Wot, As I said in one of my earlier posts, I do not understand...

Wot, As I said in one of my earlier posts, I do not understand all of this. If Gina, for example, lobbed a take over bid in the near future, it
would gain no traction unless it was at a price which is considerably in excess of the current price. This would mean that the shorters who
have sold at, or near, the current price would have to buy back at a considerably higher price to return their borrowed shares to the lender.
Thus, they would get a very close haircut.

I do not, nor do I believe anyone that else should, believe that all of these shorters are stupid. I think that this means that, either there is something nefarious going on to protect the shorters capital or they know something that I don't.

You say - "shareholders should look to bring a civil action for breach of the market manipulation laws" While I don't disagree, losing money
because of a depressed share price, presumably brought about by the action of shorters, would not provide sufficient evidence for anyone to do anything. You would need substantial evidence to make a case and I have no idea of how anyone would obtain such evidence.

You may have some thoughts