Atobitt

re: Hudson Bay and the great conversation that it has started. Let's look back at the work Kirkland did, going to August 2023: Specifically the language. It's important that they denote a potential Section 16 reporting claim. Further down, we have a reporting issue. I believe that these could be the result of the combination of RC and HBC's holdings. From the cooperation/standstill, RC was allowed to increase his position to 19.99%. From the share buybacks, he was pushed from 9.8% to 11.8%. Now, if you look at HBC at 9.99% limit and RC at his purchase which concluded at 9.8% limit, you are under 19.99% with 19.97%. However, if you take RC's pushed 11.8%, you arrive at 21.79% ownership and are in violation of the standstill. Could this have been the move to establish "harm" and justify a future suit? Or to assist in a suit brought forward by Mr. Goldberg? I don't know. — Then we also have the fun topic of the new HBC 16(b). So let me pose a question.. What if the Section 16(b) is not the result of HBC going over 9.99% (they can't), but because the window of time from RC's sell on August 18 to HBC's entry on February 8 is less than 6 months? That is a violation, if they are related. This only applies if RC and HBC are related—if RC is an attribution party (affiliate) through the HBC deal, this is a violation of 16(b). Their combined ownership is greater than 10% and the time between the sale and the buy is less than 6 months. I wonder if that is why it is under seal? I also wonder, is that why JP Morgan was in such a rush on the weekend of February 4-5 to declare the Company insolvent and push it into Chapter 7, well before the grace period to repay the bond note had expired? fun times. 🥷 $BBBY #BBBY $BBBYQ #BBBYQ