 All right, this one's a kind of a funny, sad story. And I'm going to summarize it. It's a little complicated, but I'll summarize it for you. So there's a guy named Ryan Cohen. Now, Ryan Cohen is the chairman of the board of GameStop. He is, in general, kind of a meme stock influencer. I've talked about meme stocks in the past. And he's an activist. And he bought, in early 2022, he bought a 9.8% stake for $121 million in bed, bath, and beyond. And he announced that he had this position. And when he did announce it, the stock went up 34% in one day. And when he announced that he had bought it. And but then the stock declined. And he was actually losing money. He was under the water in terms of his stake. In August of last year, he re-disclosed that he owned those shares. Now, why did he re-disclose? Because GameStop, stupidly, sorry, bed, bath, and beyond, stupidly had bought back some shares by buying back shares, taking shares off of the market. His stake in the company actually rose from 9.8% to 11.8%. He gained 2%. Even though he didn't buy any shares. But the law says that once you cross a 10% threshold, you have to announce that you own. So he put out 13D, which is the SEC form that basically said, I owned 11.8%. I didn't buy any shares. But now I own 11.8%. And he literally said in the report, there have been no transactions and securities for the issuer by the reported persons during the past 60 days. Haven't bought any new shares. Anyway, because he announced it, and it's a meme stock, the price jumped up to $23. This is the day after the filing. At which point, he sold all his stock. So over the next few days, over that day in the 16th to 17th, basically he sold all of his stock at almost $23 per share on average and made a profit of $70 million. Now, once that was revealed, the stock collapsed, never closed above $15 again, and ultimately, fall from bankruptcy. Now, OK, is this insider trading? Is this stock manipulation? Is this illegal? Well, he's being sued. He's being sued for manipulating the shares. And the basis for the argument for manipulating shares is one that he made this disclosure, even though by law he had to make the disclosure. But second is a really funny one. So there was a tweet of a tweet on August 12, where somebody said, loop capital says, bet, bet, and beyond. Comeback doesn't make fundamental sense. Stock headed to $1. True statement. There's a picture there with a woman with a card that's overflowing. Ryan Cohen retweets this and comments, at least her card is full. Well, OK. But then, then, he puts a little smiley face next to it. Now, supposedly this isn't a smiley face. This is supposedly a moon emoji. It's a round with a little smiley thing. Now, the lawsuit, it's claiming that, and here's a quote, some online communities understand the smiley moon emoji to mean to the moon or take it to the moon. In other words, according to those who are suing, Cohen was telling his hundreds of thousands of followers that Bitbast stocks was going up and that they should buy a hold. They did so, sending the price soaring. Now, on August 12, when he actually published this, the stock did go up a little bit. But it's only after 30D that it really weighed up a lot and he sold. Now, so the emoji is the signal and that's stock manipulation, putting that emoji there. Now, he's been sued over this and, you know, he filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit because it's a little ridiculous. And a federal judge, Trevor McFadden, has denied his motion to dismiss, claiming that, no, there's some reasonability here. You know, it's plausibly alleged that the moon tweet, I'm reading from the judge's opinion, tweet relayed that Cohen was telling his hundreds of thousands of followers that Bitbast and beyond stock was going up and that they should buy a hold in the meme stock subculture. Moon emojis are associated with the phrase to the moon, which the investors used to indicate. So meme stock investors conceivably understood Cohen's tweet to mean that Cohen was confident in Bitbast and was encouraging them to act. For example, when Investor applied in Twitter, well, it's not Twitter anymore, it's X, but one thing said, it said, buy BBBY, which is the ticker for thing. Got it, thanks. And then, so it's plausible that this was an action to manipulate and in order to sell. And then he goes on to the 13D, taking the complaint as true Cohen's amended 13D was materially misleading as well, was it? Investors filing 13Ds have a duty to disclose any solid plans to sell their stock, but maybe he didn't have a solid plan to sell the stock. How are you gonna prove that? Maybe he just saw the price go up and he said, oh, cool, I should sell, because who knows what's gonna happen later? I mean, this is the nuttiness of our security laws that you can sue over something like this. And I have no sympathy for Cohen, who is a stock manipulator in a variety of different ways and responsible for a lot of the meme stock, nuttiness and insanity and irrationality, which he is now suffering from as part of this lawsuit. So I have little sympathy for him, but this is ridiculous.