Hi Angry,1 - MS wouldn't have necessarily condoned shorting...

Hi Angry,

1 - MS wouldn't have necessarily condoned shorting activity. He just reported to you apparently. A CEO doesn't control everything and when shares are issued to an investor they are obviously controlled by that owner who can do whatever they legally want.

2 - THEY WEREN'T SHORTED IMO!! You can read back on my previous comments for detail, but in summary, if they were shorted no 604 (Change in Substantial Shareholding) Notices would have needed to be lodged. But it was! The reason for this is that if you lend your shares out to another party to short, you are still considered the beneficial owner of those shares, because that person will eventually give those borrowed shares back to you. Your beneficial holding therefore, doesn't change.

3 - Again, I have written at length about why the Global team might have been more than happy to take the shares and sell them down. Jack64 of course, disagreed with my explaination (he said he knew every CVI share move. ???), but I still suspect that the placement shares
were never paid for in cash, in advance, in the first place. The question you should be asking, Angry, is WHO was global holding/selling those share for. The same ? goes for Pershing for that matter. Good luck!

But isn't all this a bit in the past now anyway? Isn't everyone fed-up with that witchhunt? Much easier to say "it happened. I think I don't like it, but what the heck!".

S