Genius Group Limited (GNS) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

How are we doing today, everybody? Happy Tuesday. My name is Kevin Malone. I am adviser to the Board of Directors at Genius Group. And as always, everything we say in our Spaces calls are opinions only. We do not give out financial advice here. I am a fiduciary, but I am not your fiduciary unless we have a signed contract. Saying so, if we end up getting into questions today for our guest speakers, please keep it respectful and frame your questions so that they can be answered without financial advice. I'm going to bring Roger up here first. He is going to do an intro on what I just found out from him was 6 different intertwined cases. So this will be new to me as well. I'm very excited to hear from Wes and Mark as well. Roger, can you hear me?

I can. Can you hear me, Kevin?

Yes. You sound perfect and clear.

Great. Great. Yes. Thank you very much for hosting this. Thanks, everyone, for attending. And really, really great that we've got legends in Mark Basile and Wes Christian joining us as well. And I want to start by just sharing the two reasons we're holding this Spaces call. I think a lot of people aren't aware that public companies now, I think this is a fairly new rule, but public companies are not able to provide legal updates via the newswire unless it's the beginning or the end of the case. Why that is? I have no idea, but that's the case. And as a result, we've had a real challenge getting information out. We've been putting information in 6-Ks, but not everyone reads 6-Ks. We tried a few times to get the information in PRs, but limited by what we can actually say. So this Spaces call is the best way for us to be able to give the full picture on the different things that are happening. And I know there are most likely people on this call, not just junior shareholders, but shareholders of other companies that are just looking to see what can small-cap companies do at the moment given the situation in the markets. There's also a second reason, which is obviously, as a public company and as a CEO, there's only certain things I can say. Lawyers have also restrictions on what they can say, but they can often say things that the CEO or executives cannot. So I thought, well, what better way than us having a Spaces call that others who are not here live can refer back to in the future and also, we can get the most up-to-date information given that there are new updates pretty much every single week. The first one, where I'm going to start before we actually bring on our lawyers, is to explain that while there are many people trying to keep up with the different lawsuits that we have, which are all interrelated and they all have one thing in common, which is that they're there to protect the company and our shareholders. What a lot of people aren't aware of is the interlinked number of different suits we've already filed and including others filing, including the SEC itself as well. Kevin just mentioned 6. There is, in fact, 7 lawsuits that are all interrelated, and I'm going to just run through each of them very briefly so everyone can understand how they link to each other. And also an arbitration, right? So there's actually a total of 8 different courts and judges plus arbitrator. Every single one is different from each other. Each is looking at a particular part of this, but all of them interlink in a way that I personally haven't seen any other company yet try. And I want to share the context of why this is. I know I've got a lot of inspiration hearing what Wes has done together with Zeeshan at Quantum and obviously, Kevin has been advising Quantum as well, where there's been a very big focus at the market manipulation case that they already have filed. And many people know we're looking to file something similar but different. Why have so many different cases going? Our company is in Singapore. And Singapore is a country of around 7 million people. And Singapore had the same challenge when it says, how do we fight others outside our country, which are much, much bigger than us? And I know quite a number of people in the Special Forces in Singapore. And they say that if Singapore ever gets attacked, they have an approach, which is to take every -- not just take the Army, but the Army, the Air Force, the Navy. And while they might have something smaller than the big opponents they come up against, they have a strategy of defense with attack, which means they've got sleeper cells in all of the main cities in Asia, if Malaysia, Indonesia, if anyone tried to attack Singapore, they have the ability to shut down those governments in a very short period of time through all of their forces being ready, where it's not about the size, it's about the speed. Why do I use that as an analogy because I personally feel that the ways that our company has been attacked have been with much, much bigger forces, with much, much deeper pockets than we have. And I don't think I'm alone, there's a small cap that sees that. And so if that happens, we can't just be out with a lawsuit like the Army, like coming from one front, especially because there's only so much you can do and there's limitations with just one lawsuit. But if you bring out the Army and the Navy and the Air Force and the Special Forces and the killer drones and the nuclear weapons and you bring all of it to bear, at some point, some of it is going to stick. So that's why we have so many different lawsuits taking place all at the same time because each one does something a little bit different. So with that in place, let me just share very quickly what these different lawsuits are. They're not all just by us, but they're all there to protect shareholders. It all started pretty much in January, February 2022, which is after we had gone through 30 days with ShareIntel of tracking our share data. And Wes Christian said, okay, you've got enough data and proof there that we can now move forward with the lawsuit. And it's been now 2.5 years of tracking data and working with Wes Christian and his team on a market manipulation lawsuit. So that's one thing we're going to be sharing as an update. This has not yet been filed but it's imminent, and we're going to hear exactly what the status is and what the next steps are there, right? Now that could just be it, if that was all it was about. But on top of that, as time goes on and we start seeing where we believe that there are attacks against the company, there was a very blatant one this time last year, which was almost exactly to the week when there were a number of individuals in a company that we were looking to do an asset purchase agreement. We had already many issues with it, that's LZGI that many of you know of and the principals of LZGI, basically, at the end, this is already in the public documents. We already shared it as well. There was an attempted takeover of Genius, fully takeover Genius by them in order to avoid, in our belief, having to be compliant with the U.S. laws -- securities laws. And as a result of that, we started taking action very quickly. But it was not us that actually put in the first lawsuit. The first lawsuit, in fact, first 2 lawsuits were put in by the LZGI shareholders. So these were the LZGI shareholders against the two principals, Ritz and Moe. And this first lawsuit took place in October, about a month after the attempted true on company. So there is one, which is in New York, which is the class action lawsuit. And this is one way, obviously, that companies have tried to get to justice or protect themselves as the shareholders are the ones that are taking action. And so it was good to see the LZGI shareholders take this action. And there's the second one, which is the derivative lawsuit, which was in Florida, and that was also filed at the same time. Now how is that related to us? Well, there's plenty of information in those lawsuits, which were effectively correlating to the information that we had and things that could then support our lawsuit as well, and effectively verified the things that we already were seeing and we're looking for clarification on, on those lawsuits as well. We're now working together with the lawyers of those 2 lawsuits and we've provided affidavit and other information to them, and they're doing the same with us as well. So you come from things from different directions. It can help massively. Within 1.5 months of that, in December, something happened, which was I believe, very fortuitous, which was at the SEC also filed a lawsuit. This one is in Utah. And this lawsuit also relates to us because the lawsuit specifically against John Clayton and a number of individuals. John Clayton is basically the person who sold LZGI to Ritz and Moe as a shell company and then used his own share transfer agent and his own broker to basically, in the SEC case what they are claiming is that he had them all working in concert to effectively fake shares and create shares that didn't exist. And of course, our entire argument and what many shareholders, retail investors believe is that what's meant to be the wall between a company and a share transfer agent, where, of course, the share transfer agent will ensure that all the company's shares that it's issuing are actually correct and no one else can issue shares in that company, except for the company. The share transfer agent should have a similar wall between the self and the brokers where if the brokers are transferring or selling any shares, then the share transfer agent can actually verify that. This is a theory of it anyway, which would make it impossible for brokers to sell fake shares. And if a fund is manipulating in any way, the broker should be there as a wall to the funds to ensure that doesn't happen. So what happens if all of them are working in concert together? Or if you've got individuals that own or control the broker, the share transfer agent, the fund and the company, all 4. That's what this case is all about. The SEC case was brought for securities fraud for exactly this happening on a number of companies, including LZGI, which then has an impact on us as well. So these were 3 cases that have become extremely valuable to us in our cases because there are -- even though, every case is different and it's actually looking at a different area, it's all about how do we protect shareholders? And usually, what would happen is the SEC, if they do get involved in a case, it's really at the tail end, not at the very beginning. So having those cases there were the first 3 cases important for us. We then filed our arbitration. The arbitration is not a legal case. It's in front of an arbitrator with the ICC. That is very, very important because that arbitration enables us to get out of the asset purchase agreement, which is linked to a lot of the challenges we're having. And if we are successful in winning that, it actually gets us back a big chunk of shares and cash as a result of that as well. Now that could be the end of it, but it's not because that's when all the action then took place with all of our different lawsuits. You're going to be hearing some updates on right now. It started with the fact that we filed our first lawsuit at the end of last year in the New York courts. This is in the Southern District of New York. Many of you have been following that case. That case was for us to have a preliminary injunction to protect our shares and all can go in and just grab those shares and ensure that they stay with our transfer agent while this arbitration was taking place. So that was about a PI in aid of our arbitration. Both sides agreed on that, but where we then ended up with major challenges when Moe and Ritz under LZGI in February added an additional injunction, which stopped us from raising any money, from buying any Bitcoin, effectively from doing anything to change anything within our treasury effectively. And as a result of that, as a small company can put you in massive peril and it created huge damages, which we've already reported, and off the back of that first case, we did 2 things. One was we went for appeal. So now we're in a second case, which is also in New York courts, but it's with the Second Circuit, not the First. And the Second Circuit and the appeal, we were very happy to get a stay in that case. But when you see updates on the cases, some of those updates are in the appeal case. Some of those updates are in the initial case. Both of those cases, Mark Basile and his team are overseeing, as they are with the arbitration as well. But that gave us enough evidence, especially because the information that was coming out of those cases was that Ritz and Moe were taking actions. Many of you know that there was a recording that took place in New York, where Ritz claims certain things, which were enough that I believe it helped us a lot in our appeal, but it also helped the original LZGI shareholder cases. They took that recording and they put it in their cases. And as a result of that, Ritz and Moe were effectively found by the judge to have committed fraud and they have been ejected from their positions within LZGI, and that happened quite recently. And that was in the LZGI cases. So they do interrelate in those ways. And this also gave us enough to then go for our seventh -- our, sorry, sixth case, which was a RICO case. And a RICO case is filed in Florida, and a RICO case is for $750 million in triple damages. Much of those damages having been caused by all of these actions that took place through these cases. And RICO is a very, very different animal from securities fraud and Mark can share more about that. This is -- not all cases, you can get triple damages, but with RICO you can. And that takes us full circle, 2.5 years later, to the market manipulation case, which Wes and his team have been gathering all of the data on. And so when all of this comes together, like I said, this is not just about the Army or the Navy or the Air Force, it's every single direction that you can come from to protect shareholders. I believe that we're unique, even though we're a small company, Singapore is also a small country. What it can do to be a world leader in ensuring that it is supporting shareholders, that for me is a very, very important part of the mission of Genius to ensure we're not educating our students, but we're also educating ourselves and the market on what's taking place and what we can do to protect ourselves through this process as well. So I know I went through that fairly quickly, but I hope you understand and get the idea that every one of these can add with each other. And if it wasn't for the LZGI case or even with the SEC case, our cases would not have all of the cross references with other areas. And when you have so many different judges assessing from different sides and so many different lawyers involved into operating and working with each other, that puts us in a much, much, much stronger position against anyone coming into attack the company or attack the shareholders as well. So with that, I'll hand it back over to you, Kevin, and hopefully, that gives us a bit of a context for us to now get the updates from Mark and from Wes.

Perfect, Roger. And for everyone listening, I was talking to Roger before the call, and him and I are going to work on a diagram visual of the different intertwining cases so that everyone can get a better understanding for it. All right. I'm going to bring on Wes right now. Wes, you don't want to do anything. I'll just hit the mute button for you. And thank you, everyone. Here's looking forward to the updates and I'll bring you on next, Mark. Wes, can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me?

Yes, you sound perfectly clear.

Okay, super. So let me start going back 2.5 years ago, as Roger alluded to. So when we gathered the information from ShareIntel, which is valuable and why that certainly had in this year a market manipulation. What I want everybody on the call to understand is that because of a group of federal cases in the securities fraud area, the level of pleading you have to have and the level of specificity you have to have is enormous. There's a case called Twombly. There's other cases associated with that, that say there's a heightened pleading standard as it relates to that. So as a result of that, we did see market manipulation in Genius. But in order to file a case that can actually win and beat a motion to dismiss, all these securities fraud cases, which as most people on this phone are aware or this call are aware, myself and my various partners along the way in the last 23 years, 24 years, have done about 21 of those cases. And presently, we have 4 pending in New York, and then Genius soon will be 5 and then Meta soon will be 6. And so ultimately, what's happened is that several years ago, we made a sea change in our group to enlarge our bench. And the reason we had to enlarge our bench, so everybody understands is, we -- there are armies on the other side of this. Most of the firms we take on have 2,000 lawyers. And in most cases, there are 3 or 4 or 5 of those firms. And so I teamed up, not only with Alan Pollack who's my -- been my colleague for many, many years at his firm. I teamed up with Cohen Milstein, I teamed up with former partners of Boies Schiller. I teamed up, that's the Freedman firm. I teamed up with Kasowitz Torres, which is a large firm in New York. I teamed up with Schneider Wallace. So presently, Genius is represented not just by my firm but also Kasowitz Torres and the Schneider Wallace firms. And what we did in New York, which has now been successful so far, is we found the first case on spoofing. And the reason we elected to do that, and the reason why this is taking a crazy amount of time is that we are able to plead with more specificity in a spoofing case than we are in a naked short selling case. Simple version, we gave up at least initially doing cases based on naked short selling. Why? Because even though we could see that there is a manipulation going on, we have to identify which defendant on what day manipulated what, how many shares and how that negatively impacted the price of the shares that Roger sought to sell either in some type of shelf offering or some type of financing or whatever. So every share that Genius issued at a depressed price as a result of the illegal behavior of a specific defendant on a specific day, based on the illegal acts we would plead is what is sufficient to beat a motion to dismiss. And that has worked. That's worked in Harrington, which we're close to going to trial in that case. And my partner, Alan Pollack and his firm are mainly the one that's carrying most of the laboring oar on that. That's worked in my colleagues case, Kasowitz Torres' case in Mullen. It's also worked in Northwest Bio, and then we're waiting on the ruling in Quantum, as you know, that's already been filed. So what -- how is all this relevant to Genius shareholders? It's relevant because basically, we've had to redesign some of our proprietary data. We've had to bring on other experts to come in. Why? Because Genius is the first New York Stock Exchange company that we have taken on. And the reason that is important is because we get different datasets from the OTC cases. We get different datasets from the NASDAQ cases. We get different datasets from the Canadian side, the U.S. side, like in Quantum's case, et cetera, and Harrington's case. And so the reality is, we've had to spend probably 3x the amount of money with experts that we normally spend in this case. And as we sit here today, we're still not there, and I know that makes everybody crazy, and that includes me because I've been doing this now for basically 2 years on a contingency basis. Our partners have funded over $700,000, $800,000 in expert fees to get all this done and are continuing to fund more to get us there. What's the estimated time? And I know many of you e-mail me all the time. I try to return most of those. My guess is, hopefully, in a couple of weeks, but I've been saying that for the last 2 months. So what does that mean at this point, nothing because the truth is these cases in their present form as market manipulation cases based on spoofing are driven by experts. And at least for now, as evidenced by all the rulings we've already established in all these cases in New York, that's working, and we're moving the needle. And similar to what Roger said, how ultimately this whole illegal concept of naked short selling, spoofing, loaning shares that don't exist, it fails to deliver, shares coming in from out of the country. We have -- we now have our own proprietary methods to track a lot of that, including dark pools. So ultimately, this takes an enormous amount of time. It's expert driven. And until they sign off on it, we cannot file our pleading. And that -- we're not there yet. I talked to them as recently as last night in hopes that I could give a better definitive update. But unfortunately, I cannot, with absolute certainty. But I will tell you that everybody is, balls to the wall, trying to get this done. I believe in this case, I have from inception. But believing in it and filing a case that can be the motion to dismiss and have a better chance of winning it is another issue. So my best guess is in a couple of weeks. But again, I'm waiting on the experts as I've been doing for months now. So that's where the case is. I'll also tell you this is a general rule because I see George is on here. George Palikaras is the former CEO of Meta. We're also fighting the battle just so you know, you were continuing in our warrior mode, if you will, pursuing real 2004 examinations in Meta, both in federal court in Reno, Nevada, and now also in Washington, D.C., where FINRA of course, is fighting us to the wall for obvious reasons. So that's where we are. I'm happy to take questions, but we're anxious to get this filed and ultimately move down the road in the next case, which is Genius.

Appreciate it, Wes. Well, thank you. And for everyone listening, Wes is waiting on this information to give that update that everyone's been asking for. He can't give an update without receiving it. So it's not like he's on vacation or anything like that. He's just waiting for all the data to be compiled, delivered to him, to give the shareholders their update of the company, their update as well. Mark, I'm going to bring you on really quick, the introduction. And let's talk RICO.

Can you hear me, Kevin?

I can. Can you hear me, Mark?

Yes, yes, I can hear you.

Perfect.

Okay. So kudos to Wes for being so diligent. He has a very long runway to get the data in order to present a pleading that will survive a motion to dismiss. I know it's -- there have been challenges in the past with these issues, with some of the federal courts, but if -- he's one of -- he's probably the top guy in the country in spoofing cases, and he's put a really good stable of attorneys around him. So I'm expecting some O.K. Corral kind of stuff as soon as that complaint gets filed, Wes. And my whole team at my firm are looking forward to looking at that as well. Fortunately, for us, our jobs on behalf of Genius in the several cases we're involved require different sets of data. Some of it, at least initially before I talk about the specific cases, initially, a lot of this information came from this other public company, LZGI and its shareholders when it filed its initial class action and derivative action lawsuits in the Southern District of New York. We were able to get both of those cases dismissed fairly quickly against Genius before we even had to answer those complaints. But they also -- the LZGI shareholders also filed a derivative action in the state of Florida. We had moved that to the federal courts. And in order to resolve the issues that they stilled alleged against Genius down in Florida, they dismissed the claims against Genius and transferred the case back to the Florida State Court, where recently, the Florida State Court entered judgment against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, a whole bunch of different issues culminating in the removal of the defendants from their Board of Directors and executive officer positions. This kind of coincides with the SEC versus Clayton case where the SEC has alleged that LZGI has been a victim of these kind of backdoor dealings amongst the executives and affiliates. But again, those are allegations by the SEC, and those have to play out as well. In general, a 20,000-foot view on the cases we're managing, we're still in the preliminary stages. We haven't been met yet with any motions to dismiss the RICO action or anything else. And we're kind of expecting those motions to come in sometime towards the end of September. The difference is between Wes' type of issues and our issues. Our issues are kind of fact-specific on wire and mail fraud. And based upon the contents of the pleading, which I think all of you should access PACER and pull down the Southern District of Florida case and the amended complaint that we filed there to take a look at those allegations and how those allegations also tie into the Florida state derivative action brought by the LZG shareholders as well as the SEC versus Clayton action. And then you could start seeing a much clearer picture of how the allegation in the complaint that LZGI, the corporate entity was used as a RICO enterprise to enrich those who are managing and running LZGI and kind of how that bleeds into the SEC versus Clayton complaint. Remember, the RICO complaint, we're at the allegation stage. There are a couple of administrative problems with challenges to serving some out-of-state defendants. We've resolved those challenges. They've all been served. We're waiting for responses from 2 of the 4 defendants. And we expect that case to be pretty straightforward. Of course, it's going to be met with a motion to dismiss. We feel that our pleadings are so specific with regard to the conduct of the individuals as they relate to the RICO enterprise that we feel pretty confident that will survive a motion to dismiss, and then will head right into discovery. That's kind of an important aspect because a lot of these cases, whether there -- and Wes can explain that to you also and has explained in prior conferences that getting to -- getting past the motion to dismiss stage and getting into the discovery stage is really where all hell breaks loose, and you're able to uncover more facts or actual documents that support the allegations that you've made and support the issues that you're suing on. So the RICO case is a very interesting case. While it's limited in scope as applied to the general market, it has nothing to do with securities laws violations. This has to do with the civil RICO claim that a group of individuals got together are using a vehicle as a RICO enterprise to run illegal activities through. That's the crux of the allegations. And they use the mails, they use e-mails, they use wire transfers. That's what brings it under the RICO statute. Again, it's just allegations. And we have to go through the process of proving those allegations. But I think just like any other legal case, some of this takes a little bit of time. So right now, we're just waiting for the motions to dismiss that will most likely be filed and then we'll oppose those and we'll have oral arguments and will -- the court will decide where to go from there. Regarding another matter that we're handling is the arbitration. Now because the arbitration is confidential, I cannot tell you anything specific that's going on in the arbitration other than we're going through the administrative procedures with the arbitrator. We've had a couple of hearings and a couple of letter motions. But that's all I'm allowed to talk to you about. But I can discuss a little further the corollary action, which what we filed in the Southern District in New York, in aid of the arbitration. And just so you know, a lot of state laws have these provisions that allow you to seek under state law help from a court in order to maintain things during the arbitration because a lot of things can happen, people can try to sell off property and assets or hide money or whatever. So the courts are usually called in to kind of what's called maintain the status quo. So when we first filed the arbitration, Roger was concerned about a bunch of shares sitting at the transfer agent that were part of the transaction, the underlying transaction that could have been transferred to the LZGI parties. He felt that it's incumbent to basically freeze those shares, not to cancel them or deny them, just to freeze those shares at the transfer agent until the arbitration can be decided because if Genius is successful in the arbitration, those shares will come back and possibly all the money that Genius had paid. If Genius loses while the shares are still at the transfer agent, and they could be transferred out to the appropriate parties. But in the meantime, we wanted the -- and this gets a little complicated. The LZGI shareholders that commenced the class action and the 2 derivative actions, one in New York and one in Florida, wanted those shares issued. So they kind of intervened in the matter in the Southern District of New York that complicated things as well. We had a change of judges from one judge to another in order to consolidate where all the cases are being heard. It made sense for the same judge who is familiar with the class action and derivative action to also participate in the aid and arbitration petition that we filed. We were able to get to secure a temporary restraining order and a consented to preliminary injunction that basically just said, okay, we're going to freeze those shares. You're not allowed to vote those shares and the shares will be frozen until the arbitration has decided. Both sides kind of agreed that that's what they wanted to do. Until the respondents in the petition action hired this big law firm who came in and sought their own petition in aid of arbitration in front of the same judge that temporarily prevented Genius from accessing its at-the-market funding vehicle, allowed to purchased Bitcoin through investor money and issue shares. Now we took the position that has nothing to do with maintaining the status quo, that was punitive. And it was designed solely by the respondents to hurt Genius, to put them into a position where they would be forced to settle upon terms that they -- that the respondent's defendants wanted to impose upon Genius and its shareholders. Roger said, I'm not dealing with that. We need to go up to the Second Circuit. We agreed. We made an application to the Second Circuit just to stay that second preliminary injunction that prevented Genius from doing all this. We filed briefs. They filed briefs. King & Spalding filed their brief. Then we held oral argument and we beat King & Spalding, not to say that we regularly beat a lot of big firms in litigation, which we do. And that kind of gets lost in the sauce because we're kind of a small boutique firm, we're used to fighting big firms like this. Once we beat them at the Second Circuit and the Second Circuit said, there is a likelihood of success that Genius will prevail on their appeal, King & Spalding sought to withdraw from that matter, sought to withdraw from the Southern District related matter, claiming that they had a conflict of interest or irreconcilable differences with their client. I think they bailed because we beat them at the Second Circuit. So recently in the Second Circuit, we did -- because LZG is a party in that because they are the ones whose appeal -- whose preliminary injunction were challenging, they're unrepresented. And the court took notice of default on LZG in the Second Circuit. The issue though is because they haven't decided the appeal because of the default, we had to file our brief. It's not only did we file our opening brief. And you'll see that the opening brief was filed under seal because it related a lot to information in the arbitration, which is confidential. But we also made a motion to dismiss Moe and Ritz individually out of the appeal because based upon the Florida State Court indicating that they were stripped from their Board positions and from their executive management positions, the issues that related to them personally have now been mooted out. So we filed a motion to dismiss them from the appeal. If that's successful, we only leave LZG who's already defaulted, and we'll see how the Second Circuit wants to handle that. So that's -- other than what Roger explained, which was a very good overall synopsis on our firm's involvement in these 3 or 4 actions, on behalf of Genius, this is all I can really add to the conversation. The RICO case may expand further depending on what Wes' complaint alleges. But right now, we're just kind of sitting tight, waiting for the spoofing lawsuit to be filed because we want to see if it ties into anything that we have been able to uncover in our cases. And we'll do whatever we can to assist Wes on the discovery side, and I'm sure Wes would reciprocate as well. I'm sure Roger would expect that the attorneys work together going forward. So that's basically all I can contribute today. Again, if there's any specific questions towards the end, if Roger allows us time to entertain them, we'll answer what we can. But Kevin, that's all I have right now.

Appreciate it, Mark. And I like what you're saying about the RICO and definitive proof is a lot easier to obtain or prove compared to like what Wes was saying with the naked shorting. And same with Wes, I like that it makes perfect sense going after spoofing because everyone here probably knows that naked shorting exists. But when now more than 50% of retail trades go through market makers and market makers have a special ability and legal ability to naked short, how do you track these all down and decide who's at fault or not because a lot of the brokerages also have their own exchanges or separate entities that do this. And they'll be like, oh, no, we just ran it through here, so we're allowed to do it. Roger, you want to give some updates on what the 2 lawyers said, and then we'll see if there's any questions?

Yes, definitely. What I'd really like to share here is, more than anything, a key message that -- where I think a lot of small companies and CEOs have a real challenge is, whichever direction you go trying to take the legal route, with bad guys, like there's always a different route, there's always another door they can kind of step out of and then you're kind of stuck. And what Mark was saying there at the end, we could not be in the position we're at right now. I mean, I just saw this post this morning about Mark's firm having just put in the motion to dismiss their most recent lawyer, which I believe is the fourth or the fifth round of lawyers in the last 12 months that Ritz and Moe and LZGI have had. And this is in the arbitration case. And so of course, like he said, it's not possible for him to share much in the arbitration case. But when you have a lawyer that like steps out of all the other cases and then re-steps back into an arbitration case, given that the arbitration case is the only one, which doesn't have a judge on it. The fact that we do have the related case with the Southern District means we can file in the Southern District and actually basically provide all the details of what's taken place in the other cases. And of course, if it wasn't for the fact that the LZGI shareholders, in their case, were able to eject through the judge, Ritz and Moe, which, of course, we're a different company for LZGI. So we have no ability for that to happen even if we believe that they're doing wrong by our company and we've got lawsuits against it, we can't make them step down from the company, but LZGI can. And similarly, LZGI did not have all the information that we had and the actual -- the evidence in front of the judge in the Florida case included my affidavit of evidence that I had on Ritz and Moe. So every one of us could not have won what we won without working with totally separate cases, looking at things from a slightly different side, right? And this is no different from the fact that if we believe that anyone who is doing things that could be against others, it doesn't just have 1 door. They've got 4, 5, 6 doors. So if you've got the ability to have experts and lawyers and people that are really making sure that they are one step ahead on every single one of those doors, then it's just a matter of time. It's just a matter of time. If you're collecting data on every single step as you go as well and being super diligent about it, because I believe that a lot of CEOs aren't were that if you want to go back and look at data over the last 12 months, it is not easy to do unless you've actually got real-time tracking that's been taking place all the way through those 12 months as well. So we're spending as much time collecting data all the way through knowing that with AI and with the tools that we have, plus with the experts and the cross-references, it all comes back. Who knows? The SEC might be making decisions on their case which then impact us massively or the LZGI shareholders make some in their case or one of our judges in one of our cases makes one which impacts the other case as well. But the bottom line is, as long as we're covering every door and we continue on with our business, it's just a matter of time for our long-term shareholders to know we're not giving up this fight, right? We're like a dog with a bone. This is not -- we're not letting anyone off the hook here. And I believe in the long term, we're going to look back and see this as a case study of the way to handle the ambiguities and the loopholes in the market that many people, we believe, are taking advantage of right now. So that would be the main thing I would say is that the main message is, everything is moving forward. Even this week, last week, there's been multiple motions that are out there. There's been many people doing their due diligence and sharing with others as well, so I really appreciate those of our investors that are doing that. And please continue with that as well because this thing isn't slowing down, it's speeding up, right? We're going to be seeing more and more and more actions as this takes place and as we move forward as well. So that will be the main thing I would share. I'd be more than happy, Kevin, if there's some questions for Mark and Wes while they're here that we -- whatever we can answer, we'll do our best to answer.

Absolutely, I agree with you that it only takes 1 of these 7 or 8 doors to blow the whole thing wide open and cause that domino effect. There's probably multiple public company CEOs that are going to be listening to this show for ideas as well as responsible teams and CEOs, which I would love to see filing these future suits together. We already know that the regulators -- I can't say that. They're bombarded with information coming towards them. We've seen them not act on shutting off the buy button back in January '21 with the whole GameStop fiasco. But I feel like 10, 20 public company CEOs coming together with these cases can't be ignored, right, especially if they're all listed in the country and they all have or say they have the exact same problem with the data together, it's not going to be only the big court, it's going to be in everyone's face, at the regulators, to the state centers, Congress people, everything to where like, oh, these aren't floated by them, they're retail investors, these are CEOs that all say the same thing is happening.

I would go one step further, Kevin and say, the -- like the biggest change by us is just holding on because I know those who are following us and were our shareholders 2 years ago knows that I was doing a number of roundtables with other CEOs. I don't think there's a single one of those CEOs that's still in their business, either because the business had to get delisted or went bankrupt or the CEO had to leave, but they've all gone and they all wanted to stay, right? But they all had the same challenge, which is, if you've got basically the wins against you and you're doing everything possible to save your company and system is rigged against you, you aren't going to last a year or 2 years. The fact that we have lasted...

That's the naked short's goal.

Yes. Exactly.

Their goal is to get you to go bankrupt and have all the investors forget about it.

We have had multiple times where the way the system works is if your share price gets pushed down enough, you get the delisting notices, you then end up having to delist or even go bankrupt off the back of it. They can put -- as they did with us, put basically ways to try and stop us and we have to even raise funds. And all of this, basically, you need to find ways to navigate through as you're going forward. But while this is all happening, and we're learning a lot, and we're definitely a lot strong with a much, much stronger legal team than when we first had our IPO when I didn't know Wes, I didn't know Mark, I went out looking for who is the best expert when it comes to naked short selling and market manipulation. And Wes Christian's name just kept on coming up. I said, who is the expert when it comes to RICO, and Mark's name kept on coming up. So we said, let's go to those who really specialize in this. And the amount of information and what I've learned as a result of having them as my lawyers has been invaluable. If I've known this at the time of the IPO, we would have done things much, much, much different further back. But the biggest things that have changed during this time. Some people have been watching what we're doing with Bitcoin and with crypto. Many people know that we wanted to be on a blockchain-based exchange, and that was -- that's what we did when we had our dual listing with sought through exchange. And we had to come off that, right? And the SEC was a very different SEC a couple of years ago than it is today. The regulators are very different, right? The kind of conversations we now have with regulators and even, as we said, with the SEC case against Clayton and that group, it's really worth reading these complaints because then you really understand that this is not all being ignored. Definitely at the time when we were in 2022, there was much, much more of a mood with retail investors that things weren't moving forward. But we've seen a huge shift in all of that, and I believe that we'll continue to see that. And in the same way, we're now starting to reactivate some of our plans around Bitcoin, around tokenization because there's been this big shift within the regulations. I believe this is going to continue to accelerate in favor of retail investors. I don't think it's going to be that long before we do end up having tokenized shares and having the ability to have zero time settlements so that we don't end up like creating these loopholes. And at the same time, we're going to have wins between the different companies that WesMark and other lawyers are championing. And every one of them is a win for all of us. So I just want to say that from that point of view, if there's been shifts in the last 2 years, which I believe there has been, the next 2 years, there's going to be many, many, many more shifts. And I believe they're going in the right direction, but they don't come without all of us being willing to basically hold on hand and push against that manipulation.

Absolutely. I think multiple public companies are wanting to and ready to go to blockchain exchanges. And luckily, the regulations have changed more in favor over the last 2 years like you're saying. But what's coming with that, that I'm seeing is a lot more blockchain exchanges for stocks that you're not going to be able to trust. And you have to know that the bad actors are going to be getting into blockchain exchanges as well. And I mean, we can already see cryptos like through Robinhood and Coinbase that aren't even real. They're still IOUs, even though they're "blockchain" until someone were to withdraw, I've been saying for years, if everyone on Coinbase withdrew their Bitcoin to hard wallet, the company would float in a day.

So maybe we see -- just because we are coming out in the, like to see if there's any questions that while we have Mark and Wes on, they could help with.

Absolutely. Let me bring up Larry real quick. Larry, you got question for any of the guests here.

Yes. Super education. Roger, when you said [indiscernible]. What's the -- when you said I would change the IPO, what would you change knowing what you know now?

Great question. At the time of the IPO, my personal feeling is that at that time, if we had already a clear picture on how we would be either having -- if I was to do it different, I would have actually listed on another exchange first and done a dual listing on the New York Stock Exchange because it just makes it much, much more difficult if you do that for someone to just manipulate your shares because you don't yet have -- as soon as you IPO, you don't have a large base of retail investors. It's much easier for someone to bring in volume and push your share price down. And that's part of our complaint and what we said at the time, we just see a very, very clear pattern of that taking place over the first 9 months of our trading before we brought Wes on board. So that would be by far the biggest one. The other thing which is definitely a possibility and would have been more helpful is, again, knowing -- again, at the time when you're listing, you're absolutely focused on the growth of the business, you're focused at your long-term investors. We already were a public company in Singapore and many investors on board, and they all were on board for the right reasons, right? They're on board because they wanted the company to be successful. And so just being more aware of the kind of actors that we have seen in the U.S., vetting much, much, much more carefully the people coming our way and what information we provided for them or the ones we brought into our funding rounds, we would have looked at that very differently as well.

And to follow on that with countermeasures, and I thank you for your diligence, and I cheer for you with the hardship that I'm guessing that you're subjected to. So Godspeed and my blessings and my well wishes for your continued diligence. What's your guys' thinking when it comes to a dividend that's Bitcoin, that's nominal Satoshi. Is there any thought to that? Or can you comment on that even?

Well, I'll say -- I mean, one thing which relates to your first question and also links to the Bitcoin. When you're listing and you're going public and you're thinking about your growth and where you want to go, you're not thinking that -- and we did a number of acquisitions as well. And obviously, when you're doing acquisitions, you're able to show the value of those acquisitions on your books, right? And you can do that, too. However, if you happen to have people wanting to manipulate your shares and they know at the best, they can push the shares right down, so you have to delist. And if the worst, they might not be able to push it down enough for you to delist. But if they can bring your market cap down to a low enough point by audit rules, you have to -- I don't know if everyone is aware of this, but if you're a public company and you've got $100 million of assets on your -- and you've gone out and done $100 million of M&A and then you're pushed down to like a $15 million market cap, you have to take that write-off. So if you're looking at all the losses that we've made since we IPO-ed, a huge amount of that is the write-offs of our goodwill, where basically we've got valuable acquisitions, and we had to write them down to 0. In fact, we've got some very valuable parts of our company, which not only went to 0, but almost had to go negative. This is why we did the spin-off of Entrepreneur Resorts and then it got back to its full value again. But again, when everyone sees those losses and they don't know the story of the business and they think, oh, you must be doing terribly without realizing it was because your share price went so low that you had to mark down all of those down to your net asset. That's ridiculous. The big point about Bitcoin is that once you actually start buying Bitcoin on your balance sheet, anyone can see that your balance sheet is -- is far great as they just look at the number of Bitcoin that you have than what your share price is, and it gives you insurance against someone being able to push you down that far. That is a really, really important part. Also, if you have anyone coming in who finds ways to dilute you and then as a result of that, take control away from you and your business or find ways to come on board and look for other ways that they can effectively do a hostile takeover, we've spent a huge amount of this year making sure no one can do that, and we've got in place the right safeguards to ensure that's the case. I mean, as I know many of you know, I took pretty much all my shares and converted them from shares that were tradable in New York stock market as A-type shares and converted them to nontradable, like you can't trade them on the stock market anymore, but it gives me more voting so that we don't end up in a situation like that again where someone can just take over. So these are all aspects which enable that to happen. So to your point about dividend, we have said that any proceeds that we receive from any of these lawsuits because these lawsuits, we're putting a lot of time and effort into making sure that we're protecting shareholders. It should be shareholders that benefit from it. So we said, okay, the returns from any lawsuits, 50% will go to a dividend to shareholders and 50% will go to our Bitcoin, which, of course, Bitcoin with what we believe will happen in Bitcoin will be of value to the shareholders in the future as we grow as well. And we're going to keep looking for smart ways that we can keep on securing the value that our shareholders have no matter how much other people try and take it away. [indiscernible] I really hope you kick [indiscernible] .

Perfect. Mark, can you still hear me? I got a question for you before I pull up the next 2 that are here.

Yes, I can hear you.

All right. So there's been a lot of info going around on X last week about FINRA, and there's tons of information out there on the whole MMTLP, [indiscernible]. But I just wanted to kind of see from a professional perspective on what FINRA has the rights to and what they don't have the rights to. So my understanding is that FINRA regulates broker-dealers and their agents. And obviously, anyone is allowed to investigate anyone, right? There's private investigators, there's public investigators. Anyone can ask anyone a question. But who do they have the right to regulate?

FINRA only has authority to regulate its member brokers. So if they're a registered broker-dealer or a financial adviser, they fall under the FINRA umbrella. They can investigate, they can bring administrative proceedings. They can boot them out and then they can share information with the SEC that has other enforcement capabilities. So FINRA is supposed to be this sort of like enclosed community of brokers and dealers. And the unfortunate thing is that FINRA is actually run by members of those broker-dealers. So to me, I've always taken the position that imposes an inherent conflict of interest. So whether it's MMTLP or some other group that has issues with FINRA's conduct, FINRA's conduct can absolutely affect the market. And there are some anomalies that it looks like FINRA did regarding that community, the MMTLP dividend, preferred stock dividend. But at the end of the day, and I know my firm has tried to get information from them. It was -- they weren't able to do so. They held things very tightly. They basically claim that their enforcement and investigative data and information is private. It only can be used by them or the SEC if the SEC asks. It can't be used by a civil litigant. It can't be accessed by a civil litigant. And that's kind of like the holdup because not only with MMTLP, but a lot of other communities, we're not sure exactly other than what's blatant in the market like the U3 halt. Other than that, we don't know the real data and the reasons for that U3 halt, and we don't know other than the retail shareholders who were affected by that U3 halt as far as the brokers are concerned. Were they being protected by FINRA? They had to cover potential massive short positions. We don't know, but they fall -- they all fall under FINRA's jurisdiction. And I know at least once or twice, we try to get information through the courts from FINRA, and we've been unable to do so. Now I think in Wes' in the Meta bankruptcy case, where you have the United States Trustees Office that supervises the Chapter 7 trustee in there. I think they have the perception of different powers. So like as Wes was referring to 2004 exams and subpoena power, they -- the federal court may allow those kind of discovery requests to go through, whether they're just done through a protective order or in camera, so the parties can inspect it outside the public view. But I think the Chapter 7 trustee through the United States Trustees' Office, which is a government arm part of the DOJ, I think that they have a better chance of getting that information. But Kevin, to answer your question, FINRA really can only regulate its member brokers. If you're a hedge fund and you're not a member broker, you don't fall under FINRA's jurisdiction. You can go do deals whatever you want, these crushing dilution deals. Even though if you were a FINRA member, they probably violate the excessive compensation rules that FINRA has and they would never allow you to do them. So that's a whole another issue for a whole another space call in the future.

Let's do it. We also got Zeeshan, CEO of Quranium up here with a question. Let me bring Zeeshan on and see who he has a question for. Z, can you hear me?

Yes, yes, I can. Thank you, Kevin. I would like to start off with, wow, what a great space call and what an amazing job, Roger and the lawyers have done to explain everything. And congratulations on that. I just -- I have a question for Mark, actually. I just -- so FINRA, does FINRA have, Mark, authority to invest public companies? That's my question. Because like you said that FINRA can only regulate or investigate broker-dealers. Is that the scope?

Yes, that's supposed to be the scope. But we have seen some indications of FINRA approving or disapproving and quite possibly in the Meta Materials, the MMTLP issue, actually change a corporate action, which has tremendous market effects. Again, that's what it looks like, but there's still no direct evidence regarding the data or why. But FINRA cannot exert any administrative control at all over a public company issuer.

Administrative control, what about investigations on public companies? And I think we have seen examples where FINRA would investigate and SEC would take some action. Do they have the authority or it nebulous or how does that work?

Yes. Technically, they don't have the authority. They have to stay within their realm of member brokers. But if they do come across an anomaly, they have to refer that to the SEC who can conduct and who has the authority over public company issuers. So that's just something that falls outside of FINRA's realm. Now can they do it? They can try to do it, I guess.

Sure. They can ask any public company or anyone on earth whatever they want, right? But whether you answer or not is if you're a broker-dealer or not. And if you don't -- if they want to bring it to the SEC with their question or whatever, then the SEC obviously has the authority and that's what they're there for and regulated to do the investigation.

Got it. Well, thank you so much, Mark. That was so informative and you did such a great job. Guys, just one -- I would like to mention that many CEOs are coming together, like I've spoken to Roger, and we have aligned and John Forrester, as you guys know, we have spoken and align and exchange notes is George Palikaras. And there are several other CEOs coming together. So -- and retail is uniting. This has become a very, I would say, unstoppable force now with all this. And congratulations on this to all of you. Thank you. I will let others to take questions.

. Let's see. Let's take Stephen here as the last question, sorry, everyone else. I guess everyone is on tight time this morning or late evening for Roger or Stephen. How are you doing?

Can you hear me?

I can hear you perfect.

All right. I just had a quick question about -- so like I just had on watching the Trevor Milton, I guess, like a documentary that he made on YouTube. Are you familiar?

No, I have no idea what it's about.

So Trevor Milton was the guy that started Lucid and he got attacked by [ Hindenburg ] short. And so he has like documentation of the DOJ and MSNBC in hand and foot with [ Hindenburg ] doing new stories and inviting him in courts like right as he went to go public, stuff like that, and they stole like $30 billion. So like obviously, the raw is super deep in the system. So now that there's like new law firms coming in to help out, like how vetted are they for like possible corporate astronauts because these guys are obviously desperate. I mean I got accounts on X trying to set me up to say the wrong thing to make you look bad, like acting like you're my daddy telling me how to invest my money and it's so crazy. So I just get paranoid after seeing how deep the shorts are inside the system to know like, are you going to let the Internet sloose go and vet the law firms for us? Or do you know what I mean, like so that someone doesn't go and sabotage from inside?

No, I love it. And I think about it a lot, too. These -- the people that have done this at the very top for a very long time are going to do anything they can to win. And I always had in the back of my mind the info with Computershare when the GameStop investors were trying to DRS 100% there and got stopped at 25%. When -- even when it started, I said, how hard is it for one of these massive $100 billion brokerage banks to give $1 billion offshore bribe to do something. And I bet I wouldn't be surprised if Wes has had calls before from higher ups asking and he's had an awesome stance of sticking with his morals forever. Mark might have had them as well. Roger might have had no clue there, but it's always in the back of my mind, and I love that most of the listeners here deep dive into research and cases and filings all the time. I've said multiple times that the best thing that ever happened from all of the brokerages, including to turn off the buy buttons in January 2021 is there's more than 1 million people now that look for crime every single day that can share information instantly on social media. And that's the best thing that came from that because their ways of hiding pretty much disappeared or 99% of their hiding because now you had all these people researching everything.

Yes. I mean, Kevin, just on that point, this is what I would say about that. There's a systemic issue, then there's the people who are making the most of the systemic issue. And the systemic issue is a very, very, very simple one. I think most people here are not just investors, but most likely entrepreneurs as well where you've started the business or you're owning the business right now. As a private business, here's the irony -- you currently have more control on your cap table than as a public business, right? As a private -- I've had private business all my life. And as a private business, I always knew who the shareholders were in my cap table, and I got to choose who those people were. And if someone ended up misbehaving or doing the wrong thing, there would be ways for the rest of the shareholders to basically ask them to sell those shares or that they won't welcome anymore. And if we didn't have that, like if I was told when I first started my first business, just to let you know, you can go out there and you can bring some investors in, but you're going to have 0 control as to whether or not some of these people are in for the wrong reasons. And you're also going to have 0 control whether or not people can sell shares in your business without even owning them. I would have thought twice about starting a business in the first place, who actually even owns or controls the business. The moment you become a public company, it's the fact that there are super high regulations on the company. You need to have an audit and if there's any fraud whatsoever, it needs to be reported internally in the company. There's no such standard to have an audit externally of your shareholders to be able to know exactly what is -- at any point, right, you would expect that if regulators came in, they'd be able to see that you have control on your financials. But you can't have control on exactly who's owning your business or who's just sold your share today and how many of them were actually short sold and who were those people. There's 0 way to know. And even though there's attempts and we've just seen this week, right, the big brokers at this point, basically making the SEC's goal of having this more regulated, push back the SEC again. All of this would go away if the system was enabling us all to see who was the ones that were buying, who were selling. Or even frankly, I mean, like a lot of you here on you're similar to me. You don't want anyone just coming along and trolling your account and all the rest of it or the people that are decent are going to say, I'm not going to listen to this anymore. It's just junk and they will leave, right? And so in exactly the same way, why is there no way that a public company when they say, I don't want anyone -- I don't want anyone buying my shares, I don't want to buy my shares or I don't want anyone coming in to just sell shares and trash on the company and hire people to trash on the company and do illegal things that other people, including ourselves aren't allowed to do. And then we're told, well, you have to do that because that's the way we get liquidity. It's I'd rather have less liquidity and have an honest shareholder base and people that want to support the business than just be here as a punching bag and a profit machine for the short sellers. And especially if the short sellers aren't there because they just believe you have a bad business, the short sellers there because they're trying to take you out of business and it's the self-filling property. So there will be, in the future, markets where this is the case. Already in Asia, there are markets which are much, much more aware and supportive of the retail investors, which is why we're going to be doing the dual listing in Asia as well. So we're not waiting around for this to happen. But one day, it will happen, right, in America as well. And in the meantime, what we can do is know that no matter what legal things we try and do to support the company, there will be 10x more illegal things for people to do around us. So that means we're going to do 10x more. And I think that's the reason we actually had this update was we were believing by the time of this update that Wes will be ready and Wes is doing everything to be ready. We'll do another update when it's appropriate. We're going to keep on pushing forward on all fronts here. And again, I know Wes and Mark had to lead, but I really, really just want to say a big appreciation to them and their army of lawyers and experts behind them. And frankly, same to all the shareholders that have continued to support us and believe in the long term. We're going to keep on pushing in ways that they don't keep pushing our share price down, and we're very pleased that we've at least kept the level over the last 12 months and seen now the pluses of us winning parts of the cases as we're moving ourselves forward and making progress. And I believe this next year, we're going to be doing a lot more of that as well. Those would be my final kind of like wrap-up comments there, Kevin. Thanks, everyone, very much for being here.

Yes. Thank you, Roger. Thank you, Wes and Mark, for coming on and explain everything. I know -- know how it feels when I talk deep finance to lawyers and their eyes glaze over and roll in the back of their heads because they blew stuff way over my head on some of their terminology in their explanations. But like I was telling the listeners, you and I, Roger will get that kind of diagram going with the cases. And hopefully, when we show all these different points, it will be able to help these other CEOs as well that think this is going on. The more we get out there, the better. And I think we have a lot of better regulation in some of those Asian markets than we do in the U.S. markets for securities fraud. And I truly believe that like during the GameStop Fiasco '21, they saw -- I guarantee Gary Gensler saw what was under the hood that nobody knew was going on just like the 2008 financial crisis, and they said, "Oh my God, I think they know all the problems and all the bad actors," but that it is so big and massive in trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars that there is no bailout, there is no -- like everything would crash and that they've just been slowly trying to stop it, but they can't just turn off the switch. And when I asked Patrick Byrne, how do you fix it without the whole thing breaking? He said, "You can't." I said, I haven't been able to figure out a way either because I think it's so incredibly massive with the amount of fake shares out there. The biggest business industry in the entire world in revenue is selling stocks that don't exist, trillions of dollars. You take cash and you give an IOU. And then 99% of public companies end up failing. So that works usually until it doesn't in 2021, and now they don't know how to get out of it. All right, everybody. I appreciate all the listeners, all the people that had questions on this. Please keep doing the amazing research that you guys have sending valuable information or tagging valuable information with Roger or Zeeshan an or any public company CEOs or lawyers. If you find something massive reach out to them. I'm going to be putting together a list of regulation offices for each state in the U.S. so that I can post that for people to reach out to their own Department of Finances and get a lot of this information to different parties. We know what's happened with the 1 million e-mails and letters sent to FINRA and SEC, but I do think a lot of governing people that have gotten letters, there's been some that have spoken out about it and said, I see a problem here. Has anything changed? No. But more of them are seeing it. And if 5, 10, 20, 50 Congress people eventually end up seeing it, hopefully, we'll be able to make that change.

And Kevin, just what I would say for everyone as well because this is clearly called the Genius lawsuit update is that we have got a business we are running on the education and Bitcoin treasury side, and we have got our Genius Future Summit, which is going to be both online as well as in person on the 2nd and 3rd of October. We're going to, I'm sure, have quite a number of you there, and we're going to be adding in the education side, financial education as far as the markets go. And in our micro courses, we are already working on a number of micro courses for anyone, both CEOs as well as investors that want to know what they can do to protect their investments in their company and what are the things to look out for. And we're also going to be working on a number of AI projects so that we have got the right tools to equip CEOs, companies and investors with a massive data out there to be able to find out exactly where the issues are. So this is all in the works at the moment.

It's just phenomenal idea, Roger.

Yes. And what Zeeshan said about CEOs working together, I think this is where we can do the most, right? We can't do much to change regulation other than keep shouting. But what we can do is use our innovation and our teams to come up with very, very smart ways to outsmart the people that are trying to outsmart us.

Absolutely. There's hundreds of CEOs that guarantee it that have no idea what a naked short is. And it's not their job. They create a company and whatever their passion was they just see their stock go down every single day with no clue about any of this because they don't have social media or they don't watch any -- they're just focused on the business. And there's probably so many cases. I mean I can pull 10 a day just by looking at the charts to know when I see 1 trade 50x its volume in a day that this is on a list. And we're going to be in contact with them and getting these people more educated. I love that you're going to finance to education courses and everything.

Yes. Great.

Appreciate it, Roger. Appreciate everyone being here today. I hope everyone enjoys the rest of the week, keep fighting out there, stay loud, don't stay complicit, try learn something new every single day. We will see you all soon. I'll try and set up another call maybe for next week where we can hopefully get Roger, Z and maybe another 3 or 4 CEOs to do a CEO conference call on educating more companies. I think that would be a great idea.

All right. Thanks, everyone.

Perfect. Thank you, guys.