Oscar G

@EvaderDirt @seymourbutts741 @I_only_use_tide @koebbel741 @BobbyCat42 👀

Sometimes, it is really the simplest things. You can apply this to nearly every aspect of life, so with that in mind I would like to provide everyone with some chin-rubbing material. It pertains to Ryan Cohen and his status as a "co-debtor" within the Bed Bath Chapter 11. It's been one of those intriguing, mysterious and frustrating parts because there is minimal supplemental material to work with and expand the idea. But, minimal is more than zero. 🧐 We've explored in the past how RC is listed as a co-debtor in docket 568, alongside Sue Gove and JPM. We've also explored how these are litigations, by the Cities of Tyler, Upland, Ventura, etc. Another docket has these entities in them and reveals that their mailing address for the Bed Bath Chapter 11 is for the city hall, in all of them. Makes sense, it's the City suing after all, ..right? ..well, the first question you have to ask yourself is obvious: WHY is Ryan Cohen/RC Ventures being sued by the cities? Specifically the business licensing office, the public water works, etc. What could he possibly have to do with the Company to merit this? Sue Gove makes sense, she was the CEO of the Company. JP Morgan makes sense, they were the bank operating the Company's bank accounts. Aha! Got 'em. Because that's the piece of information that could not be hidden. It's NOT JP Morgan Chase Bank, as we know from the other filings. Let's have another look at the first image—JP Morgan Securities, LLC. In docket 18, the Debtors have to disclose all of their bank accounts to the Court, in their request for a ruling to continue being able to use them. They do not disclose any accounts with JP Morgan Securities, LLC. Therefore, the accounts do not belong to the Company. — score update.. Bed Bath: ✖️ Sue Gove: ❓ Ryan Cohen: ❓ — So what exactly is JP Morgan Securities, LLC? It's their asset management and brokerage arm. Remember, it doesn't belong to the Company. Well, maybe it's Sue Gove.. right? Well, no it can't be. Mrs. Gove as the CEO would not have her own brokerage linked to a litigation of the same Company she is a CEO of. It's important to make the distinction that she could, if she were committing a fraud, crime or some breach of fiduciary duty as an executive of a publicly-traded company. But the other side of the lawsuit are cities, not the Department of Justice. It's not a fraud litigation, it can't be Sue Gove. — score update.. Bed Bath: ✖️ Sue Gove:✖️ Ryan Cohen: ❓ 🫢 — So we know it can't be related the Company and it can't be related to Sue. Naturally, that brings us to the beginning of the post and the question we posed—why would Ryan Cohen be involved as a co-debtor? The clue was in the first picture. Look at JP Morgan Securities and look at the attorneys representing them. Then have a look at this image, taken from the Pacer page for Ryan Cohen's Section 16(b) lawsuit: "Would you look at that." Why would JP Morgan Securities, LLC be listed on the Section 16(b) lawsuit? Because it is Ryan Cohen's brokerage, the one he used for making his Bed Bath stake purchases—we know this from his Form 144. In the filing, it states JP Morgan Securities, LLC as the: "Name and Address of Each Broker Through Whom the Securities are to be offered or Each Market Maker who is acquiring the Securities" — • The same brokerage, in his SEC filing and as a co-debtor. • The same brokerage, in his Section 16(b) lawsuit. • The same attorneys, working on both. I believe that the reason for them both being co-debtor, is that there has been a collateral pledge or lien of some kind that RC utilized in order to secure whatever it is that he wants. I also believe this is another reason to not have the Section 16(b) lawsuit move too quickly, to prevent this collateral pledge being revealed in potential discovery. "in hindsight, it will all seem so obvious." $BBBYQ #BBBYQ $BBBY #BBBY

friends, I feel confident that we have solved the mystery of RC's co-debtor status with $BBBY. looking back at old posts is fun and very neat to see the threads we were pulling on. as always, looking back at older documentation is invaluable, especially with new understanding. I find it very funny that it was there the entire time, we just had to look. admittedly, it does help to have a better understanding as we go along as well. in the case of #BBBY, I believe that RC is a co-debtor because he is a cosigner/offered a guaranty on $BBBYQ's Texas Tax obligations. let's start back in May: RC himself and RC Ventures (alongside JP Morgan Securities and Sue Gove) are listed in docket 568 as co-debtors for a handful of places and I've picked this page as an example. the creditor is the City of Tyler and look at the Schedule, E/F—that's important. if we read through the 1,176 page docket we can find the E/F Schedule, here's a page: here we have our first aha! moment. this section of the Schedule is titled Taxing Authorities and it is here that we find the cities where RC is listed as the co-debtor. note: some cities are listed twice, once under the Taxing Authorities and then again under Trade Payables (i.e. for the City of Tyler, this is where the utility water bill is located). I know, taxes are boring but hang in there, here's where it gets fun. back in September when the Kirkland August fee statement came out, this would have been a very easy detail to miss: but in fact, it was likely the largest confirmation of RC's involvement in all public disclosures—but, only if you knew what you were looking at. first, what is a non-debtor party? a "non-debtor party" or"non-debtor third party" refers to an individual or entity that is not a party to the bankruptcy case but is nonetheless affected by or involved in the bankruptcy proceedings. you guessed it, like a co-debtor. so, now that we know what a non-debtor is, we can ask the really important question: WHY is Kirkland preparing Bed Bath tax determinations for someone who is not the Company? remember, a non-debtor is not a party to the Chapter 11 case, so this is not referring to Bed Bath or any of its subsidiary entities. also worth noting is when Ms. Geier is documenting this work in the Kirkland fee—on August 29, three days before the end of the voting on the plan. this is not something she would be working on "that maybe would not come to fruition." now, let's set up a quick timeline: May 30—RC is revealed as a co-debtor. August 29—Ms. Geier is preparing the Texas taxes for (I believe) RC. September 12—was the Confirmation Hearing for the #BBBYQ Chapter 11 Plan. September 14—the Plan is confirmed. on September 14—after the confirmation—we get docket 2172. why after? because they can give some more disclosure (while still being light on details) since they know the Plan can be effectuated. look what we find inside: in case you did not know (like me!) what the Texas Comptroller was: "The Texas Comptroller's office is the state's chief tax collector, accountant, revenue estimator and treasurer." emphasis mine. so: • they are the main tax collector for Texas, one of the two main states where RC is listed as a co-debtor (the other being California),.. • and the findings of fact to support the Plan states that their rights are not preserved to pursue any non-debtor third party for tax debts,.. • and the co-debtor counterparties to RC are taxing authorities. well, would you look at that. — Ryan Cohen, you sneaky fox. gosh, that sure gives me a new perspective on why RC is not buying any $GME, as this would give credibility to the theory that he is under a material info blackout period. it could also explain why the #GME investment policy has not been utilized yet, which could also explain why Mr. Attal is also not able to purchase, since he may be on the oversight committee. and yes, I believe that RC is one side of the "third party release." more on that, soon.

...unless the fees are prepaid for DK-Butterfly. Prepaid for potential future use. April 28, 2023 Withdrawal Request for Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-271218) "In accordance with Rule 457(p) of the Securities Act, and subject to compliance with the requirements thereof, the Company hereby requests that all fees paid to the Commission in connection with the filing of the Registration Statement be credited for potential future use." ...🤔 But wait... There is more. sec.gov/Archives/edgar…

20230930-DK-Butterfly-1 V HBC update 🦋 The docket was updated today showing a proposed case calendaring entry for the week of 6/22 for the parties to appear in person for oral arguments ca2.uscourts.gov/calendar.html $BBBYQ 🛌🛁🚀

WE ARE MISSING @jake2b AGAIN PLEASE REPOST LAST SEEN ON THE COUCH LIVES IN CANADA KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT CANADA. MAY BE SUFFERING WITH NON DIAGNOSED AMNESIA. DANGER TO SINGLE MUMS WITH HIS PHEROMONES

Is it true..? More than one Third Party Release in the $BBBYQ Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization..? Yup. How do I know..? When was the Third Party Release that @jake2b has been describing for months (ok, years) first approved..? Well, it had to have been approved prior to the first MOR submitted on 27 May 2023. Why..? Because the Third Party was disbursing cash for the benefit of the Estate on that first MOR to the tune of $51,894,834.00 dollars as of May 27, 2023. I'll show you on another post, when the words "Third Party Release" were first used in the Court Docket filings. And then, I'll show you when the words "Third Party Releases" (PLURAL) was first used in those same filings, which both happen to be at the end of July 2023. Pretty sneaky Dr. Cohen, pretty sneaky.