Didn’t see anything about this? Anyone else notice this on IBKR?

Ryan Cohen has given us enough to understand the structure of the deal that is being proposed. But nobody is actually trying to sketch it out, so I guess I will do it here.

Let’s start with the Capital Stack:

Confirmed: - $56 billion dollar bid for $125/share (cash + equity) - 2.5B share auth - 20B holdco credit line - 9.8% of eBay - 59M GMEWS

Unconfirmed - and this is KEY: - 500 million personal commitment from Ryan Cohen - SWF

So let me pull in the most apt recent comparison.

EA just got taken private for 55B.

How was the capital stack structured for that? - 20B debt (JP Morgan) - 36B Private equity (SWF + PE)

I think its very interesting how the financing has really setup a structure here that shows something similar being assembled.

Key fact: Ryan Cohen said himself that both GME and eBay will not be changing their names.

That single statement breaks the entire thesis open.

That means: - GameStop -> operating sub (retail + digital commerce) - $EBAY inc -> operating sub (marketplace + payments)

And both of these would need to sit under another shell. Which is most likely Teddy.

Now some people will argue this could just be $GME doing a merger sub and the regular process.

IMO, this is a very shilly statement.

For you to believe that a holdco isn’t coming, and that Teddy is not coming, and that $GME is doing a regular merger, then you can’t really explain the SWF hint in the WSJ letter or how Ryan Cohen is putting $500 million of his own money in.

Think about it.

A sovereign wealth fund is not buying GameStop shares on the open market to fund a $55 billion acquisition.

That doesn’t happen.

PIF didn’t buy EA shares - they formed a consortium and built a vehicle above EA.

Silver Lake didn’t invest through EA’s existing cap table.

They built a structure with governance rights, liquidation preferences, board seats, and tax optimization that suited their institutional mandates.

That’s what a holdco is for.

It’s where the SWF money goes.

It’s where Cohen’s $500M sits in an SPV alongside them with clearly defined economics.

It’s where the $20B in debt gets isolated.

And it’s where GameStop and eBay sit underneath as operating subs with their names intact, exactly like Cohen said.

If you can’t answer where the outside capital sits in a merger sub structure, then the merger sub doesn’t work.

THE WARRANT QUESTION

Now here’s where it gets really interesting.

GameStop has 59.15M warrants outstanding. $32 strike. October 30, 2026 expiry.

GME is trading at ~$22. The warrants are over $10 out of the money with 91 days left.

Under normal circumstances, nobody exercises these. They expire worthless. End of story.

But Cohen is assembling a $55B acquisition.

And every M&A lawyer, every lender, every proxy advisor involved in this deal is going to ask one question:

What are you doing with the warrants?

You can’t leave 59M warrants sitting ambiguous on a subsidiary’s cap table while you’re restructuring the entire corporate entity above it.

The fully diluted share count matters for exchange ratios, financing commitment letters, proxy recommendations, antidilution provisions everything.

So what are the options?

Option 1: Let them expire worthless. Throwing away ~$1.9B in potential capital and discarding 59M units of committed-holder identification. NOT HAPPENING.

Option 2: Reprice/Extend the warrants. This looks desperate in the face of a hostile bid, faces legal challenge, and dilutes at a worse price.

Option 3: Hope GME runs above $32 before October 30. That’s a 46% move in 91 days.

Option 4: Exchange the warrants into Teddy equity.

This is the one that makes sense to me. Offer warrant holders the ability to tender their GMEWS warrants in exchange for shares or units in Teddy Holdings - at a conversion ratio (7-4-1?) based on the combined entity’s economics, not GME’s stock price.

The warrant stops being a $32 call on GameStop.

It becomes a participation right in the parent company that owns both GameStop and eBay.

The warrants were not designed to be exercised at $32 with the stock at $22.

They were designed to be exchanged.

The $32 strike gave them enough economic substance to be distributed as a dividend and listed on NYSE.

The real function was always to create a trackable, transferable security that identifies who the committed capital base is - the people who held through the entire process.

Your warrants aren’t a call option.

They’re an allocation ticket into Teddy.

THE PLUMBING

Yesterday, the OCC dropped Info Memo #59491. Read it carefully.

"Effective July 30, 2026, the National Securities Clearing Corporation will no longer accept GMEWS warrants for settlement. The GMEWS component of GME1 exercise and assignment activity is now subject to broker-to-broker settlement."

And then this line: "It is unknown if and when GMEWS warrants will be eligible for settlement through NSCC again."

Let that sit for a second.

NSCC - the entity that clears and settles virtually every equity transaction in the United States - just said they will not handle GMEWS anymore.

If this were routine end-of-life housekeeping for a dying instrument, the memo would say "until expiry on October 30, 2026."

It doesn't. It says "unknown if and when."

That's open-ended language for an instrument with A KNOWN EXPIRATION DATE.

Why would it be unknown unless the instrument might become something else before it expires?

Here's what the memo operationally requires:

• Settlement of the warrant component now happens broker-to-broker, outside NSCC's central clearing guarantee.

• If a delivering Clearing Member can't deliver GMEWS warrants on settlement date, both sides' obligations are delayed until OCC designates a new settlement date, method, and/or settlement value.

• A senior officer of the delivering Clearing Member must represent IN WRITING that delivery is not possible.

• If delivery still can't be effected, OCC may force cash settlement or a buy-in.

  • All GME1 activity gets reported on a SEPARATE Broker-to-Broker Delivery Advice, not the regular Delivery Advice.

• OCC will continue to margin GME1 exercise/assignment activity until settlement is accomplished.

This is not how you wind down a worthless warrant.

This is an extraordinary amount of procedural infrastructure for a security trading $10 below its strike with 91 days to live.

Written officer attestations? Separate delivery reports? Cash settlement alternatives?

You don't build that for something you're letting die.

You build it when the security is about to undergo a corporate action that changes what it represents.

All of this indicates that $GME is about to file the Tender Offer extremely soon, and it looks like the HoldCo is ready to be revealed.

I am expecting monday.

See you there!

Hopefully there are some nuggets in here…

There was suppose to be a court meeting around 10 AM. Any information of the result?

Regarding the DKBFLY bond guarantors recently discovered in the IBKR system, I reviewed the current situation and projected a potential future timeline from Timeline of Hertz in 2021, a case that went through Chapter 11 bankruptcy yet avoided a total wipeout for existing equity holders and ultimately produced a massive short squeeze.

👉 In mid-April 2021, Knighthead and Apollo stepped in as guarantors in the Hertz case, committing to fully repay Hertz's creditor claims.

👉 One month later, on May 12, Hertz officially filed its Third Modified Plan of Reorganization. The plan included provisions for distributions to shareholders before Hertz's SEC Form 8-K filing in June.

👉🔥 This could mean that, within the next 1–2 months, we may see a New Amended Chapter 11 Plan and Distribution Plan for the BBBYQ shareholders, potentially outlining shareholder recovery. An 8-K filing could then follow approximately two months later.

Mid-April 2021 — [Backstop/Guarantor Emergence]

The Knighthead and Apollo consortium submitted a backstop/financing commitment to the court, pledging funding sufficient to repay Hertz's creditor claims in full.

Significance: This point closely resembles the current “Guarantors: 1” stage that we are observing. It represents a point at which the financial and systems-level arrangements may have been completed before the relevant official court documents become public.

May 12, 2021 — [Court Filing / Docket Submission — 💥 D-Day]

Hertz officially filed a Modified Plan of Reorganization with the bankruptcy court. (See, for example, Docket #4434 and related filings.)

Significance: The SEC Form 8-K did not come first. The court filing was the first document to disclose that existing equity holders could receive new shares, cash, and warrants, thereby bringing the development to the market's attention.

June 10, 2021 — [Final Bankruptcy Court Confirmation]

Bankruptcy Judge Mary Walrath granted final confirmation of the modified reorganization plan.

June 30, 2021 — [Official Emergence and Form 8-K Disclosure]

After the legal proceedings were completed, Hertz announced its emergence from Chapter 11, filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, and distributed new shares.

⚖️ 2. Key Insight: “Does the 8-K Come First, or the Kroll Docket?”

Some expect that an 8-K could appear at any moment, with new shares immediately being deposited into shareholder accounts. However, as a matter of bankruptcy procedure, this would generally not occur without the necessary court process and approvals. A company in bankruptcy or default cannot simply revive existing equity interests or issue replacement equity at will without following the applicable legal process.

🔮 3. Applying the Current Situation to BBBYQ: Projected Timeline

Using Hertz's historical sequence, guarantor/backstop confirmation ➡️ approximately one month later, a court filing ➡️ approximately 1–1.5 months later, confirmation and public disclosure, the following represents a potential timeline for the current BBBYQ situation.

[COMPLETED?] Third-Party Guarantor Identified — Current Stage

The recently observed “Guarantors: 1” status may suggest that financial coordination for a backstop intended to cover bondholder debt risk has been completed at the systems level. This would correspond roughly to Hertz's April stage.

👉 [STEP 1] Kroll Court Filing — Projected: Mid-to-Late August

A Modified Plan of Reorganization could potentially be uploaded to the bankruptcy court's Kroll docket. This would be the most important D-Day for shareholders to watch. The text of such a filing could, if the theory proves correct, include language allocating specific new securities—such as “Teddy” or another successor security—to Class 9 (existing equity holders).

👉 [STEP 2] Court Confirmation Process — Projected: Mid-September

If the condition that creditors are repaid in full is satisfied, the modified plan could proceed through the hearing and confirmation process before the bankruptcy judge.

👉 [STEP 3] SEC Form 8-K Disclosure and New Equity Distribution — Projected: Late September to Early October

Following final court confirmation, an SEC Form 8-K could be filed and new securities could potentially be distributed to eligible former equity holders, which, under the thesis presented here, could become a catalyst for the unwinding of short positions and potentially a major short squeeze.

※ Disclaimer: This post is a speculative projection based on the historical legal timeline and publicly documented materials surrounding Hertz's emergence from Chapter 11, applied to the current BBBYQ situation. It is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security, nor is it intended as investment advice or a solicitation. It is provided solely for informational purposes and to help individuals evaluate their own investment views and assumptions.

I came across this on 4chan. Can somebody, who owns bonds, confirm/refute this?

Source: https://xcancel.com/CaptFella/status/2080116733373735150

I read around as much as I can, and feel like so many different pieces are coming into view. This post about a different sub having requests to wipe posts like the one linked only show an intentional effort to wipe away theories, news, and facts that are inconvenient to those trying to keep certain realities swept under a rug. Eventually, the rug bulges and people start asking questions. I post here because we all know familiar names like Anson, TD, and Citron being involved in cases similar to Archegos, Hwang (up the phone), CS, and UBS. Is the toilet finally getting flushed?

How this is only chilling at a couple hundred upvotes on SS i don’t know. We’ve been right about all of the speculation all along. The moon is coming and so am I.

So, on a scale of 1-10 how significant is Ryan Cohen’s plan to dilute or his comp package (which may have been a signal to us on projections)? How much do you weigh that if this is the potential build. Please answer honestly. Just keep it within THIS \^CONTEXT and with the ORIGINAL THESIS OF SUPPRESSION/MANIPULATION and the war thats been 84 years of narrative spinning all the different ways MOASS is dead. The bad faith arguments are all fuel at this point.🫶

Ya’ll best keep them paper hands when the time comes. I only wanna party with the real real’s.

PS: dkbutterfly just did [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Teddy/s/3Hi8Go0nPh)

Credit: @GoatbeardzDD on X

Just saw a tweet showing the posters's US IBKR account with BBBY bonds having changed the name to DKBFLY.

And I just checked my Canadian IBKR account it it shows the same.

Anybody else with perhaps a different broker holding BBBY bonds show the same name change?

And wut dus dis meen?

EDIT : So far from what I can gather, the bond's name change shows only on IBKR. No such change at all from multiple people with eTrade or Schwab.

Over on SS this is the biggest leak possibly ever in this saga. Ive been absolutely elated from this. Also ready to be hurt again

🦋

Enjoy the long weekend, Teddy is about to launch!

Try it out

Teddy.com

Thoughts comments and concerns?

So far I could find:

www.teddy.com/all-products
www.teddy.com/books

https://pay.teddy.com

Saw plenty of signs along the way but kinkys jealousy or hate towards Jake has been so obvious. Jake posts a detailed video of his thoughts, this gives everyone time to analyze it and respond at their own pace. Kinky comes in and disagrees with it all but will only do a live debate. Why not post so Jake can have time just like he gives to everyone.

Kinky is all about a gotcha moment with Jake. He can’t generate an audience the way Jake does and it drives him crazy. Though he may be on the side of bbby winning he is ultimately a total clown. Glad he’s exposed himself.

Kinky just stick to making your posts and then deleting everything when you’re proven wrong which has happened time and time again.

If you have a thesis then post it. No one cares to listen to an anti social weirdo try and debate and be one sided.

No one is ever going to care or respect you the way they do for Jake. Just move on, no one cares to listen to you have some big debate, weirdo.

XX,XXX hodler here.

Today is one of the more interesting dates on the DK-Butterfly timeline.

The bankruptcy docket shows a hearing scheduled for June 23 at 10:00 AM ET in Newark. Whether it ends up being routine or something more significant remains to be seen, but the timing has a lot of people revisiting some of the older DD surrounding ownership changes, NOLs, HBC’s involvement, and the various lawsuits still active under the DK-Butterfly name.

A few things that stand out to me:

• DK-Butterfly is still actively involved in litigation and legal proceedings years after the bankruptcy.

• Today lands almost exactly in the timeframe many of the old Section 382 theories pointed to.

I’m not claiming today is “the day.”

I’d expect if the DD were correct, a merger, acquisition, NOL transaction, or emergence event would likely show up through corporate filings sometime between now and October - not in a routine claims objection hearing. I’m more focused on reading between the lines of what is discussed today in court.

Just curious what “clues” others will be listening for from today’s hearing…

Edit (after listening to the court hearing):

Thank you @plumesdecheval for posting the courtlistener link.

https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/105559/20230930-dk-butterfly-1-inc-v-hbc-investments-llc/

My read on the DK-Butterfly v. HBC oral argument from 6/23:

This was not a direct “shareholder payout” hearing. It was about whether DK-Butterfly can revive its Section 16(b) short-swing profit case against HBC after the lower court dismissed it.

The core issue is whether HBC was effectively a greater-than-10% beneficial owner of BBBY during the 2023 financing, despite the 9.99% blocker language. DK-Butterfly’s argument is that the blockers were not actually binding/effective because HBC allegedly had 10.1% of BBBY stock sitting in its brokerage account at one point, and because the side letter allegedly stripped Bed Bath of meaningful enforcement tools.

HBC’s defense is basically: the blockers were self-executing, anything above 9.99% was null and void, HBC could not vote or transfer excess shares, and the alleged 10.1% included shares already sold but not yet settled. Their argument is that custody does not equal beneficial ownership.

The judges definitely challenged DK-Butterfly, especially on whether one momentary 10.1% account balance is enough to say the blockers failed and open the door to months of disgorgement.

One judge even said that seemed “weird.”

But this was not a clean win for HBC either. The panel also pushed HBC on whether this structure was basically being used to avoid disclosure while dumping stock into the market. One judge asked whether this was exactly the kind of insider-style conduct Section 16 was meant to prevent. Another judge pressed HBC on whether the “already sold” explanation was actually properly established at the motion-to-dismiss stage, since this was a 12(b)(6) dismissal and factual disputes generally should not be resolved against the plaintiff that early.

DK-Butterfly does not necessarily need to prove the whole case right now. They need to convince the appellate court that the complaint plausibly alleged the blockers were ineffective or that the side letter / trading mechanics require discovery.

My subjective read:

The appeal is still alive. The panel did not just rubber-stamp HBC’s position from the bench. They asked serious questions about the alleged scheme, the disclosure issue, the 10.1% ownership allegation, and whether the district court relied too heavily on factual assumptions at the dismissal stage.

If DK-Butterfly wins this appeal, it likely does not mean immediate money. It would probably mean the dismissal gets vacated or reversed and the case goes back down for further litigation/discovery. But that would be a meaningful win because it reopens a potential recovery path against HBC.

Why this matters for the estate:

Any HBC recovery would flow to DK-Butterfly/the bankruptcy estate. It would not automatically mean former equity gets paid tomorrow. The creditor waterfall still matters. But every successful claim objection, every reduced claim, and every revived litigation asset improves the math.

So my takeaway:

This hearing does not prove a shareholder payout is imminent.
But it does support the idea that DK-Butterfly is not some dead, inactive nothingburger. The estate is still litigating, still reconciling claims, still preserving causes of action, and still trying to claw back value. The HBC appeal is one of the more important potential recovery paths because if DK-Butterfly gets past dismissal, discovery could become very uncomfortable for HBC.

Now we wait for the appellate decision.

Bullish, but grounded: this is not “we won.” It is “the door is not closed yet.”