Essen Medical Associates, a healthcare provider based in New York, has agreed to pay $4 million to settle a class action lawsuit after a cyberattack exposed sensitive information belonging to current and former patients. The lawsuit followed a March 2023 breach in which unauthorized access to the company’s systems reportedly compromised a huge amount of personal and medical data.

The incident affected more than 900,000 people. Depending on the person, the exposed information may have included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver’s license or passport details, insurance records, financial account information, lab results, medical histories, treatment information, prescriptions, and other private health data.

Under the settlement, people who can show they suffered losses tied to the breach may be eligible to receive up to $5,000. Those who do not have documentation for specific expenses may still be able to claim a $100 cash payment.

There are a few key dates to know. Anyone who wants to object to the settlement must do so by May 4, 2026. Claims must be submitted by June 1, 2026, and the final approval hearing is set for July 7, 2026.

While the settlement resolves the lawsuit, it does not automatically mean the company admitted fault. Still, the case is another reminder of how damaging healthcare data breaches can be, especially when deeply personal information ends up in the wrong hands.

For affected patients, this settlement may offer some financial relief after a serious privacy scare.

“I own GME. I have been buying recently. I expect I am buying at what may soon be 1x tangible book value / 1x net asset value,” Burry wrote in a Substack post published Monday. He pointed to Chief Executive Officer Ryan Cohen’s role in investing and deploying the company’s capital and cash flow, adding that it could be “for the next 50 years.”

GameStop shares jumped more than 6% on Monday after the post circulated.

Burry who has recently shut his hedge fund, Scion Asset Management framed the position as a long-term value investment rather than a bet on a return of meme-stock mania. GameStop was a central name in the meme-stock surge about five years ago, when retail traders organized on online forums pushed the stock sharply higher and triggered short covering among hedge funds.

“I am not counting on a short squeeze to realize long-term value,” Burry wrote. “I believe in Ryan, I like the setup, the governance, the strategy as I see it. I am willing to hold long-term.”

After giving back much of its meme-era gains as speculation faded, the stock last traded around $25. The company has also used bursts of investor interest to raise billions of dollars through equity sales, building a sizable cash position.

“Ryan is making lemonade out of lemons,” Burry wrote, describing GameStop as a challenged core business that has nonetheless been used to raise cash and wait for an acquisition opportunity.

GameStop began buying bitcoin last year in a move that echoed the strategy popularized by MicroStrategy, now known as Strategy. Cohen said the decision was driven by macro concerns, arguing that bitcoin’s fixed supply and decentralized structure could help hedge certain risks.

“I do not know about this Bitcoin thing, but I cannot argue with what has been done so far,” Burry wrote.

Burry isn’t alone in leaning bullish. Cohen bought 1 million shares of GameStop last week, according to disclosures filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In a Jan. 21 SEC filing, he said it’s “essential” for a public-company CEO to buy shares with personal funds to strengthen alignment with shareholders.

This scheme is insidious, often orchestrated through third-party marketing agencies, allowing companies to sidestep regulatory scrutiny. Many of these companies disguise themselves as new and innovative, but upon closer examination, their histories reveal a trail of failure and rebranding meant to deceive investors. Take Rua Gold Corp., for example. Formerly known as First Uranium Resources Ltd., the company has rebranded and shifted its focus from uranium to gold, hoping to erase its troubled past. Similarly, Lexton Mining Corp., once Lexton Life Sciences Corp., abandoned its ventures in life sciences to rebrand as a mining company. These industry pivots and name changes obscure decades of poor performance, creating the illusion of a fresh start for unsuspecting investors.

The mechanics of the pump-and-dump scheme are disturbingly clear. Companies compensate third-party marketing agencies with shares, often in the form of restricted stock units or stock options, instead of cash. These agencies, conveniently not classified as insiders, avoid the regulatory transparency that would otherwise reveal their manipulative trading activities. After their lock-up periods expire, these agencies collaborate with YouTubers to promote the stock, inflating its price through deceptive marketing. Amateur investors, drawn in by what they perceive as credible recommendations, rush to buy these stocks, unknowingly fueling the bubble. Once the price peaks, those behind the scheme sell their shares, leaving retail investors holding the bag when the stock inevitably crashes.

Consider Gold Standard Media, which exemplifies this shady practice. The agency received three million shares of Traction Uranium Corp. over a three-month consultation agreement. To pump the stock, they hired Morris Media LLC, paying $25,000 to create promotional content. This created a facade of organic interest, but the true goal was simple: inflate the stock price just long enough for insiders and promoters to cash out. Predictably, once the stock collapsed, retail investors were left with steep losses.

The financial fallout for retail investors is catastrophic. An estimated 80% of the companies involved in these schemes have seen their stock prices plummet, many by staggering amounts. For instance, Alaska Energy Metals Corp. paid YouTuber Paul Joseph Watson $5,000 to promote their stock, which traded at $0.40 before the video’s release on January 8, 2024. Today, the stock is down 67%, proving that the hype was a carefully constructed illusion. This wasn’t an isolated incident—Alaska Energy Metals also paid YouTuber Task & Purpose $40,000 for another promotional campaign, and the pattern repeats across multiple instances.

Another glaring example is Silver Mountain Resources Inc., which paid YouTubers The Economic Ninja and I Allegedly $20,000 each to promote their stock. The result? The stock has lost 73% of its value since the campaigns, devastating investors who trusted the influencers' endorsements. Similarly, Uranium Royalty Corp. paid Katusa Research an astonishing $1,250,000 to promote their stock. While the stock’s decline—8% since the campaign—is less dramatic, it still exposes the short-term nature of these manipulative tactics.

Even large-cap companies are not above these dubious strategies. CNX Resources, a company with a $5 billion market capitalization, has also engaged in paying YouTubers to promote its stock. The inclusion of such a significant player in these schemes demonstrates the alarming scale and reach of these manipulations. It also blurs the line between desperate small-cap companies and established firms, raising serious questions about the integrity of corporate governance across the market.

Many of the companies involved were on the brink of financial collapse before turning to these influencer-driven promotions as a last-ditch survival strategy. By using the temporary price surge to issue new shares, these companies dilute their stock even further, compounding losses for retail investors. The reliance on YouTubers and influencers, who often have little to no understanding of the broader implications, adds another layer of deception. These content creators unwittingly—or worse, knowingly—become accomplices in schemes designed to prey on the trust and naivety of their audiences.

The lack of transparency is another glaring issue. Since third-party marketing agencies are not classified as insiders, their trading activities are invisible to the public. This obscurity enables them to exploit the artificial price spikes they create without fear of detection. For example, a company like Alaska Energy Metals Corp. can pay influencers through an intermediary, such as a marketing agency, ensuring that neither the company nor the YouTubers bear the full brunt of regulatory scrutiny. The integrity of the market is compromised by this flaw, and individual investors are also totally in the dark about the real reasons for these promotions.

The result is a toxic cycle. Companies struggling to survive manufacture excitement around their stock through promotions, driving up retail interest. Once the price surges, insiders and third-party participants cash out, leaving retail investors with worthless shares. For those who fall for these schemes, the financial and emotional toll is devastating, as they see their hard-earned savings evaporate in the aftermath of a pump-and-dump.

A full spreadsheet detailing the companies and YouTubers involved in these manipulative schemes can be found here, credit to YouTuber The Plain Bagel, whose investigative work enabled the exposure of this widespread fraud. Without such meticulous documentation, it would be nearly impossible to uncover the scale of these schemes.

This kind of behavior is not only immoral, but it also threatens the fundamental principles of justice and trust in the financial system. By exploiting loopholes, manipulating influencers, and preying on amateur investors, these companies and their collaborators are profiting at the expense of those who can least afford it. The lack of accountability for third-party agencies, combined with the misuse of social media platforms, highlights an urgent need for regulatory reform. If these practices are not curtailed, the damage to retail investors and the broader market will only continue to grow.

The manipulation of retail investors through these campaigns is not just an attack on individuals—it’s an attack on the credibility of financial markets. This exploitation must end. Regulatory agencies need to close the gaps that allow these schemes to flourish and ensure that both companies and their collaborators face meaningful consequences for their actions. Until then, retail investors remain vulnerable to a system rigged against them, where trust is weaponized and profit is prioritized over ethics.

The significance of independent media in exposing unethical behavior and defending investors' interests is shown by this investigation. In order to maintain accountability and openness in the financial markets, we at InvestorTurf are committed to providing comprehensive, objective information. With your help, we can keep continuing this important job. To help us maintain the standards that investors deserve, we invite you to support InvestorTurf if you think that investigative journalism has the ability to bring about constructive change.

Support InvestorTurf

They were founded long before today’s tech giants like Amazon or Meta, and they’ve built empires that have weathered numerous economic storms. GameStop and AMC are not here by accident, nor are they recent inventions of the Reddit crowd. They’ve earned their place, and while they face challenges like any business, calling them “meme stocks” is a misunderstanding that reflects Wall Street’s resistance to changing market dynamics and a tendency to overlook the staying power of companies that don’t fit into convenient molds.

Consider GameStop. Founded in 1984, GameStop grew from a small software retailer in Texas into the world’s largest video game retail chain. GameStop has had a hand in the gaming industry’s growth, giving players a place to buy, trade, and discuss games for nearly 40 years. It’s more than a store—it became part of the cultural fabric of gaming long before gaming was mainstream.

The company flourished as the go-to destination for game enthusiasts looking to get their hands on the latest releases or trade old games, a precursor to today’s model of recycling and reselling that even online giants are attempting to replicate. This is not a business without value, and to dismiss it as a “meme” ignores the contributions it has made to an industry that now dwarfs Hollywood in revenue.

GameStop’s issues are clear. Physical retail is tough, and the shift toward digital gaming means that GameStop’s original model has become less sustainable. Yet, instead of quietly fading away, the company has shown resilience, adapting in ways that show it’s still in the fight. In recent years, GameStop’s management has pivoted its focus towards e-commerce, digital assets, and restructuring its retail footprint.

The retail frenzy of 2021 that saw GameStop’s stock soar had roots in a combination of underappreciated fundamentals and the dedication of a retail investor base tired of Wall Street’s control over narratives. But that rally was quickly dubbed a “meme” phenomenon, as if no rationale beyond internet chatter could justify GameStop’s valuation. The reality is that investors saw value in a brand that, despite struggles, still holds significant assets and customer loyalty. The “meme” label was simply a shortcut for Wall Street to dismiss what it didn’t understand.

And then we have AMC, the world’s largest movie theater chain, a company that has been part of the entertainment landscape for over a century. Established in 1920, AMC didn’t just survive but thrived through countless challenges—the Great Depression, multiple recessions, the rise of home entertainment, and now the age of streaming. This company is an institution, not just in the U.S. but globally. If the lights are on in a theater anywhere in the world, chances are it’s an AMC screen. This isn’t the kind of business that can be propped up by a handful of Redditors. It’s a business model that has endured changes in consumer habits for decades, a testament to its management’s ability to adapt.

Yes, AMC faces challenges, especially in an era where streaming is more accessible than ever. But it’s worth noting that AMC has taken proactive steps to diversify, even dabbling in cryptocurrency acceptance and hinting at using its vast theater network for e-sports or live concerts. The fact that it became one of 2021’s biggest “meme stocks” wasn’t just a coincidence; it was a response to the dismissive attitude Wall Street has often shown towards businesses outside of technology. Retail investors saw AMC’s intrinsic value and its potential for transformation, not just its current cash flow issues.

The broader implications of this “meme stock” label reach beyond GameStop and AMC. Nokia, founded in 1865, became a telecommunications giant and, for many, the introduction to mobile technology. Today, it’s often lumped into the “meme stock” group simply because retail investors chose to rally around it.

Yet, Nokia’s influence in telecom infrastructure remains relevant, especially as global 5G networks roll out. Likewise, BlackBerry, the pioneer of mobile security and a status symbol for the early smartphone era, is still in business, focusing on software and cybersecurity. But due to a surge in retail interest, it, too, gets the “meme” treatment, as if it’s little more than a curiosity.

What’s notable about these examples is that they all represent companies that not only helped define industries but also hold assets, intellectual property, and market positioning that give them a path forward—if Wall Street would look beyond the label and see these companies’ intrinsic potential. In labeling these companies as “meme stocks,” Wall Street is overlooking something profound: the agency and intelligence of retail investors who are using new platforms to make their voices heard.

It’s easy to call these movements irrational, but when retail investors point out undervalued assets or spot potential in brands Wall Street has long abandoned, that’s not “dumb money.” It’s a recalibration of priorities in an industry long focused on immediate gains over long-term value.

The irony here is that Wall Street has had its share of irrational exuberance. Over the years, we’ve seen tech bubbles and the over-leveraging of assets that, on paper, looked revolutionary but ultimately crashed, leaving retail investors to pay the price. WeWork, once valued at $47 billion, fell from grace after Wall Street’s “smart money” poured in without scrutinizing the business model. Similarly, Theranos, backed by sophisticated investors, was later exposed as a fraud. And let’s not forget the 2008 financial crisis, a fallout from the very same industry that now dismisses retail enthusiasm as misguided.

By clinging to the “meme stock” label, Wall Street is avoiding a reckoning with its own failures. These companies, labeled “meme stocks,” have shown resilience and adaptability, qualities that Wall Street once valued. GameStop and AMC might not look like traditional growth stories, but they’re still here, still adapting, and, notably, still making headlines—not for collapsing but for persisting. Retail investors see something that traditional analysts might miss: a sense of opportunity beyond quarterly earnings and beyond the typical frameworks of risk and reward.

As for Wall Street’s “smart money” designation? Perhaps it’s time for a rebranding. When the same institutions that crashed the housing market, missed the tech bubbles, and poured billions into pipe dreams now point fingers at retail investors, it feels less like financial wisdom and more like an aversion to accountability. Retail investors have exposed a disconnect between Wall Street’s perception and the reality of what these companies represent to everyday people.

So maybe, instead of calling GameStop, AMC, and others “meme stocks,” we should consider what that term says about the industry using it. Wall Street’s “smart money” has consistently underestimated the value of these brands and the potential within a highly motivated investor base. Maybe the more accurate term here isn’t “smart money” but “slow money”—or, as some would cheekily suggest, “dumb money,” unable to learn from its past and quick to dismiss forces that don’t fit its playbook.

In the end, GameStop, AMC, and their retail champions may be the disruptive element that traditional finance never saw coming, but that doesn’t make them memes. It makes them relevant, influential, and most of all, a sign that the world of investing is changing, whether Wall Street likes it or not.

Stand with Independent Journalism—Powered by People, Not Wall Street

We’re not backed by Wall Street. We rely on you, the public, to fuel our mission of independent journalism and keep the truth front and center. Your support means we can keep reporting without compromise—stand with us and make a difference.

Support InvestorTurf

Convinced by the deception, Baxley transferred funds from her bank account in a series of transactions, including mailing $15,000 in cash via UPS. Her sons are now questioning Eagle Bank’s responsibility, claiming the bank should have flagged the unusual withdrawals and intervened.

Eagle Bank, however, asserts that its staff followed all necessary protocols and that an internal review found no failure in procedures. The bank is now working with Baxley to recover her lost funds, though it remains unclear how much, if any, will be returned.

The FBI reports that financial scams targeting people over 60 surged by 11% in 2022, with losses totaling $3.4 billion, highlighting the growing threat to vulnerable seniors.

Intrinsic value represents the true worth of a company’s stock, determined by its financial health and overall performance. Unlike the stock’s market price, which fluctuates due to market sentiment and investor emotions, intrinsic value provides a more accurate measure of whether a stock is genuinely a good investment.

This article breaks down why AMC’s improved earnings, in conjunction with a strong valuation argument, make the company a buy for investors willing to bet on the rebound of the theatrical industry.

AMC’s Valuation: A Substantial Discount

Based on our analysis, the intrinsic value of AMC’s stock is calculated at $16 per share, compared to its current trading price of $4.23. This means AMC is undervalued by approximately 70%. Moreover, on a relative valuation basis, AMC’s stock is estimated to be worth $25 per share, translating to an even more substantial discount of ~80%.

Intrinsic value is derived by averaging the results of two widely accepted valuation methods: the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis and relative valuation. Here’s a breakdown of how these methodologies help establish a fair value for AMC.

• Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis

  The DCF method estimates a company’s future cash flows and discounts them back to present value, giving a precise figure for the company’s intrinsic worth. AMC, despite its volatility, has been improving its cash flow through various cost-cutting measures, refinancing debt, and boosting theater attendance post-pandemic.

  With the gradual recovery of cinema demand, particularly from blockbuster releases and higher per-patron spending on concessions, AMC’s future free cash flow could see substantial growth. Conservatively, these future cash flows suggest that AMC’s intrinsic value stands at $16 per share.

• Relative Valuation

  Relative valuation involves comparing AMC to similar companies based on industry-specific metrics, including EV/Revenue, EV/EBITDA, and P/E ratios. Despite AMC’s unique position in the entertainment space, the company compares favorably to peers when accounting for the rebound in the cinema industry and its high revenue potential.

  For example:

  EV/Revenue: As AMC’s revenue has rebounded strongly post-pandemic, it compares favorably to other theater chains and media companies.

  EV/EBITDA: AMC’s EBITDA has also shown improvement as costs are contained and audience numbers return.

  The relative valuation places AMC’s stock at $25 per share, underscoring the potential for price appreciation in a market recovery scenario.

Intrinsic Value as an Average of DCF and Relative Value

By taking the average of the intrinsic value from the DCF analysis and the relative valuation, we arrive at an overall intrinsic value of $20.50 per share. This implies that AMC stock is trading at a significant discount to its fair value and offers investors a ~70-80% potential upside based on current market conditions.

Earnings Improvement: A Path to Recovery

AMC’s financials have seen remarkable improvement over the past few years, which supports the investment thesis. After navigating through a challenging pandemic-induced downturn, AMC is beginning to show positive momentum, particularly in 2023 and 2024.

• Revenue Growth: AMC’s revenue declined significantly during the pandemic, dropping to as low as $1.2 billion in 2020. However, since theaters reopened, the company has seen a strong recovery. For the fiscal year 2024, revenue is projected to reach $4.5 billion, up from $3.9 billion in 2023, showing a steady upward trajectory. The resurgence of movie-goers, boosted by popular films, has driven higher attendance and increased per-patron spending on concessions.
• Improved EBITDA and Margins: EBITDA margins have improved as AMC has focused on cost efficiency and better financial management. In 2020, AMC posted a negative EBITDA of over $500 million, but by 2023, EBITDA turned positive, and for 2024, it is forecasted to grow to $600 million. This is a significant turnaround, driven by both revenue growth and operational improvements.
• Debt Restructuring: One of the key issues that investors have been wary of is AMC’s debt load. However, the company has made significant strides in addressing this concern by restructuring and refinancing its debt. As of 2024, AMC has reduced its net debt position from over $5.4 billion to $4.6 billion, while also securing more favorable interest rates, which will save the company millions in interest expenses moving forward.
• Diversified Revenue Streams: AMC has also embraced new business opportunities, including partnerships with streaming services and expanding its food and beverage offerings. These initiatives, while still in early stages, could further support long-term growth and help the company adapt to the evolving entertainment landscape.

Catalysts for Future Growth

Several factors could drive AMC’s stock price higher:

• Blockbuster Releases: Major movie releases in 2024 and beyond are expected to bring even more foot traffic to AMC theaters. These blockbuster movies have the potential to boost both ticket sales and concessions.
• Premium Cinema Experience: AMC has invested heavily in its premium theaters, including IMAX and Dolby Cinema. As consumers return to theaters for the superior movie-going experience that can’t be replicated at home, AMC’s revenues from premium formats could see a strong boost.
• Subscription Services: AMC Stubs A-List, AMC’s movie subscription service, has seen a surge in membership. This recurring revenue stream provides a stable base for future earnings growth.

Risks to Consider

While AMC is undervalued from both an intrinsic and relative perspective, potential investors should be mindful of the risks involved:

• High Debt Levels: AMC still carries a significant debt load, which could become a burden if interest rates rise further or if revenue recovery slows down.
• Competition from Streaming: Streaming services continue to pose a threat to traditional theater chains, though AMC has proven its ability to coexist alongside streaming by partnering with major streaming platforms for exclusive releases.

Conclusion: A Buy for Value-Oriented Investors

At its current market price of $4.23, AMC stock is significantly undervalued when compared to its intrinsic value of $16 per share and its relative value of $25 per share. With a 70-80% discount to its fair value, and supported by improving earnings, cost control, and a recovering cinema industry, AMC presents a deep value opportunity for investors willing to weather near-term volatility.

For those with a longer-term outlook, AMC offers substantial upside potential as it continues to recover from the pandemic and capitalize on the return of movie-going audiences.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this analysis is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice. Always do your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions. The author and publisher are not liable for any financial losses or damages that may result from following the information provided. Investing in stocks involves risks, including the loss of principal.

Market Manipulation in Focus: The Trump Media Battle Led by Devin Nunes.

Market manipulation, especially in the form of short selling, has long been a problem on Wall Street. Short selling—the practice of betting that a stock’s price will fall—can play a legitimate role in financial markets by promoting liquidity and price discovery. But it can also be exploited, especially through illegal “naked” short selling, where traders sell shares they do not own or borrow, artificially driving down prices. This practice undermines trust in the markets, damages targeted companies, and disproportionately affects retail investors.

According to a study published by the SEC in 2020, naked short selling was identified as a factor in the 2008 financial crisis, and it has continued to be a problem in the years since. Between 2014 and 2020, market manipulation cases related to illegal short selling surged, with fines totaling over $1 billion, but actual enforcement has often been weak, as major firms like Citadel Securities and Virtu Financial typically settle without admitting guilt, paying fines that barely affect their bottom lines.

One of the most striking recent examples involves Trump’s media company, DJT. In early 2024, Devin Nunes, CEO of Trump’s DJT, publicly claimed that the company was being targeted by illegal naked short selling. According to Nunes, 700,000 to 1 million shares per day were being sold without being covered during just the first two weeks of April 2024. In a letter to Florida State Attorney General Ashley Moody, Nunes requested an investigation into this alleged manipulation, naming high-profile market makers Citadel Securities, Virtu Financial, and Jane Street.

Nunes stated, “We knew it was bad, but we finally got the numbers this week… maybe we’re going to expose something that’s going to be bigger than what most of us imagined.” The sheer volume of naked short selling alleged by Nunes paints a picture of a financial system where market manipulation is commonplace, with major players taking advantage of the lack of enforcement.

“We knew it was bad but we finally got the numbers this week, and the first two weeks of April, there was 700,000 to 1 million shares a day that aren’t covering “- Devin Nunes$DJT pic.twitter.com/IRWpueKNC1

— InvestorTurf (@InvestorTurf) May 4, 2024

Nunes’ calls for an investigation have resonated with Trump’s supporters and anti-Wall Street factions, reigniting conversations about whether the financial markets are rigged in favor of large institutions. If this case proceeds, it could shine a light on the deep-rooted issues that continue to plague U.S. markets.

Trump’s relationship with Wall Street has always been complex. While he benefited from deregulation during his first term, his personal business interests might shift his stance should he return to the Oval Office. Given DJT’s current struggles with alleged market manipulation, it is plausible that Trump could take more aggressive action against short selling and naked short selling in particular.

Trump has shown, historically, that his personal interests shape his policy decisions. If DJT continues to be targeted by short sellers, there’s a strong possibility that Trump would push for new legislation or executive action aimed at curbing these practices. Additionally, Trump has a history of focusing on enforcement measures that align with his populist base’s concerns, which often include perceived Wall Street corruption and unfair financial practices.

In 2020, Trump signed the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, which increased oversight of Chinese companies listed on U.S. exchanges. If he wins in 2024, a similar push could be made to restrict or eliminate predatory short selling practices, especially if Trump frames the issue as one of economic nationalism and the protection of American businesses.

The Elon Musk Factor

Elon Musk, one of the most vocal critics of short sellers and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has been at odds with the regulatory body for years. Musk has frequently accused the SEC of being complicit in allowing hedge funds and institutional investors to manipulate markets through short selling, all while disproportionately targeting companies like Tesla with regulatory scrutiny.

Musk has repeatedly referred to “regulatory capture”—a phenomenon where regulatory agencies, such as the SEC, end up serving the interests of the very industries they are supposed to oversee. According to Musk, the SEC is more interested in protecting large financial institutions than enforcing rules against fraudulent practices like naked short selling. He has criticized the agency for turning a blind eye to market manipulation, even as short sellers publicly spread misinformation about Tesla’s stock to drive down its price.

In a well-known incident from 2018, Musk tweeted that he was considering taking Tesla private at $420 per share and had “funding secured.” This tweet led to an SEC lawsuit, which Musk eventually settled for $40 million—$20 million paid by Tesla and $20 million from Musk himself. However, Musk has since spoken openly about the circumstances surrounding the settlement. In a 2021 interview, Musk revealed that he felt coerced into settling because the alternative could have led to Tesla’s financial ruin.

Banks and the SEC colluded and forced @elonmusk to lie in order to save Tesla. pic.twitter.com/tYpxCmhG6S

— InvestorTurf (@InvestorTurf) April 7, 2023

He stated that the SEC forced him into a settlement by threatening to cut off Tesla’s access to capital: “I had no choice. I was told by the banks that if I didn’t settle with the SEC, they would cease providing working capital, and Tesla would go bankrupt immediately.”

This revelation highlighted how vulnerable companies can be when facing market manipulation, as short sellers and financial institutions exert immense pressure. In Musk’s case, he felt the SEC was not acting to protect investors or the market but was instead enabling a situation where predatory financial practices could drive his company to the brink of collapse.

Musk’s public battles with the SEC have also brought attention to how little enforcement is carried out against short sellers who spread false information to depress stock prices. Tesla has been a frequent target of these tactics, with Musk stating that short sellers have made billions off manipulated stock prices, all while regulators took no meaningful action.

His criticism extends beyond personal grievances. Musk has argued that the SEC’s pattern of allowing companies to settle without admitting wrongdoing, combined with the failure to enforce existing laws on market manipulation, creates an environment where bad actors thrive. He has stated that regulatory agencies like the SEC serve the interests of the “big players”—hedge funds, large banks, and market makers—while the companies they target are left with no real recourse.

Tesla CEO @elonmusk talks on the Lex Fridman podcast about how the SEC never pursued the hedge funds that were shorting and distorting Tesla, and he discusses the personal interests that explain why they won't. pic.twitter.com/XC1mKb3ebZ

— InvestorTurf (@InvestorTurf) November 10, 2023

Musk’s experiences with short sellers and the SEC make him a likely ally in any future Trump administration’s effort to reform financial regulation. If Musk were to hold any advisory or official role, his influence could lead to stronger enforcement against predatory practices like naked short selling. With Musk’s deep-seated frustration over how the SEC operates, a Trump administration might push for radical reforms, potentially tightening regulations on short sellers or even exploring measures to dismantle the systemic bias Musk alleges exists within regulatory bodies.

What Are the Chances Trump Will Act?

If Trump wins the 2024 election, the probability that he will take action on short selling and market manipulation is high. His personal ties to the DJT case, combined with his populist leanings, suggest that he could push for stricter enforcement or even ban short selling outright. Trump has historically favored actions that resonate with his voter base, which includes retail investors who see short selling as a predatory practice.

It is also possible that Trump’s administration could aim for broader financial reforms targeting market manipulation. Trump has criticized the SEC in the past, and a second-term Trump might move to overhaul the regulatory framework to prioritize enforcement of market manipulation cases. With Nunes’ ongoing complaints and the potential for more evidence to emerge around DJT’s stock manipulation claims, Trump could justify sweeping reforms as protecting the “little guy” from Wall Street abuses.

Additionally, Trump’s focus on economic populism could lead to legislative proposals to hold institutions like Citadel Securities and Virtu Financial more accountable. The fines issued to these firms for market manipulation have been relatively small compared to the billions they generate in profit each year. Under a Trump presidency, fines could increase dramatically, or regulators might focus on criminal prosecutions for repeat offenders—a shift from the “neither admit nor deny” settlements that have dominated Wall Street’s regulatory landscape.

Conclusion: A Future of Accountability?

The combination of Trump’s personal interests, Musk’s influence, and the growing public frustration with market manipulation could lead to a regulatory crackdown on short selling. For firms like Citadel Securities and Virtu Financial, which have been named in market manipulation claims, a Trump presidency might mean facing increased scrutiny and harsher penalties.

While it remains to be seen how exactly Trump would tackle the issue, the DJT case and the accusations made by Devin Nunes could serve as a flashpoint for broader financial reform, one that could finally hold Wall Street accountable for practices that have long gone unchecked. Whether through executive orders, SEC reform, or legislative changes, the next four years could see significant changes in how short selling and market manipulation are regulated—especially if they align with Trump’s personal agenda.

The U.S. Department of Justice stated that TD Bank had “long-term, pervasive, and systemic deficiencies” in its transaction monitoring procedures. Between January 2018 and April 2024, over 90% of transactions were left unmonitored, allowing three money laundering networks to move more than $670 million through TD Bank accounts, according to court filings.

In one case, TD Bank employees accepted over $57,000 in gift cards in exchange for processing more than $470 million in cash deposits from a money laundering network, deliberately bypassing required reporting, according to the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ). The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) added that TD Bank processed hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions that clearly showed signs of highly suspicious activity.

As part of the settlement, TD Bank will undergo four years of monitoring by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to ensure compliance with the agreement. “While most financial institutions have worked with FinCEN to protect the integrity of the U.S. financial system, TD Bank did the opposite,” stated Wally Adeyemo, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. He highlighted that the bank’s failures enabled a range of illicit activities, from narcotics and fentanyl trafficking to terrorist financing and human trafficking.

The U.S. Federal Reserve has also fined TD Bank and will require it to relocate its anti-money laundering compliance office to the U.S. In a notable part of the agreement, the OCC is placing restrictions on TD Bank’s growth within the U.S., a rare but not unprecedented measure. Wells Fargo faced similar restrictions in 2018 after being fined for widespread consumer abuses, including creating millions of fake accounts, and continues to operate under those restrictions today.

Key Highlights from Q1 2024:

• Revenue: The company reported revenues of $951.4 million, slightly down from $954.4 million in Q1 2023.
• Net Loss: AMC reduced its net loss to $163.5 million from $235.5 million in the previous year.
• Earnings Per Share: Loss per share improved significantly to $0.62 from $1.71 last year.
• Adjusted EBITDA: This metric, which helps understand the company's operational performance, was negative at $31.6 million, a drop from a positive $7.1 million last year. This includes a special benefit the company had last year.
• Cash Flow: Cash used in operations was slightly less at $188.3 million compared to $189.9 million last year.
• Cash Reserves: As of March 31, 2024, AMC's cash on hand was $624.2 million.

Comments from CEO Adam Aron:

Adam Aron, Chairman and CEO of AMC, stated, "We're pleased to report that AMC outperformed in the first quarter. Despite challenges from the Hollywood strikes in 2023, we saw a strong turnout in March indicating a robust future for moviegoing."

Aron highlighted that AMC maintained its revenue levels and saw an increase in its domestic market share despite a 6% drop in the North American box office from last year. He credited this performance to strategic cost management and improved profitability per customer.

Financial Strategy and Future Outlook:

AMC has continued to reduce its debt, lowering the principal by $17.5 million early in the quarter by exchanging debt for equity. Since the beginning of 2022, AMC has reduced its debt and deferred rent by nearly $975 million.

Looking forward, Aron expressed optimism about the second half of 2024 and beyond, citing an exciting upcoming film lineup. He also noted AMC's ongoing discussions with major musical artists, announcing a special event with Billie Eilish scheduled for May 16 and 17 to coincide with her next album release.

Overall, AMC remains committed to reducing its debt further, extending debt maturities, and strengthening its financial position to ensure sustained growth and resilience in the evolving entertainment landscape.

According to the OCC, from October 2021 to March 2022, Desembrana intentionally concealed a significant backlog of unprocessed customer checks at the bank’s Philadelphia Lockbox facility. He reportedly failed to report the backlog during internal meetings and directed employees under his supervision to produce false bank reports to hide the extent of the unprocessed checks.

When bank customers raised concerns about the delays, Desembrana allegedly provided misleading explanations to placate both customers and bank employees. The OCC stated, “These violations and practices were part of a pattern of misconduct that resulted in more than minimal losses for the bank and harmed the interests of its depositors.”

The OCC’s findings highlighted that Desembrana’s actions showed “personal dishonesty, willful or continuing disregard for the safety and soundness of the bank, and reckless disregard for the law or applicable regulations.” Despite not admitting to or denying the allegations, Desembrana consented to pay the civil penalty and agreed to a ban from working in the U.S. banking industry, unless he obtains prior written approval from the OCC and a financial institution willing to employ him.

In efforts to improve its balance sheet, AMC spoke with advisors and first-lien lenders this March. Additionally, on April 19, AMC disclosed in a regulatory filing that it had secured a new letter of credit, replacing a $225 million revolving credit facility due to expire on April 22, and had cleared the outstanding balance.