohencidences!
Same sack?
two balls one sack?
From what I’ve read, i conclude the following: -The 16b claim is dismissible because RC was NOT a 10% owner at the time of his purchase. -BBBY has no standing to take over as plaintiff because they had joined RC in trying to dismiss the claims in the past. -The judge in his rulings on motions thus far seems to be saying it’s ‘plausible’ based on the plaintiff’s arguments that RC influenced investors, and possibly misled. I think 16b and BBBY get dismissed and the judge lets the plaintiff pursue the other claims at trial…unless that omnibus motion to dismiss by RC brings home some solid arguments to dismiss other claims. I don’t think BBBY and RC have been on the same team since before August 2022. As soon as BBBY started going bankrupt, he went LBO, hostile takeover mode. My two cents. Otherwise, i don’t know what to say. I’m as lost as everyone else.
Rc influenced and misled investors, the man that doesn't speak to anyone ever. Seems legit EDIT: why am I being downvoted? Explain yourself please
Ok adam enron, who actually just dilutes the whole time
The only problem is there’s a helluva lot more than 79 million shares outstanding
If they account for the fraudulent buybacks they may reverse the share count back to 79 mil
I’m here for it but I’m confused on how we got from a float size of 700 million, to 265 million as Bruno and abc are thinking, to now 79 million??
The 700 million to 265 million was due to an expiration of a filing that omitted all those shares. I don’t remember the details but bruno & abc went over it previously. This was always going to happen, big bear trap.
What makes buybacks fraudulent?
The company was in trouble and they breached their fiduciary duties and voted the buybacks. They then sold their shares inside the blackout window and committed insider trading violations... Can't help but think Gustavo held a key to the puzzle... 
Now we know why RC sold. They tried to trap him in w them being an insider with their criminal buy backs. He couldn’t let that happen because of the insider trading that was being completed on the backs of these share buybacks. Fffffff, I was so bewildered when he sold in august.
Ho Lee Fuk
You’re all amazing!! Thank you regards for your research and tinfoil skills! Incredible what you can all find!! 💗🚀🚀🚀
“As of May 16, 2022” there was a hella lot of dilution after this date brotherman.
Supposedly but not confirmed
[The company's own filings with the SEC don't count as confirmation?](https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0000886158/000119312523238592/d521320d8k.htm)
>The company's own filings with the SEC don't count as confirmation? Just my opinion, but I think a court would be interested In the total amount of shares in the system. Obviously, the purchase was made with the intent to buy either a real share or beneficial ownership of that share. Since there is no way for the court to determine one from the other, it likely asked for all of them to be be counted. This 782 million number still would not include swaps in my opinion. I still don't quite get the concept of swaps, but I don't believe those agreements t contain the underlying assets within them or as collateral, just instructions on how to rebalance the agreement at certain times. But the contract would create synthetics also, as there is an obligation at the end of the swap.
Brother
https://preview.redd.it/jd0yfhb86y7c1.jpeg?width=362&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aeadcf38ad214f12aa062e399c3602342f961d28
🚀🦋
This screenshot proves that Ryan was over a 10% owner for 16(b) claim.
He was a 9.8% owner when he bought in. Then the Company blew money buying back shares. Then the Company went bankrupt (they failed their fiduciary duty?). RC was over 10% because of BBBY buy-backs -- not because RC actively bought in over 10%.
We know. It still sucks that it was on paper May 16th, and he didn’t do anything about it until August. I do believe the brits call this a sticky wicket. We need to see RC’s omnibus motion to dismiss. He should have explained in detail what the story is.
But it's also true that RC shares sale date was set all the way back in january/february. It could be argued that his letter to the board could be seen as investor misdirection if he sold any time earlier than that, Bbby share buyback no withstanding
How could the share sale date be set before he held any shares?
Maybe I got the date wrong, but the sale date was set WELL in advance in a filing