Re: This was a short squeeze..........
Linked in cites 3 employees: a native hebrew speaker (Israeli?) working in NYC, someone in Lagos, Nigeria, and someone in London. And other than the guy in NYC, no names are actually listed. Companies that like to keep their employees secret seem less than reputable.
Again, a smart short keeps their info close and uses it to make a killing. A short with legit information would never publicize it - they would simply wait until maximum damage could be done, place huge bets, and then predictably wait until the chips fall exactly where they are expected to fall. A short with legitimately damaging information doesn't stupidly write a petition and poor libelous letters. An example of a genius short? Steven Cohen. Remember how he just waiting for Elan to publish lousy beta amyloid results and publicize the PML cases? He made billions. Now contrast to these chumps... If I actually thought the data was fraudulent, then I would wait until the stock was bid up to hundreds of dollars per share and then make a fortune. But the data is not fraudulent, the clinical sites are not disreputable, the inclusion and exclusion criteria are not at all unusual for AD trials, and deliberate academic fraud (prior to SAVA clinical trials) was not committed.
In the end, the shorts are going to fry and AD patients will be the winners (along with SAVA longs.)