Yes, I believe naked shorts must cover after CTIX became IPIX. I know for a fact that the idea to expose naked shorts was suggested to Leo by some shareholders. It's very unlikely that Leo woke up one day and realized he dislikes the name Cellceutix so much that he's willing to spend time and money to change the name/CUSIP #. Don't forget, the whole website must be changed also. After consulting with Michael Sullivan, Leo decided to do it. That tells me Sullivan believed the change will expose naked shorts if they exist.

"Changing the stock cusip number results in each share with the old cusip number having to be exchanged for a share with the new cusip number, which causes each short position to have to prove the borrow. Naked short positions would be unable to comply and those positions could have to be covered by purchasing shares with the new cusip on the open market. "

https://groovevc.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/is-...t-squeeze/

Example: Amarantus - massive covering by naked shorts after name/CUSIP # change.

https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=4897607

If IPIX's volume was similar to Amarantus, I would've said Alan was right long time ago. But that wasn't the case and that's when I decided to speak up.

https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=4987459

Quote:

---

Wouldn’t the ticker change have created a squeeze?

---