Is your post speculation or fact? If it's a fact, I hope you understand why I'm skeptical of your anonymous broker who transferred you to another anonymous person who then told you something over the phone as evidence. Since you like to ask me for evidence, where is your evidence that legal shorts don't have to cover after name/CUSIP # change?

This article states that short positions, legal and illegal, must cover.

Quote:

---

After the market closed on Tuesday, Remark filed an 8k with more information on the name change, including an announcement of a change to the stock’s cusip number. 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/