hmm Why aren't they suing the Fed?
‘Roaring Kitty’ Sued for Securities Fraud over GameStop Rise
11–20 of 109 posts
Re: ‘Roaring Kitty’ Sued for Securities Fraud over GameStop Rise
#12I find it nauseating seeing the financial press, politicians and big time players claiming that their actions and ‘concern’ is based on not wanting retail investors to lose money as a stock peaks. Be honest, you don’t give a shit and even if this was your motivation, people have autonomy in the markets, although sometimes naive, they know the risks. Stop treating retail investors as children that need saving when in reality you got burned. wolves in sheep’s clothing comes to mind
Re: ‘Roaring Kitty’ Sued for Securities Fraud over GameStop Rise
#13"The would-be plaintiff representing investors in the case, Christian Iovin of Washington state, sold $200,000 worth of call options on GameStop shares when the stock was below $100. The stock quickly eclipsed $400 a share, forcing him to buy the calls back at elevated prices." He's being sued by someone who sold naked call options and got burned. This case is going nowhere. I'd love to start suing people for every t…
The Tasty Trade guy did something similar but then
sold the strangle and sold vol for 600% and bought it back at 400% and managed to cancel out his losses.
that guy is an options trading ninja.
Re: ‘Roaring Kitty’ Sued for Securities Fraud over GameStop Rise
#14"The would-be plaintiff representing investors in the case, Christian Iovin of Washington state, sold $200,000 worth of call options on GameStop shares when the stock was below $100. The stock quickly eclipsed $400 a share, forcing him to buy the calls back at elevated prices." He's being sued by someone who sold naked call options and got burned. This case is going nowhere. I'd love to start suing people for every t…
I wouldn’t be so sure. Yes it’s ridiculous to sue after doing something so stupid, however if it’s true that he’s a registered financial advisor, he may not get out of this Scott free.
Re: ‘Roaring Kitty’ Sued for Securities Fraud over GameStop Rise
#15hmm Why aren't they suing the Fed?
[deleted]
Re: ‘Roaring Kitty’ Sued for Securities Fraud over GameStop Rise
#16I'd start by suing Black, Scholes, and Merton.
Re: ‘Roaring Kitty’ Sued for Securities Fraud over GameStop Rise
#17"The would-be plaintiff representing investors in the case, Christian Iovin of Washington state, sold $200,000 worth of call options on GameStop shares when the stock was below $100. The stock quickly eclipsed $400 a share, forcing him to buy the calls back at elevated prices." He's being sued by someone who sold naked call options and got burned. This case is going nowhere. I'd love to start suing people for every t…
Indeed, there's no meat to the suit detailed.
Still, though. The fact that DeepFuckingValue just turns out to have been a licensed broker complicates the narrative quite a bit. Needless to say he can be expected to have known that the whole short trading theory of "Hold the Line" was bunk, and did nothing to disabuse the community of it.
I say it every time this comes up: this guy's criminal exposure is really significant. I find the idea that he Just Happened to stumble on a tulip bubble and had nothing to do with encouraging it just too much to believe. What we know of his public postings doesn't rise to criminal behavior, but then we don't know what sock puppets he might have been operating or what trades he was making privately.
And the incentives all point to this guy being guilty of securities fraud.
But no, this suit isn't going anywhere.
Re: ‘Roaring Kitty’ Sued for Securities Fraud over GameStop Rise
#18"The would-be plaintiff representing investors in the case, Christian Iovin of Washington state, sold $200,000 worth of call options on GameStop shares when the stock was below $100. The stock quickly eclipsed $400 a share, forcing him to buy the calls back at elevated prices." He's being sued by someone who sold naked call options and got burned. This case is going nowhere. I'd love to start suing people for every t…
> “Gill’s deceitful and manipulative conduct not only violated numerous industry regulations and rules, but also various securities laws by undermining the integrity of the market for GameStop shares,” the suit said. “He caused enormous losses not only to those who bought option contracts, but also to those who fell for Gill’s act and bought GameStop stock during the market frenzy at greatly inflated prices.”
As a regular person (with perhaps a higher-than-average exposure to various hazardous memes), this claim look bizarre. Taking out adjectives, a part of this reads:
"Gill's conduct not only violated regulations and rules, but also various securities laws by undermining the integrity of the market for GameStop shares"
How do I read this?
> Gill's conduct violated regulations and rules.
> Gill's conduct undermined the integrity of the market, and therefore violated various securities laws.
Was it really Gill's conduct that undermined the integrity of the market? It doesn't look like that to me, but IANAL.
As for his conduct violating regulations and rules, I'd really like to read these regulations and rules that govern how someone is expected to conduct themselves on r/WSB and youtube.
Re: ‘Roaring Kitty’ Sued for Securities Fraud over GameStop Rise
#19No way this is happening for real...he's suing /u/DeepFuckingValue because he took a loss trading?
Then what's next? Suing your state's DoT every time you get a flat on the road?
Re: ‘Roaring Kitty’ Sued for Securities Fraud over GameStop Rise
#20"The would-be plaintiff representing investors in the case, Christian Iovin of Washington state, sold $200,000 worth of call options on GameStop shares when the stock was below $100. The stock quickly eclipsed $400 a share, forcing him to buy the calls back at elevated prices." He's being sued by someone who sold naked call options and got burned. This case is going nowhere. I'd love to start suing people for every t…
I wouldn’t be so sure. Yes it’s ridiculous to sue after doing something so stupid, however if it’s true that he’s a registered financial advisor, he may not get out of this Scott free.
He wasn't giving advice as a registered financial advisor though. I don't think anybody even knew he was one until WSJ published a piece on him. How does this hold up in courts?