RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:I am wondering if too stem the downdraftYes, this is true and the same thing is said on the SEC website. So taken by itself it is not indicative of naked short selling. But looking at it in conjunction with a short attack it almost certainly is. There are very few things other than a short attack that would cause it to spike (a reverse split for instance). There are also plenty of scholarly articles that show strong correlation between fails-to-deliver and naked shorting. I should add that upon reviewing there is unlikely to be that many fails-to-deliver with VRX, as the stock appears to be relatively easy to borrow. However, my original response was to someone saying that all the major shareholders should make their shares unavailable to short....and the truth is that this would do nothing to prevent a short attack. Tethnically they could still attack a company with NO shares available to borrow for up to 2 weeks without issue or intervention from the SEC.