"Are you aware that by selling the borrowed shares MS and BofA were, in fact short-selling."
It is in fact not short-selling if they already have the replacement shares.
It is of course only my guess that they already have the replacement shares which they bought cheaper than the block trade price. But this guess of mine is just as valid as your complicated guesses, isn't it?
"Given no separate numbers were articulated, how can you be so certain? How sure are you that the 85m shares offered for sale in the block trade represented the total number of shares lent by GFL and not simply the remaining shares that needed to be sold, after first allocating any parcels to interested clients (purchasers) among their respective client bases?"
In this case I just take what is known or articulated at face value. You on the other hand made some guesses of the true number of shares lent by GFL. But we both don't know the truth.
I am just offering my simple reading of the announcement without any complicated guesses which you yourself questioned their veracity.
""Separate" was in the context of two separate agreements: one with MS and one MLI."
No, I don't think so. The word "separate" refers to funded equity derivative collar arrangements on the one hand and related securities lending arrangements (Collar Financing) on the other.
If the word "separate" is meant to refer to one with MS and one MLI as you suggested, it would/should have been written "GFL International Co., Limited (GFL) advises that it has entered into funded equity derivative collar arrangements and related securities lending arrangements (Collar Financing) with each of Merrill Lynch International and Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc (the Banks) separately in respect of 52,700,986 shares (being 105,401,972 shares in aggregate) in Pilbara Minerals Limited (PLS)."
PLS Price at posting:
$3.05 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)