You say -- ""Then of course we all learn they used 100m of those shares to "settle" a loan...and in the absence of a new holder of said 100m shares, the only logical conclusion is they had been previously been short sold, and the 100m shares were used to cover said short"" ---- drivel, my friend.
The fact is (according to RRS ann) they used the 100m as collateral for a loan from PP, not settle a loan as you erroneously state. Your claim that PP then covered a short position with those shares is pure speculation (or otherwise devious invention).
What the terms of that collateral agreement are, or were if it has been settled, is unknown . Do you know T4P, if so when did you hear and what action did you take, or are you just all hot air.
Then after your abuse of Whiskey, Gassed ant all the rest of us you make the brilliant observation ""Why is it so important to you and gassed that posters avoid questioning the bleeding obvious here?"" If it is 'bleeding obvious' you don't have to question it do you.
Quite a few posters here dismiss the negative conspiracy theories, including your's as nothing but mischief presented for no other reason than to make a noise.
Cheers.
CTR Price at posting:
0.9¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)