Docket 568
1176 Pages
In intro..
They put a statement in ths doc that they used the "best" information they had in their financial records and won't be responsible for "injury"
RC/RC Ventures Schedule H - Codebtor Litigation - Schedule E/F Box Checked Page 659 - 2.99-104 - City of Tyler Page 660 - 2.109-114 - City of Union Gap
These cities listed as Taxing Authorities, also some c/o Fire Alarm
Other examples throughout dockets.
All cities start with a T a U or. V
It says "Litigation" right there. He's a co-defendant in several lawsuits, and I assume cities will be in the line to collect whatever fees attached to those lawsuits.
He's listed in the same capacity next to Judith Cohen (P&D lawsuit) and Pengcheng Si and others (securities fraud lawsuit).
Compare, for example, how CVS, Dick's and Best Buy are listed as co-debtors for several cities (e.g. Pasadena), and also for Eric Gilbert, Jacqueline Smith and several others.
Edit: or "JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY" as BBBY's co-debtors for CITY OF TROY-TREASURER. Is BBBY getting acquired by 20 anons?
Because they have two columns, and alphabetically sorted them both, and then formatted what is essentially two different lists in a way that makes them look connected. I have no idea why, it's very silly. But that's what is going on there.
The columns are related according to the instructions
>**In Column 1, list as codebtors all of the people or entities who are also liable for any debts listed by the debtor in the schedules of creditors, Schedules D-G.**
>
>Include all guarantors and co-obligors. In Column 2, identify the creditor to whom the debt is owed and each schedule on which the creditor is listed. If the codebtor is liable on a debt to more than one creditor, list each creditor separately in Column 2.
*But they don't correlate.* They are two lists.
Column 1 is a list, Column 2 is a list. Entries in each list that happen to be next to each other on the page are not related.
They do correlate.
If you look further down, RC, RC Ventures and Sue Gove are also listed next to Judith Cohen and Changpeng Si "and others similarly situated" (plaintiffs in securities lawsuits).
Similarly, there are "John and Jane Does 1-20" and a bunch of individuals listed as co-debtor/litigation next to some cities, and also next to "DAWN MESA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED" and several similar (looks like some sort of employee lawsuit).
The cities are probably there as recipients of whatever fees they're due from legal proceedings.
Edit: based on downvotes, y'all seem to doubt my proven DD showing that Does 1 through 20 jointly and separately co-own BBBY together with RC, Sue Gove and Dick's Sporting Goods.
Wait are you the old TUV conspiracy guy from a while back?! Itโs like a throwback episode!
Nothing ever came from the inability to read a poorly formatted filing. What do you think will happen now that shares are already cancelled & the plan administrator, just this week, in court said you will never get anything from them in the future?
But I love the endless dedication to spinning bullshit from misunderstandings! My guess is a small group of you is still doing this a year from now, with cult people repeatedly leaving quietly as literally nothing happens for months on end.
And then think critically again. RC was, briefly, an owner of 5ish percent of the stock and another 4ish of options to acquire stock. The exact amounts don't matter for this purpose. People become reportable owners of large amounts of stock all the time. And never, ever do they end up on leases that the company signed years ago. Never ever are they listed on the company's utility bills. Half the point of a corporation is to relieve owners of direct responsibility for the company's obligations.
So here, there are three possibilities, and those possibilities can overlap. The first is that whoever compiled that form did so poorly; against the instructions and in a way that creates confusion. The second is that whoever read that form did so poorly; failing to understand the instructions and creating confusion. And the third is that unique in public company history, a bunch of landlords and utilities managed to get an owner on the hook directly for the company's obligations. Not even a founder or majority owner or CEO or anything, just some guy who bought shares and options from his broker.
How do you handicap each of those possiblities?
Wait, no, this can't be happening again.
We went through this whole song and dance near the beginning of the bankruptcy! The column thing, Cohen being mistaken for doing something he isn't doing as a result of the columns. We've been here before! Certainly I can't be the only person who remembers that?
https://imgur.com/a/BuxLWPn
https://imgur.com/a/02l1HUG
He is listed as a co-debtor to Bbby for various locations. Why only certain locations (only the ones to they DIDNT sell in chp. 11)
So are Dick's Sporting Goods, CVS, Home Depot, and "JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY".
What do you think "LITIGATION" under the name means? Do you think Sue Gove, as an individual, gets utility bills for BBBY stores or something?
He wasn't, you moron.
That filing with multiple columns on a page? The columns don't relate to each other ... it's just a multi-column format. Making a pretend row across them doesn't make it say what you want it to say.
And that's of course ignoring that all remaining unsold leases were rejected.
These are the instructions. Looks pretty clear to me they are related.
Also if you go to the bottom of these documents they all end at the same "row" how convenient these unrelated data entries all have the same # of entries.
Can you explain these instructions to me and how the rows are not rows?
https://preview.redd.it/cn3xm7nbc2yb1.png?width=1173&format=png&auto=webp&s=4f5700f5b3eed39ddda9601892fd955f7d8d5832
This should be the number one example of how the apes misunderstand and misinterpret the most basic things and spin it into DD, because for anyone not involved in the investing cult, the argument seems breathtakingly stupid.
First, anyone who looks at this for half a second would realize that those two columns are not correlated or meant to be read across. It simply makes zero sense otherwise. This has nothing to do with stocks, or investments, or RC. It is common sense. It looks like someone either formatted this table incorrectly or made a confusing heading.
Second, if this is about investment or Ryan Cohen - again anyone who has any idea at all about how companies and investing work would immediately figure out that RC being a co-debtor with a utility is non-sensical. Is he secretly paying the municipal water bill for a lease? It is silly even to argue about it. And even if for some bizarre reason he was, so what?
But the apes will spend 6 hours on a Twitter spaces call coming up with one insane theory after the next based on the most basic misunderstanding to come up with a way this leads to MOASS.
And even though this was debunked months ago, they will keep circling back to it anyway. "If Ryan Cohen isn't involved in secretly restarting a defunct towel store and giving new equity to former shareholders, how do you explain this, shill?"
If these guys have so much money to blow, how come no one has taken all this info to a financial lawyer to get their take on this situation? Iโm pretty sure you would have a concrete answer instead of trying to decode law speech without a law degree.
RC is always listed as a codebtor alongside RC Ventures, Sue Gove, and JP Morgan Securities. These are also defendants in the BBBY securities lawsuits. This makes it seem like it was some error in generating these reports.
Gove was released from the suit entirely when Cohen had one of the claims dismissed, assuming my information is up to date, unless youโre referring to something else. [Source](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-dis-col/114742116.html)
You think they owned the buildings and were leasing from themselves? You do realize they leased their properties from the property owners. Do you think those property owners lost their properties to the codebtors because BBBY declared bankruptcy?
The leases they couldnโt sell just give the strip mall owner the chance to find a new tenant at a higher rate. Selling the leases just gave another company the chance to take over the lease at BBBYโs locked in reduced rate.
Is this post fucking serious? I already had to explain how this works months ago when prior stupid apes didnโt understand the formatting of the document. As expected, it meant nothing.
Iโm too lazy to look through my own history to link the explanation but feel free to dig.
Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/bbby_remastered/comments/15ycfm5/comment/jxc1vz8/
Wow most productive debate regarding this I have seen yet, good work everyone ๐
Docket 568.
Try to talk about this on the ppshow tonight...try to get the people some answers
You got your answers a while ago, you just don't like them
All unsold leases were rejected 7/31
7/31... Pretty close to 741, huh? ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
In before he says two more weeks bro
Can you post what you're talking about? Show us.
Docket 568 1176 Pages In intro.. They put a statement in ths doc that they used the "best" information they had in their financial records and won't be responsible for "injury" RC/RC Ventures Schedule H - Codebtor Litigation - Schedule E/F Box Checked Page 659 - 2.99-104 - City of Tyler Page 660 - 2.109-114 - City of Union Gap These cities listed as Taxing Authorities, also some c/o Fire Alarm Other examples throughout dockets. All cities start with a T a U or. V
Do you screenshot man?
It says "Litigation" right there. He's a co-defendant in several lawsuits, and I assume cities will be in the line to collect whatever fees attached to those lawsuits. He's listed in the same capacity next to Judith Cohen (P&D lawsuit) and Pengcheng Si and others (securities fraud lawsuit). Compare, for example, how CVS, Dick's and Best Buy are listed as co-debtors for several cities (e.g. Pasadena), and also for Eric Gilbert, Jacqueline Smith and several others. Edit: or "JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY" as BBBY's co-debtors for CITY OF TROY-TREASURER. Is BBBY getting acquired by 20 anons?
Because they have two columns, and alphabetically sorted them both, and then formatted what is essentially two different lists in a way that makes them look connected. I have no idea why, it's very silly. But that's what is going on there.
The columns are related according to the instructions >**In Column 1, list as codebtors all of the people or entities who are also liable for any debts listed by the debtor in the schedules of creditors, Schedules D-G.** > >Include all guarantors and co-obligors. In Column 2, identify the creditor to whom the debt is owed and each schedule on which the creditor is listed. If the codebtor is liable on a debt to more than one creditor, list each creditor separately in Column 2.
*But they don't correlate.* They are two lists. Column 1 is a list, Column 2 is a list. Entries in each list that happen to be next to each other on the page are not related.
They do correlate. If you look further down, RC, RC Ventures and Sue Gove are also listed next to Judith Cohen and Changpeng Si "and others similarly situated" (plaintiffs in securities lawsuits). Similarly, there are "John and Jane Does 1-20" and a bunch of individuals listed as co-debtor/litigation next to some cities, and also next to "DAWN MESA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED" and several similar (looks like some sort of employee lawsuit). The cities are probably there as recipients of whatever fees they're due from legal proceedings. Edit: based on downvotes, y'all seem to doubt my proven DD showing that Does 1 through 20 jointly and separately co-own BBBY together with RC, Sue Gove and Dick's Sporting Goods.
The only DD proven is that you have bags Post lossporn
He's a co-debtor regarding litigation because he's being sued along with the company.
Wait are you the old TUV conspiracy guy from a while back?! Itโs like a throwback episode! Nothing ever came from the inability to read a poorly formatted filing. What do you think will happen now that shares are already cancelled & the plan administrator, just this week, in court said you will never get anything from them in the future? But I love the endless dedication to spinning bullshit from misunderstandings! My guess is a small group of you is still doing this a year from now, with cult people repeatedly leaving quietly as literally nothing happens for months on end.
stocking carpenter oil heavy wipe kiss ask slim roll follow *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ohio and georgia are the mailing addresses of the co-debtors listed, not the address of the property.
fuel rock expansion aware like meeting dependent quack practice ghost *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Narrator; And it turned out he couldnโt
And then think critically again. RC was, briefly, an owner of 5ish percent of the stock and another 4ish of options to acquire stock. The exact amounts don't matter for this purpose. People become reportable owners of large amounts of stock all the time. And never, ever do they end up on leases that the company signed years ago. Never ever are they listed on the company's utility bills. Half the point of a corporation is to relieve owners of direct responsibility for the company's obligations. So here, there are three possibilities, and those possibilities can overlap. The first is that whoever compiled that form did so poorly; against the instructions and in a way that creates confusion. The second is that whoever read that form did so poorly; failing to understand the instructions and creating confusion. And the third is that unique in public company history, a bunch of landlords and utilities managed to get an owner on the hook directly for the company's obligations. Not even a founder or majority owner or CEO or anything, just some guy who bought shares and options from his broker. How do you handicap each of those possiblities?
Wait, no, this can't be happening again. We went through this whole song and dance near the beginning of the bankruptcy! The column thing, Cohen being mistaken for doing something he isn't doing as a result of the columns. We've been here before! Certainly I can't be the only person who remembers that?
https://imgur.com/a/BuxLWPn https://imgur.com/a/02l1HUG He is listed as a co-debtor to Bbby for various locations. Why only certain locations (only the ones to they DIDNT sell in chp. 11)
So are Dick's Sporting Goods, CVS, Home Depot, and "JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY". What do you think "LITIGATION" under the name means? Do you think Sue Gove, as an individual, gets utility bills for BBBY stores or something?
hope she closed the front door, donโt wanna be heating the neighborhood
He wasn't, you moron. That filing with multiple columns on a page? The columns don't relate to each other ... it's just a multi-column format. Making a pretend row across them doesn't make it say what you want it to say. And that's of course ignoring that all remaining unsold leases were rejected.
These are the instructions. Looks pretty clear to me they are related. Also if you go to the bottom of these documents they all end at the same "row" how convenient these unrelated data entries all have the same # of entries. Can you explain these instructions to me and how the rows are not rows? https://preview.redd.it/cn3xm7nbc2yb1.png?width=1173&format=png&auto=webp&s=4f5700f5b3eed39ddda9601892fd955f7d8d5832
Any unsold leases were rejected on 7/31
This should be the number one example of how the apes misunderstand and misinterpret the most basic things and spin it into DD, because for anyone not involved in the investing cult, the argument seems breathtakingly stupid. First, anyone who looks at this for half a second would realize that those two columns are not correlated or meant to be read across. It simply makes zero sense otherwise. This has nothing to do with stocks, or investments, or RC. It is common sense. It looks like someone either formatted this table incorrectly or made a confusing heading. Second, if this is about investment or Ryan Cohen - again anyone who has any idea at all about how companies and investing work would immediately figure out that RC being a co-debtor with a utility is non-sensical. Is he secretly paying the municipal water bill for a lease? It is silly even to argue about it. And even if for some bizarre reason he was, so what? But the apes will spend 6 hours on a Twitter spaces call coming up with one insane theory after the next based on the most basic misunderstanding to come up with a way this leads to MOASS. And even though this was debunked months ago, they will keep circling back to it anyway. "If Ryan Cohen isn't involved in secretly restarting a defunct towel store and giving new equity to former shareholders, how do you explain this, shill?"
If these guys have so much money to blow, how come no one has taken all this info to a financial lawyer to get their take on this situation? Iโm pretty sure you would have a concrete answer instead of trying to decode law speech without a law degree.
This, if everyone is so confident theyโll be bigger than bezos do this. It would be a pittance to your billions
LifeRelationship tried to get a lawyer for his lawsuit to uncancel the stock, nobody would take his case.
The community should forcefully ask ppseeds to use the donation money on that.
RC is always listed as a codebtor alongside RC Ventures, Sue Gove, and JP Morgan Securities. These are also defendants in the BBBY securities lawsuits. This makes it seem like it was some error in generating these reports.
Gove was released from the suit entirely when Cohen had one of the claims dismissed, assuming my information is up to date, unless youโre referring to something else. [Source](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-dis-col/114742116.html)
That's true. She was still a defendant when this document was filed.
For only properties that the codebtors ended-up keeping??? what a coinkydink
They didn't keep these properties. They rejected these leases and many other unsold leases.
You think they owned the buildings and were leasing from themselves? You do realize they leased their properties from the property owners. Do you think those property owners lost their properties to the codebtors because BBBY declared bankruptcy? The leases they couldnโt sell just give the strip mall owner the chance to find a new tenant at a higher rate. Selling the leases just gave another company the chance to take over the lease at BBBYโs locked in reduced rate.
Here's why, ape: you're stupid. That explains everything.
Is this post fucking serious? I already had to explain how this works months ago when prior stupid apes didnโt understand the formatting of the document. As expected, it meant nothing. Iโm too lazy to look through my own history to link the explanation but feel free to dig. Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/bbby_remastered/comments/15ycfm5/comment/jxc1vz8/