We know:1) Shorting is increasing (which on publicly available...

We know:

1) Shorting is increasing (which on publicly available information seemed illogical).
2) There was an unauthorised leak threatening to sink a crucial cornerstone WBT customer and discourage following contracts.
3) Management requested a voluntary suspension.
4) Management requested the option of a longer suspension rather than the shortest possible.

Considering these facts and knowing the usual games played with promising fledgling new companies I wonder:

Will shorting interests feel they on balance of probability benefit overall from any reduction to WBT's share price in the medium to longer term (post-suspension)? Does this constitute a perceived hypothetical motive circumstantially connecting them to this leak?

Was the request by management for a longer suspension intended as way for management to mitigate short-term short covering over the next week, particularly if management suspect the leak is connected with shorting activity.

Will the leak prompt management replacements that could give others control over the company? Could this result in previously unneeded dilutionary capital raisings which would give shorters discounted off market shares to cover their positions. Eg: a questionable acquisition? Got to increase WBT's expenses somehow! That licensing fee model with no capital intensive capex for production facilities is just so inconvenient for outsiders wanting in!

Remember back almost 2 years ago when there was a mysterious sell-down of ownership and control for relative peanuts which caused many to scratch their heads.