What's going on apes, it's my pleasure to bring you this interview with lisa branganza she's, a lawyer who previously held a position as an sec branch chief, and she now works as a trader and investor advocate she's been closely following the class action lawsuit with robinhood in Citadel, so i thought it would be useful to get her input on that particular class action lawsuit and all the other related matters. I really hope that you enjoy. First of all, thank you so so much for joining us. I know a lot of people in the ape nation community are very excited for this particular talk, because i feel like there's a lot of.

I guess legalese assumptions of what's going on right now in the world and i'm sure, like we've, seen you talking with charles payne on making money and it seems like you - have some very interesting and expertise level input on the legal side of what's potentially happening between Brokerages market makers, and especially as it all relates to amc and gme. So thank you for joining the show. Mrs lisa braganza very excited to talk to you about what's going on. Thank you so much i'm really thrilled to be here.

This is a great topic to talk about very exciting for a lot of us, and i know, there's people super excited to listen to what you're about to say about all this. So, let's, let's just come out of the gates swinging before we get into this robin hood and citadel thing, and that entire situation, could you briefly give people? I guess, like a reasoning and kind of your background on like why your input on this is like a legal, legitimate expertise level input on this particular subject: okay um, i worked at the securities exchange commission in the the division of enforcement and uh have done these Kinds of investigations, and since i left the sec, i've spent - you know about 20 years now defending people in these kinds of investigations. I also do a lot of investor advocacy, so i go to washington and talk to congress about unfair practices and and what's happening to retail traders, um and work on advocating before the sec uh to have a more fair playing field for retail investors so um. This is you know something that i do not just as my job, but it's sort of an advocation.

This is what i do in my free time, so i mean very obviously, uh, like amc and gme have become a historic event, i'm kind of curious. When did it come onto your radar that this wasn't just a general stock movement like when? Did it like? First come up either of these that you're, like whoa whoa? Something else is like going on here. Oh that's, a good question um. I can't say exactly when, but you know first, i started hearing about.

You know people talking on reddit about these stocks and and the impact that this was having on trading volume and on what was happening and - and i have to admit initially my reaction was. Oh, my god, what are they doing? You know this is so dangerous. These are people who are gon na. You know lose a lot of money and because i tend you know, i'm older uh.

I tend to be and invest to think of people as investors versus traders and and so i'm you know view myself as an investor advocate and um and i didn't think of the amc and the and the uh gamestop people as investors and as traders. But what's been so interesting to me is that i've come along and if i can come along, a lot of other people can come along, and you know - and i understand it doesn't matter that that people who are buying gamestop and buying amc are are not long-term. Investors, who cares they're entitled to the same fair playing field that goldman sachs gets or that jp morgan chase? Has you know um and that i'm willing to advocate for that? I think that's absolutely right and and whether it's young people who are getting in and and having a good time and learning something while they're going through this or whether it's people who are investing you know for retirement accounts. I don't care.

I want a fair playing field for all of them and that's, i feel, like obviously a lot of the people within the community. Don't necessarily have that expertise, but to me that's kind of the thing everyone's trying to get into the microphone out here is just hey. We want the same fair, equal shot like we just want the the playing field to be level and to me that's one of the main pillars of the the ethos of the current cultural wildfire. That really is amc or gme uh.

So it's interesting to hear that and i'm sure many people watching right now would be more than happy to make you an honorary ape of our current community going on. I would love it, so it seems in september of this year. So a lot of people since the start of the year have been, i mean, really almost accused of crying wolf, but we're saying, especially back in january, when robin hood made the decision to pco position, close only amc and gme. Obviously, when the entire retail trading public was mainly segmented at that brokerage, just because of what was going on at that point in time, obviously, that had a negative impact on these stocks, if, like the retail, was the group that was pushing it if they can't buy It anymore like that it doesn't.

They take much math to really add that one up in september of this year there was that class action, lawsuit that came out lots and lots of information in it and uh. Many of the apes were able to catch your segment with charles payne there and it seemed like you had a lot more to say so, as it relates to the class action, lawsuit, robinhood citadel and maybe even specifically, that president of citadel securities, jim whatever his name, Is uh choosing to sell right before he pco'd like it was his decision, but he sold amc and then he messaged out like hey just so. You know we're doing that with gme tomorrow um. Could you give us a little bit more of a legal bearing of what's going on? Is it it's one of those things that i know not all the time the laws don't necessarily equate to things being moral or immoral? So was this above board below board uh? Could you just give us a little bit more of a legal opinion on that sure, so the first thing is uh.

You know robin hood is subject and to all the laws that everyone else so um. You know, i think it's been interesting to see them. Try to say uh in their responses to the lawsuits that um, oh, the the rules, don't apply, and individual investors can't bring claims against us uh for violating finra rules for violating sec regulations and and that's just nonsense - uh of course, they're they're, subject to that um. What has been really interesting about this recent filing? There have been a bunch of cases that have been filed over time, but this most recent one is that it's actually you know we get to peek under the hood.

We now have documents and that's the cool that was the cool part about being at the sec. Was you know, we got all kinds of secret files. You know we got to see what was going on behind the curtain um and that's what we're seeing here, we're seeing these communications that are going back and forth between citadel one of the citadel entities who knows which one and robin hood one of the robin hood Entities who knows which one um so this is happening and - and you know this comes on the heels of these folks getting you know ken griffin and vlad getting up in front of congress and saying we weren't, we weren't colluding, we weren't talking. You know this was all on the up and up.

This was all a result of of a margin call by an independent third party. Well, now we're seeing well, you know was that party independent i've gotten lots of messages from apes. Thank you. Everyone um, you know pointing out to me that there's a guy from citadel who apparently sitting on the board of either gtcc or the nfcc um important point.

Yes, that uh sort of takes out the independent third party. So now it's just a third party uh and - and you know we see they are talking - they're - not just talking they're talking about these, this very issue and the fact that citadel is going to lose its shirt. So you know maybe there's other people complaining too, but then to have the the defense that citadel has raised of hey robin hood. Just did this because of dtcc, and you know the margin call.

I think we need to look further. I i think that doesn't that's not enough. There now are these messages. That is great stuff.

Now, how could something if somehow there is a uh? I always refer to it as a smoking gun piece of evidence of let's just say, and i'm throwing this out for any other lawyer or if ken, if you're watching just know this is uh just an opinion. I'm not a lawyer by any means, but i feel like there's a very real scenario with robin hood: their main source of revenue is coming from payment from orderful from citadel. If citadel got into a bad situation, they might not have said hey, you need to pco those, but you might want to say something along the lines of things aren't good. We hope something fixed.

We we wouldn't want your revenue to disappear overnight. So to me, when we have these market makers, which have such a sizable amount of power, you don't know how they're going to wield that power and then yet more recently, in this backlash to the class action, lawsuit, we're seeing them like they're, proud of it they're, Like we're the only one who provided liquidity, it's like to me: that's not a safe system when we're relying on one private entity to like kind of do some major like overhaul and continuing the market forward in times of potential distress. I found that very, very interesting, but if, if it does go this way and one of these days, we have smoking gun evidence that they did use their power as in citadel securities against robin hood in a way they shouldn't have what's the possible legal backlash. Oh well, that's something that i, the sec, i think, would land on a citadel like a ton of bricks, because that would be - and i mean, if nothing else.

If you only look at this from a disclosure standpoint, then it's a robin hood problem and you know robin hood discloses that it gets payment for order flow, it doesn't disclose. We get payment for order flow, and that means we are going to screw our retail customers. When it suits the guy who's paying the bills, you know there's a difference there and, and you can't, you can't rely on a general disclosure uh to cover you. When you know you have just locked out a bunch of traders, you know right at the knees so and on citadel side.

Um, the sec is looking into these kinds of relationships. Now i mean i'm excited about our new chairman, gary gensler, who is out there talking about there's too much trading going on in dark pools. This should not be you know the whole purpose of having these uh uh trading floors, where a bunch of guys were right. You know back in my old day when i started doing this.

There were a bunch of guys on the floor like running around with papers. You know and yelling orders to each other - that's so old school now, but you know that doesn't mean that there still shouldn't be a public forum like that uh where the trading happens. So what gives what happened here? And i think that is worthwhile and and gary gensler is willing to actually look at that and say just because this is the way it is today doesn't mean it should be this way and doesn't mean that i'm gon na let it continue this way. So that's really good um! Now you got to tell me what the heck i was talking about: no, no completely fine um, so i actually have a couple things that spin off of that.

You made some very good points, so in terms of an individual person, the president of robin hood, securities, jim whatever his name, was um. I'm seeing on some mainstream media accounts that they're saying uh that basically it's not that big of an issue, because even though he sold he didn't make that much of money so like. Why should we look into it? I mean i'm no lawyer, but that's not how it works, they're not looking into if you made money or not it's it's looking into. If you traded on information, you shouldn't have been trading on.

Isn't that correct the the issue? Yes for insider trading? It isn't just a question of how much money you made or, but it is a question of whether you misused whether you misappropriated or misused confidential, non-public information, material, non-public information is what the official sec term uh, whether you misuse that, because that's that's like stealing it From the the person or entity it belongs to you've, you've stolen it and you've used it now. You might have used it and it might have worked out wonderfully. You might have used it and it might not have worked out well um, but the fact is you misused it. So that's what's interesting here.

Is that there's a uh, an allegation of misconduct of misusing the the information, the knowledge that this uh you know of the president that the company's gon na pcl? What puzzles me a little bit is that he sold, so it wasn't that he said. Oh i'm gon na jump in and buy before. Nobody else can buy. I'm gon na i'm gon na sell now yeah he's anticipating.

Okay, that's gon na push the price down. Maybe he's going to lose money? It's just interesting that you know he does something. I you know i almost would have i'm not sure which way i go on that i really have not. You know, thought that one all the way through.

I have to tell you, but the things that you know when i'm talking to somebody about potential liability for insider trading um. You know this guy is absolutely the type of person who could be liable for insider trading, because the inside information he had it doesn't have to be from the company. It just has to be confidential and it was confidential at robin hood until it became public. So i think we can say that you know if he traded.

You know all the ifs because um like you know, i can't make statements about what the facts are but um. If someone in that situation did have that confidential information and did trade on it, then there is potential liability for insider trading violations and and then the question is well. What is the consequence of that? Well, you know the sec says you got to pay back the profits that you made or the losses you avoided, and you know they they slap on a penalty of one two or three times that amount um. Now criminal authorities uh they they could bring a case too um.

Insider trading is both. You know civil and criminal. There are charges that can be brought so yeah i mean you could end up with it. Maybe it wouldn't be a a felony case, but it still could be a criminal uh case that reaches a certain level.

So it's just sort of interesting there and yeah. He didn't make a lot of money. He didn't lose a lot of money, you know or avoid losing a lot of money, but um that doesn't change the core of whether it's a violation it just does tend to affect the decision of whether the sec would bring a case. Now i will say when you look at cases that the sec brings, that are small dollar amounts.

They might be as it's a small dollar amount. It's a big name guy, okay, um yeah. So i don't think that the fact that it's a small dollar amount is a buy for him that doesn't get him out of out of it completely gotcha and okay. I have another hypothetical for you, i'm trying to think of the best way to word this from a legal perspective of the class action lawsuit and what you know about it in terms of robinhood or citadel securities, that classification lawsuit, who do you think, is currently more Difficult to defend, or maybe to put that in another way from your understanding who do you perceive to be more legally culpable based on that class action, lawsuit.

Well, there's there's a number of different um complaints out there, so i'm i'm a little um it's hard to say. I guess that was that's really what i have to answer, it's hard to say, um. I i think that it's always easier to bring claims against a a company or a person or uh. You know any entity that you as a plaintiff have direct contact with, so that that is going to make it easier to go after robinhood.

I i will tell you you know when i bring these types of claims against um parties on behalf of investors. So yeah say investors again could be investors or traders. You know retail people. When i bring these kinds of claims.

You know in a federal arbitration or otherwise um, it's far quicker. You know it's a quicker decision for me when i say: aha, okay, the the person who wronged you is this brokerage firm, rather than going behind the brokerage firm and saying well we're now going to bring a claim against the clearing firm. You know now now i have to work my way through, so it it is more complicated and um, and then you need kind of a conspiracy which is something they're, alleging they're saying there was an agreement or an antitrust uh. You know agreement there and and that's how you start reaching up the chain.

You know to parties that are farther and farther removed from the ones that you've had direct contact with now, even things like that, it's so frustrating from the retail side of it. Just because it seems like there's so many layers that are protecting very politically motivated, influential, powerful people, it's just layers and layers and layers, and i i guess with that, at least with the realm of people i deal with on a day-to-day basis, one of the most Common things i hear about is okay like where is the sec like, i actually see that hashtag like where's, gary gensler, so with it, are we off base like do you think they're looking into it? Are they understaffed or is it one of those things that maybe an argument is they are looking into it, but you never say what you're doing so they're trying to kind of do it in like more like the dark alley, so they don't really spook robin under Citadel securities or anyone else who might be culpable like, are we completely off base because all i really know is like on my side of the table. It's just hey, you're. The regulators do some regulation.

When the sec does investigations, they are non-public so um. That's why you're not seeing it? I have no doubt in my mind that the sec is investigating this there's. There's it's so public. It's such a big deal.

Congress is talking about it. There's no way the sec is not investigating this uh, the and, and you know, they're the sec keeps things confidential um. You know for good policy reasons. I mean.

Let's say you know the sec sent you a subpoena and they wanted to look into your trades um. You might appreciate that they didn't make that public and kind of put out a press release while they were looking at them, because they would say oh everything's fine here and then they close the investigation goes way. You know you don't have to then retrieve your um reputation out of the dumpster um. This is something you know.

Big corporations have to wrestle with all the time, because you know it's never a nice thing to have to disclose that the sec is investigating. I think robin hood and citadel are going to be disclosing that they're being investigated. You know, i i think that's pretty clear. I mean they're big companies, they have to make material disclosures, i'm not sure.

Actually, if citadel has to make any disclosures, but robin hood would - and you know that's that's - i i think that works, but it is correct that you know it undermines. I think the bigger issue here is the fact that we don't have faith in the the retail trading systems that are out. There is bad. We need to have a level playing field, we could have a system hypothetically, we could have a system where uh we don't have an sec and basically everybody goes in and it's sort of survival of the fittest and it's just like a whole big pool of sharks And you know the big sharks are gon na eat the little sharks and little fish all get eaten, and you would know that going in you would say wow.

You know what i'm not diving into that pool, because you know there's no way i can make money. You know there's no way, i'm going to survive, we don't have that system. The system we have says we are going to ensure a level playing field and that's why we have the sec and that's you know why we have finra and we have all these other entities. That say, you know that it's it's in order to maintain that level playing field, some would say, create that level playing field.

But, oh so once we we have that as our goal and we are telling people out in the world, you know in the u.s at least that that's uh, then we got ta live up to it right. We can't we can't say: oh no, it's really fair for goldman sachs and and jp morgan chase and merrill lynch. But you know if you're, a retail trader investor you're screwed um, you know, that's that's just wrong. We can't have that and - and i think it's interesting when i look at what the sec says - i i think some of the disconnect is some of the disconnect that i had early on the sec talks about uh, protecting the retail investor and there's a very much A focus on protecting main street investors and that's really with an eye to you, know investing for retirement.

So that's the gold standard, you know and and that's sort of the the paradigmatic uh person that the sec is trying to protect. You know 55 years old has saved all of her life for retirement and um. You know, has it has lost you know and or is at risk of losing it uh the the our reddit traders. Our apes are not that that paradigmatic uh uh trader investor.

You know they're a whole different world and i think it's going to take some time for the sec to kind of come around to that. I think that you know years ago i felt like hey assumption of risk. You know what you go in, you you're. I mean because i know that from my work inside at the sec and from you know all the work i've done in this field, that it isn't a level playing field.

But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a level playing field and and the fact that you know i sort of threw up my hands and said: oh, but everyone knows it's not a level playing field for retail investors or retail traders, even so um. Nobody should be doing that, and anybody who does is kind of you know just in there swimming with the sharks. You know that's wrong. The right way to look at this is to say: look: goldman sachs can be out there doing their thing and jp morgan chase.

Can be out there doing its thing and you can be out there doing your thing too, and it's all that is at the level playing field. If you are super smart and you're able to get out ahead of them or you're able to get on reddit - and you know rally the troops more power to you as long as you're, not breaking the law go for it, you should be able to go after Profits and it's literally exactly that that i'm sure a lot of the viewers right now. This is the one simple thing we're saying: we're like a little bit of transparency, a little bit of fairness, give us the shot on the the same field and it's kind of weird, because the push back from it is like well. Why would you fight that fight? Like you don't even know what you're talking about it doesn't happen like it's completely fair to begin with, and then it's almost the frustration of it is back in january we just saw high short interest and we're like well, that seems weird, and then you just pull On that one thread and then you're like you, find something else out: you're like hang on.

What's this like offshore warehousing of ftds that doesn't make sense and then you're seeing the connection between brokers and market makers and payment for order flow by the time you pull through the entire string, i feel like i've gone through an entire like linen shop of like Where is this possibly going? It's just absurd and then the way i guess we're treated in media and spoken to is just like, like obviously it's a disrespect and then that's really why we've taken on the name of ape nation, but even recently it's absurd things. We have people from the federal reserve and even just political mainstay names, they're traitors and they're killing it. People who have spent their years in politics do not have a trading background are consistently outperforming the smp to an ungodly number i feel like i'm losing. Does no one see this and it's backwards in the sense that the ones who get to vote on the laws that protect them are the people who are doing it.

So why would they ever vote against themselves? So i mean that the the federal reserve situation, and then some of just like our highest political leaders like what's your take, is that insider trading is that illegal? Is that legal? Should it be one or the other? Can you give us a little bit more insight to like the fed and politicians trading yeah? This is really ugly, wow, um, yeah and unfortunately um. You know for a long time, members of congress and their staffs um were not subject to the same kind of insider trading law that everyone else was so. Finally, we got the stock act. Okay, the stock act holds them to the same standard.

Okay, they cannot abuse and trade on material, non-public information they have and, of course, that could be so much more valuable than what any insider at a company knows. I mean you know if you know about information about a new law, that's going to be passed or some. You know something in committees that you're finding out. Oh my god, you know just you know which vaccine, which company is going to get the contract for vaccines.

I mean come on these, are these are huge um? You know that that is not supposed to be happening now. The enforcement mechanism - that's the problem, so we have you know we, we have all kinds of laws and we have old laws. That say you shouldn't spit on the sidewalk right: do we enforce them? No, we don't um. Here we happen to have a new law, a good law and who's going to enforce it.

Well, the sec could. But you know it's sort of remember that robin hood and citadel thing where, like who pays the piper citadel, pays robin hood, so who's robin hood, going to listen to well, who pays the sec congress and so there's you know kind of a little tension there. Now the sec is an independent agency, but let's face it, you know the the sec's budget comes right through congress. So there's a little bit of a dilemma there and the sec.

You know it gets hauled up in front of congress to testify all the time. So imagine what could happen to the agency if they start needling too many congress people so there is. I mean this is the reality of the system that we have now. If we could have you know, individuals be able to bring these as a you know, have a cause of action that would be different.

You know then, then uh there might be enforcement and and let's be fair to the sec - i i don't want to bash them unfairly. There have been some cases against. You know members of congress um that definitely have so you know it isn't that the sec is not doing anything. I think the tough part is that you know more than ties.

You know are gon na go to the congress person uh. You know they're gon na give the congress people a whole lot of leeway on this. So it's it's just reality. The system we have it's not right.

It undermines the the faith that we should have in our financial markets and and that's why it should be fixed. It also undermines the faith that we have in our democracy, which is another reason it should be fixed yeah. Definitely, i 100 agree um just to rewind a little bit, so the viewers can look it up this. The law is actually called the stock act.

When did that come out just in case they want to google it. Oh that's such a good question. Uh the stock act, my goodness sometime in the last 10 years, i think, but what i can do is get get a link and i'll send it to you and then you can, if you can put it in the somewhere i'll make sure to drop it in The description below for everyone, listening still on the subject of the government. Most recently, i was listening to a representative from georgia who i'm not going to remember this verbatim, but his argument was along the lines of social media as it intersects with finance, as in people talking about stocks in the public digital medium, he along the lines of Basically, it was one like one of the greatest risks to america, and with that, like we hear that a little bit of especially the the mainstream media who's specifically against the ape nation movement.

They love to really point out like social media and manipulation, and we hear that and the way i look at it is like, if you're not telling anyone to buy and sell and if it's just sharing an opinion like we have freedom of speech. But from a legalese standpoint, how do you view the intersect of digital commentary, social media and just the markets? Well, first of all, you should always be able to say what you think um, and that is the presumption. So if you think that a stock sucks - and you should be able to say it - you don't like tesla, you don't like something else, you know you should be able to say it now, uh and and that's the starting point. The problem comes in when you have um when you are engaged in trading yourself or you hold positions yourself and and that's uh.

That creates somewhat of a exception to the freedom of speech thing that we have um. That's the legal term. The freedom of speech thing. I use i use official terminology all the time, so you know what the sec is entitled to go after.

What you know is illegal is if, if i go and buy a whole bunch of uh stock in a thinly traded company, and then i go out and tell people, this is the greatest thing since life spread and then the price i drive the price up and Then i dump it or i you know in some ways mislead the people who i am talking to uh so you're. I don't know if you remember, but you know way. Back a while ago there was a big brouhaha about research analysts on wall street. You know they were issuing opinions and uh they were like jack.

Grubman was one of them. You know, and he would say hey in my opinion, this tech stock is, you know, absolutely wonderful. Well, what we didn't know was that um, the an important part of his compensation was allegedly part of was uh investment banking revenues. Now that makes kind of a difference right because again we're in that sort of citadel robin hood thing where we're saying oh jack, are you doing a uh objective and, and you know good faith review of this stock, or are you trying to pad your? You know wallet here um, so that's that's where you can't just always say something now.

You also have the issue and - and it's been interesting, that the sec, you know so far as far as i know, um has not like landed like a ton of bricks. On eight nation and that's a good thing, but people are now together, you know it's as if, when you're on reddit and you're all talking to each other, that's like we're all hanging out in the uh, the town square. You know yelling at each other. Okay, we're all communicating and um.

We might still do something illegal in that we are colluding. We are all acting in concert rather than each one of us getting out there and saying hey. I really love this stuff. I'm gon na go out and buy it um.

You know we might be saying hey if we all act together like let's, let's do this now. I am not aware of a a collusion or a conspiracy like that that a case that's ever been brought where it's all happening out in the open. You know i mean the reality is how can you have a secret? I don't even know that you can have a conspiracy if it's all out there in the open right the assets you know, but i again i've not looked at that. You know in detail to see who is there ever ever any but to me when you're, looking at collusion and you're, saying: okay, we're all talking to each other and um and acting in concert.

That was something that upset so many people way back when that was all you know happening, and you know folks were talking about what wait. The reddit traders they're all out there they're talking to each other they're they're, coordinating trades and - and you know the interesting thing to me - was how how could they be coordinating way out there in the open and if they're, coordinating way out in the open, then anybody Can join in and and can go with them or against them. You know, isn't, isn't uh transparency, kind of the that that is i'm not asking you i'm telling you. Transparency is an important part of our markets.

The sec's, you know fundamental goal, or one of its fundamental goals is to have full disclosure. So there you are, you know all these reddit traders are doing this out in the open. That's disclosure they're, not hiding it. So that's the puzzle, that's that's the thing i wrestle with it seems like i.

I see the fine line scenario because like to me it's not that different of if we were in that example of a town square - and we were all just saying - hey apple sold a lot of iphones and then everyone's like okay. I'm going to act on that. How i want to act on that? I don't see much of a difference of people saying hey amc and jimmy is highly shorted. Do what you want with that information and if anything of the point of transparency, if anything when i say on social media is people are very happy about their positions like i own, this many shares like they're, clearly calling it out.

They're, like i wanted to go up, i'm in it, let's go uh, so to me, that's as transparent as you can get it they're like clearly wearing it they're like hey. This is what i have, and let's contrast that now with are the short sellers out there. You know all the time talking to each other and and parroting. Yes, there there are times they talk to each other, but it does not tend to be on a reddit thread.

It's not on a you know, an open board where everybody, you know, the the the uh thing we used to think about and know that went on was you know the the dinners where people would just kind of talk about training strategies. You know those nice dinners at fancy, restaurants in new york, um yeah, that's not open to everyone. That's not something that all of us could just join in and say: hey. Can i pull over a chair and kind of join you guys and hear what's up uh? So yeah, that's that they were not talking about that.

Now there there have been times where companies take tesla. You know have gotten really angry about short sellers who have taken a short position and announced it and been out there publicly saying this company is overvalued, and then you have that that tension of you know are look they're being public they're, stating what their position is. Um and tesla says no they're trying to drive our our value down to the ground, um and - and i think that's a tough argument. You know i'm not aware of tesla being successful in bringing that argument yet, but you know, but there are companies that complain about that.

The short sellers are manipulating and it depends on what they're doing you know. Are they having those dinners or are they out there? In the town square, saying hey, i i shorted this. I think this is overvalued very interesting, very interesting. Well, overall, this has been an absolute wealth of knowledge.

All of us very very much appreciate your time and as things develop, of course, we would love to have you back on in the meantime, if people end up having questions or want to dive into something a bit more, what's the best way for them to get Like in contact with you or see the things that you're currently working on um, you can email me at lisa. Lisa at sec stands for securities and exchange commission defense attorney.com. You can hop on my website, which is www.secdefenseattorney.com. I try to make it easy to find me and you can find me on twitter.

Lots of you have and i'm happy to to to uh talk with you guys there and that's at lisa braganza. That's it that's awesome and for all of you listening right now i'll make sure to link all three of those in the description, so you can easily track that down. But once again thank you so much for your time. We truly appreciate it and hopefully we we'll be talking again soon.

Thank you so much, it's been a pleasure.