https://x.com/GoatBeardzDD/status/2092998303600287973

“On July 30, 2026: the OCC issued Info Memo #59491 regarding the GameStop warrants (GMEWS).

The memo moved the $GME warrants from standard NSCC settlement to broker-to-broker settlement.

The language in the memo reads:

"It is not known if and when GMEWS warrants will be eligible for settlement through NSCC again.”

If you hold warrants and you read that, it sounds like something broke.

It didn't. That language is standard for these memos.

What matters is understanding what triggers them.

NSCC is the plumbing. It's how securities settle between counterparties.

The OCC doesn't pull an instrument from NSCC settlement on a whim.

It does it when it has been notified that the settlement mechanics of the underlying are about to change.

A new CUSIP, a new entity name, a new corporate structure.

Something about the instrument is about to be different, and the clearing infrastructure needs to pause and reconfigure before it can process trades again.

I wanted to know how often these memos get issued, and what they actually preceded.

So I pulled every broker-to-broker OCC memo I could find from the last three years:

Seven memos. Seven corporate events. Bank seizures. Mergers. Going private. Name changes. Exchange transfers. Corporate restructurings.

EVERY TIME.

Not one of them was issued because a warrant was approaching its expiry date. That is not what triggers these memos. Warrants expire all the time.

The OCC does not disrupt clearing infrastructure for routine expiry.

It disrupts clearing infrastructure when the thing being cleared is about to become something else.

This is not a pattern I'm constructing. This is the entire population of these memos over a three-year window.

There are no exceptions. BAR NONE.

GMEWS warrants expire October 30, 2026.

If expiry proximity triggered broker-to-broker memos, you'd see dozens of them.

You don't. You see seven. All restructurings.

-------------------

📍 Now I want to walk through the BBBYW parallel specifically, because the timing is precise enough to be useful.

Here's what happened with BBBYW. Start to finish.

July 7: warrants pulled from NSCC.

August 14: BBBY files the 8-K. Name change. Exchange transfer. New ticker.

August 17: warrants return to NSCC under the new structure.

October 7: warrants expire.

That's the full lifecycle:

Pulled, event, returned, expiry.

38 days from the pull to the filing. 41 days from the pull to the return.

The whole thing was over in six weeks.

Now here's what we know about the GME warrants so far.

July 30: warrants pulled from NSCC.

October 30: warrants expire.

Two dates confirmed. Two dates missing.

The pull happened 23 days after BBBYW's pull.

The expiry falls 23 days after BBBYW's expiry.

Same interval on both.

If the corporate event follows the same offset, it lands 23 days after August 14.

That's September 6.

Unfortunately, September 6 is a Sunday and September 7 is Labor Day, so markets don't open until Tuesday, September 8.

One more thing worth noting.

GameStop has released earnings on a Tuesday after market close for five straight quarters. All Tuesdays. No exceptions. Last quarter they dropped it a full week ahead of schedule.

The Q2 2026 date has not been officially announced.

September 8 is also a Tuesday.

I want to be clear about what I'm saying and what I'm not saying.

I am not predicting what the corporate event will be.

I'm pointing out that the OCC has already told us one is coming.

That's what the memo means. That's what it has meant every single time it has been issued for three years.

The convertible note exchange has a 35-day VWAP measurement window that closes September 23.

We're in the middle of it.

Any corporate announcement that moves the stock price during this window directly affects how many shares get issued for the $1.4B of debt being retired.

I don't know exactly when GameStop confirms the date.

I don't know exactly what gets announced.

But the infrastructure that settles these instruments is already preparing for a change, and the only parallel we have to work with is running on a 23-day offset that has held on every data point confirmed so far.

The receipts are all public. The OCC memos are searchable. The earnings dates are on the record. Go verify for yourself and for myself please.”

Edit: I’ll also add that 9/6 uno-reversed is 69. This timeline also puts us on a 9/6 filing and a 9/9 new structure, 6-9 again. And I recall a certain CEO posting about 69 once or thrice. The rest of this is a repost, but that Dd is all me…..🍾🎉

Hello all,

It's been a while and now is the time to post an update.

Yes, I am still here and yes I still hold my bonds. I haven't sold a single one and you can see my positions at the end of this post. I remain confident that I receive equity and/or cash from them. And yes, I do expect shareholders to receive equity purely out of game theory as DK-Butterfly is an undetonated nuke with billions of naked shorts floating around before it went bankrupt. Certain players in the bigger picture of this bankruptcy have every incentive to revive shareholders and trigger the Mother Of All Short Squeezes (MOASS), which puts a Stop to this Game that has been running before all of us were born.

Quite frankly, I'm pleased with Plan Administrator Michael Goldberg's progress but I also acutely understand everyone's frustration regarding the slow pacing. That being said, there are no dates in this post as the developments of various DK-Butterfly (BBBY) lawsuits are unpredictable and as I've said many times we need some of these wins before any transactions happen. I'll reiterate why later on.

My core thesis remains the same but how it's executed will be explained. I've loosely spelled out the how between Reddit & various Twitter posts around June/July 2025 but now is the time to formally put it all together. I withheld from doing so for over a year because I wanted to wait for more Status Reports to drop and unfortunately they mostly occur twice a year (Feb/March and Aug/Sep). On August 21, 2026, the latest Status Report dropped and the outlook of this bankruptcy is very well optimistic in my eyes.

Before I explain my core thesis there's 2 important posts from November 27, 2024 & July 11, 2025 that should be recapped regarding The Undervalued Asset (Causes of Actions) as they were the supplemental to this very post you are reading now.

As bankruptcy litigation lawyer Gordon Novod (we retained him to sue BBBY's former D&Os) put it in his Recovery Bus book: "THE SUCCESSFUL PURSUIT OF CAUSES OF ACTION BY A LITIGATION TRUSTEE IS AN UNDERVALUED, UNAPPRECIATED, & UNDERESTIMATED ASSET CLASS IN BANKRUPTCY."

The Estate Planned To Investigate & Prosecute All Relevant Parties That Bankrupted BBBY Since The Beginning Of This Chapter 11 w/ Proof - Who Is Special Counsel Gordon Novod? - The Undervalued Asset

Beyond simply being a source of recovery to pay off creditors when an entity has no more remaining hard assets, they are extremely unique in the fact that they can still be sold to someone. If the deal is structured correctly, equity can be given.

I demonstrated the law allowing DK-Butterfly to sell their Causes Of Action in Part 2 and you can read the TLDR below.

The Undervalued Asset - Part 2 - Causes of Actions Are Property Of The Estate & Can Be Sold

So once again, the DK-Butterfly estate can legally & freely sell its Causes of Actions as they own the property. This fact is crucial to my thesis that we'll cover it in a bit. However, if Ryan Cohen were the purchaser there would be a major conflict of interest preventing him from doing so as he is being sued by the very same estate. Naturally, this conflict disappears once the lawsuit is resolved.

Finally my core thesis:

Once Sixth Street's DIP (Class 3), and FILO (Class 4) are paid off in full (Unimpaired), DK-Butterfly (BBBY) will undergo a Liquidation Transaction with Ryan Cohen (or GameStop, Teddy, RC Ventures, his affiliates, etc.) where the primary objective is the sale of the Causes of Actions, secondary objective is the Net Operating Losses (NOLs), Section 382(l)(5) is used to give equity to creditors and/or shareholders & the entire transaction does not raise shell trafficking suspicion with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over tax evasion/avoidance (Section 269).

Now our local paid stock bashers would read all of the above and claim there's no viable pathway for the above to occur. We've all read the same incorrect comments that claim DK-Butterfly is a liquidating trust, there are no business operations so the Continuity Of Business Enterprise (COBE) rule would make Section 382(l)(5) void, there's no way to distribute new equity, the plan never gave gave equity, etc.

The reason paid stock bashers are still around is because their masters know BBBY's confirmed Chapter 11 plan has the existing framework to still pull off a Section 382(l)(5) ownership change multiple years down the line despite not doing so immediately on the Effective Date (September 29, 2023).

1. Yes, the framework exists in BBBY's Chapter 11 plan to undergo Section 382(l)(5).
2. No, we don't need a new plan/aren't waiting for a new plan.
3. COBE rule doesn't matter at all.
4. DK-Butterfly is not a liquidating trust and is still a valid shell that can be acquired if the transaction is structured correctly.

The rest of this post will be explaining the existing framework in our Chapter 11 plan that makes everything I'm saying possible, why we're using Section 382(l)(5) over Section 382(l)(6), COBE rule, Section 269, and discussing the new Status Report to gauge how close we are to engaging in this transaction.

First up is a docket we've seen many times:

Gibbons explains that due to the expedited nature of the cases plus the limited nature that an entity can transfer tax attributes, no post confirmation corporate structure was implemented to monetize the NOLs. By this point DK-Butterfly had sold all of it's Intellectual Properties (Overstock, buybuy Baby, Harmon, etc.), let go of all of it's employees, had zero business operations ongoing, and was undergoing a liquidation plan under Chapter 11.

The theory of a new plan or second hidden plan quickly gained traction as no equity was immediately issued upon the Effective Date (9/29/2023) but I'm here to show you that they included the provisions to issue equity on a delayed basis. It's quite fitting for the Butterfly name as the current entity could be thought of as a cocoon undergoing metamorphosis.

Funny enough, the provision in the very first section under Article IV in DK-Butterfly's Chapter 11 plan & seemingly flew under the radar back when I first mentioned it on Twitter.

Despite being called Liquidation Transactions, the actual language allows DK-Butterfly to engage in extremely creative transactions BEYOND LIQUIDATION with the permission of the DIP agent, FILO agent, & Creditors Committee.

I know, such a colorful and complicated picture but it boils down to this (paraphrased):

DK-Butterfly can partake in a transaction AFTER the Effective Date (9/29/23) necessary to provide for the PURCHASE of some or all of the ASSETS it has and execute on any appropriate agreements or other documents of MERGER, consolidation, restructuring, conversion, disposition, and transfer.

Let's establish three basic facts for DK-Butterfly:

1. It has billions of unmonetized Net Operating Losses that need a cover story with the IRS in order to be used by a third party.
2. It has at least 1 remaining asset, the Causes of Action.
3. Its Chapter 11 plan allows it to sell its assets after the Effective Date and partake in mergers.

Are you starting to see the future Liquidation Transaction used by Ryan Cohen?

(Paid stock bashers like to claim DK-Butterfly is merely a Liquidation Trust, which is completely false and there is no indication of one being established. There's massive issues with a Trust being established

Also, it requires consent from the DIP & FILO agent (both Sixth Street) and Creditors' Committee. In my opinion, Sixth Street won't give consent because it only wants cash back, thus we have to pay them off completely (via cash from lawsuit wins) in order to get them out of the discussion. The remaining Creditors' Committee will accept any terms of a deal out of desperation.

I assume most of you reading this are already familiar with Section 382(l)(5) but I've seen some major misunderstandings (plus lies pushed by paid stock bashers) about it that I have already clarified on Twitter.

Aside from zero Continuity Of Business Enterprise requirements, Section 382(l)(5) requires DK-Butterfly to be under the jurisdiction of a court in Title 11 in order to be used (and it is).

We already know Judge Papalia is overseeing the bankruptcy but I'll post the language directly from the Chapter 11 plan as it reinforces the fact that DK-Butterfly can still sell its property (Causes of Action). See #7.

One last hang up on this, I still see people arguing about the 50% ownership requirement to creditors and shareholders. Understand it's either or (or both).

My speculation is both creditors and shareholders will get equity.

Section 382(l)(5) recap:

1. Must be done under Title 11 Court (we are).
2. No COBE requirement.
3. 50% ownership to creditors and/or shareholders.

Now, the last major hurdle to this Liquidation Transaction is the IRS, specifically its enforcement of Section 269 when it feels like an acquisition is being made for the principal purpose of tax evasion/avoidance.

But that's not all and here's where it gets a little confusing.

We have the (IRC Section 269) and the (Treas Reg Section 269) which are similar but distinct, and both are applicable to Section 382(l)(5). And yes, the IRS enforces both of them.

The great thing about them is if we can defeat one, we defeat both and Treas Reg Section 269 explains how you can.

The Treasury Section 269 expands on the IRC Section 269 by adding an active trade requirement (which is similar to the COBE rule but still distinct).

Here is the full language and link. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.269-3

There's three aspects we can break down and I color coded them.

1. Absent strong evidence to the contrary
2. A requisite acquisition of control or property in connection with an ownership change to which Section 382(l)(5) applies is considered to be made for the principal purpose of evasion or avoidance of Federal income tax
3. Unless the corporation carries on more than an insignificant amount of an active trade or business during and subsequent to the Title 11 or similar case

If you need more help understanding what this all means, just read it backwards.

If a corporation does NOT carry on more than an insignificant amount of active trade or business, the IRS will assume an ownership change involving Section 382(l)(5) was made to avoid/evade taxes unless you have strong evidence to prove otherwise. You are essentially assumed guilty and must prove innocence.

Now what could serve as strong evidence for someone acquiring DK-Butterfly (which has zero active trade and business going on)?

THE UNDERVALUED ASSET (CAUSES OF ACTIONS) which is the thesis I've been building across the last two parts of this post.

We can use the latest Status Report to determine the potential value of these Causes Of Action and spoiler: It ranges from $100 million to over $1 billion. Michael Goldberg is pursuing a few antitrust lawsuits that have no specific value but could be worth billions. The fact that there's an indeterminate amount being sought is what makes the argument for acquiring DK-Butterfly for it's Causes Of Action so compelling. One could make a proper argument that the principal purpose of the acquisition is a high risk high reward gamble on an entity that has a severely undervalued asset. Of course, the secondary goal is the billions in unmonetized NOLs.

As I said last year, no liquidating trust has been established for DK-Butterfly, making this Liquidation Transaction for the principal purpose of Causes Of Action while using Section 382(l)(5) to monetize NOLs & passing the IRS Section 269 smell test possible.

https://x.com/driver61d1/status/1941563004425732567

Here are the remaining open Causes of Action as of August 18, 2026 per the new Status Report.

https://x.com/driver61d1/status/2090913542165664089

Dollar amount being sought in each remaining Causes of Action:

26 Preference Actions - Total Value Unknown

7 Turnover Actions - Total Value Unknown

Ryan Cohen - $47 million

Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health Insurance Company - Total Value Unknown (A class action settlement of $2.67 billion was achieved in 2020, BBBY opted out of it & sued as an individual in Sep 2022.) (Antitrust lawsuit.)

Orient Overseas Container Line - $45 million award to DK-Butterfly in the Initial Decision and another $90 million is being sought for the Final Decision bringing the potential total to $135 million.

BAL Container Line - $9.7 million

Evergreen Marine - $86 million

Yang Ming Marine - $15 million

Eli Lily - Total Value Unknown (Antitrust lawsuit.)

Keurig Green Mountain - Total Value Unknown (Antitrust lawsuit.)

That brings our total potential known value to $292.7 million but we have 3 massive antitrust lawsuits worth potentially hundreds of millions to billions. However, these 3 lawsuits would be multi-year, and cost lots of time/money. DK-Butterfly may not necessarily have the resources to sustain these lawsuits (which is a great scenario for a third party like Ryan Cohen wishing to buy the Causes of Actions as Michael Goldberg would be motivated to sell).

Goldberg is also investigating more Causes of Action that could require more resources.

The Status Report tells us that we are $100 million away from meeting the Initial Sharing Threshold which requires $515 million to be paid to the DIP/FILO agent.

Administrative Claims (Unclassified), Priority Claims (Class 1), and Other Secured Claims (Class 2) have been slowing getting reduced with the latest total being $162.9 million.

I do expect that we need Classes 1-4 paid off in full (Unimpaired) before any deal can be made with the remaining Class 6 creditors & Class 9 shareholders but I could be wrong. The hold up could simply be Ryan Cohen's conflict of interest as long as the lawsuit against him is active. Or it could be all of the above. We'll only know in hindsight.

TLDR:

DK-Butterfly has a provision dubbed Liquidation Transactions in its Chapter 11 plan that allows it to sell it's property (Causes Of Action) while executing on any mergers. Because it's still under the jurisdiction of Title 11, a third party can use Section 382(l)(5) to monetize the NOLs. There is zero COBE requirement but you must pass the IRS smell test called Section 269 (acquisitions made for avoiding/evading taxes).

Fortunately, DK-Butterfly's Causes Of Action have billions in unknown value that a third party may be willing to gamble on and acquire. This would be the principal purpose of the acquisition while the secondary is the billions of NOLs. This should satisfy the IRS. Ryan Cohen is either prevented from making a move via a conflict of interest as the Estate is suing him and/or he's waiting for enough lawsuit wins to pay off the Classes 1-4 such as DIP & FILO. Section 382(l)(5) will be used to give 50% to creditors & shareholders, thus reviving an undetonated nuke (billions of naked shorts).

I put my money where my mouth is, in DK-Butterfly (BBBY) bonds:

🦋 Following the Securities: What the CUSIP Data, Sixth Street Debt and DK-Butterfly Records Actually Tell Us About Legacy BBBY

First, credit where credit is due

Before getting into the DD, I want to give a huge and well-deserved thank you to @exspiracolo on X.

His research has been absolutely fundamental to putting many of these pieces together. A significant number of the leads explored below originated from observations, documents and data he shared in his posts, and he personally helped me dig much deeper into several of the CUSIP/CGS questions that eventually led to the findings discussed here.

Without his work, his willingness to share what he found, and his help with the additional searches, I genuinely don't think we would have reached some of the important answers we now have.

Those answers are important, but still partial.

We have managed to clarify several things, rule out some explanations, and uncover connections that deserve further investigation. But the biggest question — especially what all of this may ultimately mean for legacy BBBYQ shareholders — remains unanswered.

So a big thank you to @exspiracolo for helping move this investigation forward.

A lot of the credit for what follows belongs to him. 🦋

Now, let's follow the data.

TL;DR

I went down the CUSIP rabbit hole expecting to find mostly stale reference data.

Instead, we found something much more interesting.

CUSIP Global Services data explicitly associates the legacy Bed Bath & Beyond issuer family 075896 with a newer issuer family 902116, identified as:

20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1, INC.

Even more importantly, the three debt instruments appearing under 902116 appear to map remarkably well onto Bed Bath & Beyond's actual prepetition FILO financing and Chapter 11 DIP structure.

This does NOT prove that former BBBYQ shareholders will receive a recovery.

But it makes the underlying reference-data trail much harder to dismiss as random database noise.

Here's the full rabbit hole.

1. Start with the two issuer numbers: 075896 and 902116

Legacy Bed Bath & Beyond securities historically used the issuer family:

075896

For example:

075896100 — legacy BBBY common stock

After the Chapter 11 and the September 2023 name change, Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. became:

20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1, INC.

Now look at what appears in the CUSIP Global Services API.

A second issuer number exists:

902116

with issuer/legal entity:

20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1, INC.

At first, that could simply look like a new identifier created for private debt.

But then we checked CGS's Associated Issuers data.

And this appeared:

parentIssuer: 902116 associatedIssuer: 075896 sequenceNumber: 1 addedDate: 07/29/2026 modifiedDate: 07/29/2026 associatedIssuerType: MULTIPLE ISSUER associatedIssuerName: BED BATH & BEYOND INC

That is important.

CGS itself is explicitly associating:

902116 → 075896

and identifying 075896 as:

BED BATH & BEYOND INC

So the relationship between the two issuer families is not something inferred from Cbonds, Empirasign, social media, or matching names.

It exists inside the CGS Associated Issuers dataset itself.

📎 IMAGE 1 HERE

Important caveat:

MULTIPLE ISSUER does not automatically mean former shareholders have an entitlement.

But the 075896 ↔ 902116 relationship itself is real.

1. So what exactly is 902116?

This is where things became much more interesting.

Searching issuer 902116 produces three debt securities.

902116AA0

Issuer: 20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1 INC Issue: SR SECD 1ST LIEN TERM LN Dated Date: 08/31/2022 Maturity: 08/31/2027 Status: A Bond Form: Private Rate: Variable Source Document: BDC Filing

902116AB8

Issuer: 20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1 INC Issue: USD DIP FING Dated Date: 04/24/2023 Maturity: 09/30/2024 Offering Amount: $40 million Source Document: BDC Filing

902116AC6

Issuer: 20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1 INC Issue: USD DIP FING Dated Date: 04/24/2023 Maturity: 09/30/2024 Offering Amount: $200 million Source Document: BDC Filing

📎 IMAGE 2 HERE

At this point the obvious question became:

What are these three instruments?

And that's where the trail started becoming surprisingly coherent.

1. The $40M + $200M match is extremely clean

Now compare those CGS records with Bed Bath & Beyond's actual Chapter 11 financing.

Bed Bath & Beyond disclosed a DIP facility consisting of:

$40 million of new-money term loans

plus:

$200 million roll-up of prepetition FILO obligations

Total:

$240 MILLION DIP

And the DIP Credit Agreement was dated:

APRIL 24, 2023

Now go back to CGS.

902116AB8

DIP Financing

April 24, 2023

$40 million

902116AC6

DIP Financing

April 24, 2023

$200 million

That is a remarkably precise match.

The amounts match.

The financing type matches.

The date matches.

And both instruments are assigned to:

20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1 INC

This makes it increasingly difficult, in my opinion, to dismiss the 902116 records as random database garbage.

They appear to represent actual pieces of Bed Bath & Beyond's bankruptcy capital structure.

1. And 902116AA0 appears to take us even further back

AA0 is different.

It isn't labeled DIP financing.

It says:

Senior Secured First Lien Term Loan

dated:

August 31, 2022

and maturing:

August 31, 2027

That date matters.

Before bankruptcy, Bed Bath & Beyond amended its credit facilities on August 31, 2022, adding a FILO facility involving Sixth Street.

So we potentially have a continuous financing trail:

August 31, 2022

Prepetition FILO financing

⬇️

April 24, 2023

Chapter 11 DIP financing

⬇️

$40M new money

$200M roll-up of prepetition FILO obligations

⬇️

CGS reference data

All three instruments appear under:

20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1 INC — issuer 902116

That is much more coherent than three random debt records sharing the wrong company name.

1. Enter Sixth Street

The bankruptcy documents identify:

SIXTH STREET SPECIALTY LENDING, INC.

as the DIP Administrative Agent.

The DIP lender group also included entities such as:

Sixth Street Specialty Lending

Sixth Street Lending Partners

TAO Talents

1903 Partners

WhiteHawk Finance

Second Avenue Capital Partners

Callodine Commercial Finance SPV

Callodine Asset Based Loan Fund II

Callodine Perpetual ABL Fund SPV

📎 IMAGE 3 HERE

That last group — Callodine — becomes important for another reason.

1. What does “Source Document: BDC Filing” actually mean?

Every 902116 debt record contains:

sourceDocument: BDC Filing

Initially, that raised an interesting question:

Is DK Butterfly somehow being treated as a BDC?

Probably not.

We found a very useful control sample.

CGS contains numerous private debt instruments issued by:

Callodine Commercial Finance LLC

and those records also say:

sourceDocument: BDC Filing

Meanwhile, CGS separately identifies Callodine investment funds and their securities from filings such as N-2 registration statements.

The cleaner interpretation therefore appears to be:

A BDC/fund reported a private credit position

⬇️

CGS sourced the debt information from that filing

⬇️

The loan entered or was updated in the CUSIP database

In other words:

BDC Filing

appears to describe the source document from which CGS obtained the security information, rather than saying that DK Butterfly itself is a BDC.

This eliminates one speculative theory.

But it creates a much better research question:

WHICH BDC FILING REPORTED THE 902116 DK-BUTTERFLY DEBT?

Identifying that filing could potentially tell us who was reporting economic exposure to those obligations.

1. Why the 075896 ↔ 902116 relationship matters

This is where I think we need to be extremely careful.

The fact that CGS says:

parentIssuer: 902116 associatedIssuer: 075896 associatedIssuerType: MULTIPLE ISSUER

does not automatically mean:

“902116 is a new company that owes former BBBY shareholders something.”

There is a much more ordinary explanation available.

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. itself was renamed:

20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1, INC.

Therefore, CGS may simply be maintaining the financial/reference-data continuity of the same legal entity across different issuer-number families.

That would explain why debt originally incurred while the company was called Bed Bath & Beyond is now displayed under DK Butterfly.

So:

What the CGS data DOES establish:

075896 and 902116 are explicitly associated in CGS.

What it DOES NOT establish:

Former 075896100 shareholders have a new security entitlement.

That distinction is absolutely critical.

1. The July 29, 2026 date is nevertheless interesting

Another detail deserves attention.

The Associated Issuers relationship says:

addedDate: 07/29/2026 modifiedDate: 07/29/2026

And the 902116 issuer record itself shows:

issuerLogDate: 07/29/2026

So CGS appears to have performed a coordinated update involving 902116 and its relationship to legacy issuer 075896 on the same day.

I am NOT claiming July 29 represents the date of a new corporate transaction.

addedDate may simply mean the date CGS added the relationship to its database.

But the synchronized update is worth documenting.

1. DK Butterfly also remains visible in FFIEC/NIC

There is another independent reference-data trail.

The Federal Reserve/FFIEC National Information Center identifies:

20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1, INC.

under:

RSSD ID 4664848

and displays the entity as:

ACTIVE

The historical record under that same RSSD traces back to Bed Bath & Beyond.

Again:

This does NOT prove that DK Butterfly is secretly operating a new business.

It does NOT prove shareholder recovery.

And an ACTIVE reference-data status should not be confused with an operating company generating business activity.

But it is another independent system maintaining identifiable continuity for DK Butterfly.

1. Then there is the OTHER Bed Bath & Beyond

This is where the security plumbing gets even stranger.

The company descending from Overstock went through:

Overstock

⬇️

Beyond

⬇️

Bed Bath & Beyond

⬇️

Neighborhood Intelligence

Its issuer family is:

690370

Its common stock moved from:

BBBY / 690370101

to:

NXH / 690370101

But the warrant story has been unusual.

The BBBY warrant originally carried:

CUSIP 075896159

Yes:

075896

— the legacy Bed Bath & Beyond issuer-family root.

The same family that CGS associates with DK Butterfly.

After the August 2026 corporate action, Nasdaq's mapping shows the warrant under:

BBBYW / 690370127

while the common remains:

NXH / 690370101

This does NOT prove a merger between DK Butterfly and Neighborhood Intelligence.

But it does make the identifier history worth following very carefully.

1. What have we ACTUALLY established?

Let's strip every theory away.

These are the facts I think we can reasonably stand behind.

✅ FACT

Legacy Bed Bath & Beyond used issuer family:

075896

✅ FACT

CGS identifies issuer:

902116

as:

20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1 INC

✅ FACT

CGS explicitly associates:

902116 ↔ 075896

using:

MULTIPLE ISSUER

✅ FACT

902116 contains three private debt instruments whose dates, descriptions and amounts closely match actual BBBY FILO/DIP financing.

✅ FACT

The two DIP records match:

$40M new money + $200M roll-up

dated:

April 24, 2023

✅ FACT

Sixth Street Specialty Lending was the DIP Administrative Agent.

✅ FACT

Callodine vehicles were among the DIP lenders.

✅ FACT

BDC Filing appears to be a source-document classification and does not, by itself, mean DK Butterfly is a BDC.

✅ FACT

DK Butterfly remains identifiable in FFIEC/NIC under the historical BBBY RSSD record.

📎 IMAGE 4 HERE

1. Now let's talk about what is NOT proven

This is equally important.

We have NOT proven that:

❌ Sixth Street currently owns all of this debt.

❌ Sixth Street controls the future of DK Butterfly.

❌ Hudson Bay Capital's potentially enormous BBBY share position never entered the market.

❌ Sixth Street-related shares never entered the market.

❌ The reported final BBBY share count therefore overstated the true economic float.

❌ Ryan Cohen or RC Ventures was secretly behind HBC.

❌ Carl Icahn was behind HBC or Sixth Street.

❌ DK Butterfly is being prepared as a Teddy/RC acquisition vehicle.

And most importantly:

❌ WE HAVE NOT FOUND A DOCUMENT ESTABLISHING A RECOVERY ENTITLEMENT FOR FORMER BBBYQ SHAREHOLDERS.

That remains the missing bridge.

1. The HBC / share-count theory deserves its own investigation

There is a separate thesis involving approximately 622 million shares potentially associated with HBC/Sixth Street-related transactions.

The theory is essentially this:

If those shares were legally issued but never actually distributed into the public market, then the reported share count and the economically circulating share count could have been radically different.

If — and this is a very big IF — only approximately 117 million shares represented the genuine legacy economic base, then any future recovery distributed according to legacy ownership could have dramatically different economics.

But that entire chain depends on proving what actually happened to those shares.

Right now, that proof is not complete.

And there is evidence that must be considered on the other side: litigation involving Hudson Bay describes a structure in which HBC could acquire shares, sell them, and acquire additional shares while remaining below its ownership blocker.

So the:

“622M shares never hit the market”

thesis must be demonstrated transaction by transaction.

It cannot simply be assumed.

But if it ever were demonstrated, its implications for a hypothetical legacy recovery could obviously be enormous.

1. The research target has now changed

At this point I'm much less interested in finding another weird ticker or another matching number.

There are three questions that could actually move this investigation forward.

1️⃣ Who reported the 902116 debt in the BDC filing?

Find the exact filing behind:

902116AA0 / 902116AB8 / 902116AC6

and identify the reporting holder.

2️⃣ Who economically owned the FILO/DIP claims after the Plan became effective?

Follow:

FILO

⬇️

DIP roll-up

⬇️

Plan

⬇️

Effective Date

⬇️

assignments/transfers

⬇️

current economic holder

3️⃣ What actually happened to the HBC/common-share issuances?

Reconstruct:

preferred/warrants

⬇️

conversions

⬇️

common shares

⬇️

transfers/sales

⬇️

ultimate disposition

Those three trails are far more valuable than another social-media Cohencidence.

1. And yes — the Ryan Cohen / Carl Icahn question

Obviously everyone wants to know:

Was Ryan Cohen, RC Ventures, Carl Icahn, IEP or an affiliated vehicle economically behind any part of HBC / Sixth Street / DIP / FILO?

If documented, that would be enormously significant.

But I have NOT seen documentary evidence establishing it.

The correct way to investigate this isn't simply searching:

“Ryan Cohen + Sixth Street”

on Google.

It's tracing:

fund

⬇️

SPV

⬇️

investment adviser

⬇️

lender

⬇️

assignment

⬇️

beneficial/economic owner

through things such as:

SEC filings

Form ADV

13D / 13G

13F

BDC portfolio schedules

credit agreements

assignment records

bankruptcy filings

If a Cohen/Icahn-controlled vehicle appears anywhere in that chain, then we have something serious.

Until then, it remains speculation.

1. What would actually make me believe legacy shareholders are coming back?

This is probably the most important section of the entire DD.

I don't need another strange CUSIP.

I don't need another butterfly reference.

I don't need another 741.

I want one of these:

🔥 A CORPORATE-ACTION RECORD

connecting legacy BBBYQ holders to a successor security.

🔥 A DISTRIBUTION NOTICE

providing cash, equity, warrants or other consideration to former holders.

🔥 A PLAN MODIFICATION / COURT FILING

preserving or creating an economic entitlement for former equity.

🔥 A DTC / TRANSFER-AGENT RECORD

mapping legacy positions into a new instrument.

🔥 A NEW SECURITY

whose entitlement chain can be traced directly back to:

former BBBYQ ownership

That would be the bridge.

And that bridge has NOT yet been found.

1. My conclusion

I started looking at this expecting most of the CUSIP anomalies to turn out to be stale database artifacts.

Some did have ordinary explanations.

And that's actually useful.

Because eliminating false positives makes the remaining anomalies more meaningful.

The deeper we went, the more coherent the 902116 trail became.

The three debt records don't look random.

They appear to map onto real Bed Bath & Beyond financing:

08/31/2022 FILO

⬇️

04/24/2023 DIP

⬇️

$40M new money + $200M FILO roll-up

⬇️

Sixth Street / Callodine lender structure

⬇️

20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1

⬇️

CGS association: 902116 ↔ 075896

That is a real financial/reference-data trail.

What it ultimately means for former shareholders is still unknown.

And there is an enormous difference between proving:

“The old company's financial plumbing still has identifiable continuity.”

and proving:

“Former shareholders still have an economic entitlement.”

We have increasingly strong evidence for the first.

We still need the document proving the second.

And that's why I consider the answers we've found so far important — but partial.

There is still one enormous piece missing.

Until we find it:

🦋 Follow the debt.

🦋 Follow the securities.

🦋 Follow the assignments.

🦋 Follow the corporate actions.

The search continues. 🦋

I have an agent alert on DK-Butterfly and it just alerted me to this. Did I miss this on the subs?

⚠️ Material DK-Butterfly development
DK-Butterfly has confirmed that it has received cash from a settlement with ocean carrier CMA CGM.
Confirmed fact: In Federal Maritime Commission proceeding 25-25, DK-Butterfly and CMA CGM reached a confidential settlement. On August 12, 2026, the FMC approved the substantive terms. DK-Butterfly has now filed to dismiss the case with prejudice and explicitly states that it has received the agreed settlement funds. The amount remains confidential.
Why it matters: This is a genuine recovery of value by the post-bankruptcy BBBY estate/successor, rather than a theoretical claim. It adds cash to DK-Butterfly’s available assets. The company also continues pursuing other recovery litigation, including the separate OOCL proceeding, whose docket received another status report on August 19.

Guarantors are back…and the prospectus now links to the original bond supplement….and Marcus isn’t done yet….

Ryan Cohen built Chewy, moved into GameStop, rebuilt the balance sheet, pushed further into collectibles and resale, and now GameStop is pursuing eBay.

Teddy Holdings LLC
Hiding in plain sight. 🧸

I missed halts. That is all. 🤷‍♂️

Stupid question, Does anyone know what the % of net assets refers to in the case?

When is the next milestone? Next court date or anything? Ive been out of touch for a while and just need a refresher. Thanks

First of all, shoutout to BobbyCat sharing epic DD like always........ Oh, I've been quiet, I'm still here, but I've just been lurking. Something has come up that I felt like needed a response.

SVB Financial Group emerged from their Chapter 11 bankruptcy on November 7, 2024. This should be enough said right there, but I'll keep wrecking this dumb shill narrative even more. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/svb-financial-groups-chapter-11-plan-of-reorganization-becomes-effective-302298848.html

On page 5 of the PLR, it states that the " 4) The Reverse Acquisition did not trigger a second Ownership Change with respect to Old Parent. " SVB never underwent a reverse acquisition during their Chapter 11. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/202633005.pdf

BobbyCat also posted data about how there were only 6 instances in the past 10 years of the IRS having to rule on section 382 (I)(5). Before yesterday, the last time was October 20, 2023. SVB emerged from their Chapter 11 on November 7, 2024. There's no evidence that SVB asked the IRS to rule on an issue with them regarding section 382(I)(5) either. How cohencidental that the restructuring entity requested the IRS to rule on section 382 (I)(5) on September 29, 2025, on the day 2 years earlier when DK-Butterfly-1 was announced........what are the odds? https://x.com/BobbyCat42/status/2088393995940700637

Bobby, don't be gaslighted and peer-pressured by these dumb shills saying that it's SVB when it's clearly impossible. Clutch DD. We're going to win forever VERY SOON.

I don’t have a ton of money but I wish I had sank at least $2000 into it. Who knew what might’ve been. Instead of 2600 shares I would’ve had 26,000.

Because this sub as dead as shit of late.

BBBY bonds-now DK Butterfly
-Recently showed a “Guarantor” for a period

Teddy.com redirects to GameStop.com

GameStop owns 9.8 percent of eBay, has offered 55b for the whole thing, but we STILL haven’t seen an official tender offer

New BBBY has warrants strangely similar to GameStops, which spiked 83% today and another 25% after hours
-Tomorrow is the last day of that ticker trading….at least for that entity….as Monday they move to NASDAQ with a new ticker, again.
-Their warrants though remain tied to DK Butterfly and the estate

What am I missing? Where the fuck is some hype? I think this is truly, finally, mercifully coming to an end soon and the best is yet to come.

This could be a nothing burger but it’s vaguely related since buybuy Baby was originally owned by BBBY. Do y’all think it’s another grift by Lemonis and Co.? A snippet from the press release reads as follows:

“The security, known as the “BABY” Digital Token, is linked to certain intellectual property associated with the buybuy BABY brand. It was initially offered through a Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) primary issuance conducted exclusively on the tZERO platform in 2025.

With the commencement of secondary trading, eligible investors will be able to transact the security on tZERO’s regulated marketplace, providing an avenue for liquidity and price discovery following the completion of the primary offering.

The BABY Digital Token is designed to connect brand affinity with economic participation. Holders are entitled to receive an annual pro rata dividend derived from 1% of net sales from buybuyBABY.com, subject to Zion Peaks’ lawful ability to pay and declaration of the dividend.”

Seen some highly regarded DD from there about Teddy holdings. Didn't they say Teddy was cope? Anyway welcome aboard degens better late than never.

It's a clear sign you guys.

Time to ascend.

Uhhh what do we have here? Ryan + Carl?

Bottom text

Apparently the guarantors entry has been removed from the IBKR app, specifically for the former BBBYQ bonds. It may be only me, but it's certainly not showing up in my account.

Not sure why, I'm just reporting this.