Below are links to the depositions of Moez Kassam that took place on the 20th and 21st April 2023.
We have put below some of the more interesting statements he made along with our comments and links to other documents that help reveal the multitude of lies he told during these 2 days.
Moez Kassam deposition Day 2
Moez Deposition Day 1
Page 15 (sheet 56/57)
Q. So when you say you don’t engage in naked short selling, have you ever — has you or any of the Anson entities ever engaged in naked short selling? A. So us as a regulated entity of the OSC and of the SEC, we are bound of the rules set of both, and we never go outside of those rules.
Q. I understand that, sir. But has Anson, have any of your entities ever engaged in naked short selling? A. Again, it’s a pretty opaque and subjective term on how people define naked shorting. Q. Well, I’m not interested in how other people define it. I’m interested in your perspective and your opinions and your facts. Have you ever nakedly shorted a stock? A. As mentioned, we are bound by all the rules set forward to us by the OSC and the SEC, and as such, we do not engage in anything untoward or outside of those rules, including naked shorting
At the time Moez Kassam was deposed, Anson Funds was under multiple investigations by the SEC, which led to two charges. Charge 1 Charge 2
Page 16 (Sheet 59/60)
Q. So do you share research report with other short-sellers? A. Do we share research reports? Q. Do you share research? A. We share research, as I mentioned, with a wide variety of sources. Q. Have you shared research with Nate Anderson of Hindenburg Research? A. I believe we have, yes. Q. Andrew Left of Citron? A. I believe so. Q. Fraser Perring of Viceroy? A. I believe so. Q. Carson Block of Muddy Waters? A. I believe so. Q. Ben Axler of Spruce Point? A. I believe so. Q. How about The Friendly Bear? A. I believe so. Q. Sir, do you know who Friendly Bear is? A. I believe the investment head of The Friendly Bear is a guy named Nate Koppikar.
Anson is the head of the snake. The uncrowned leader of the short selling syndicate.
Page 16 (sheet 61)
Q. I’ll be more specific. When you say you work with them, how do you work with them? A. We exchange diligence. Q. And do you often go on deals together? Do you work with them to short stocks together? A. No, we do not coordinate trading with anyone other than ourselves.
This is untrue, as will soon be revealed through the Andrew Left lawsuit, and as can be seen with the Facedrive trade.
Page 17 (sheet 62)
Q. And you have global investors? You have investors around the globe? A. We do. Q. Is the Investment Authority of Abu Dhabi one of them? A. The Investment Authority of Abu Dhabi is not one of them. Q. How about Mubadala? A. Mubadala is not one of them. Q. You’ve never taken money from either entity? A. I believe we have never taken money from either entity.
More on this coming soon
Page 17 (sheet 63)
Q. Now, how do you determine the – do you ever seek out research that includes nonpublic information? A. We specifically never seek out information that is nonpublic. Q. Is that a policy? Is that a formal policy? A. That’s a formal policy within our organization, yes. Q. What about, you work with freelancers, contractors? A. All our contracts specifically say we do not want anyone or do not accept any information that would be deemed to be material nonpublic
This is another lie. We have a Whatsapp conversation where Moez asks for non-public information and trades on non-public information. (See Canntrust conversation – Hindenburg & Andrew Left).
Page 20 (sheet 76)
Q. Let me clarify. Other than Admiral Anson, were there any other posts used by anyone related to Anson on Seeking Alpha? A. I believe there was. Q. And can you tell me who or what? A. The handle? Q. Yes. A. I believe the handle was “Emperor Has No Clothes”. Q. And whose handle was that? A. That was one used by our firm.
Q. And was that related to — was that an issue with a company called Nobilis Health? A. I believe so. Q. I understand there was litigation involving Nobilis Health?
This is important. Nobilis Health sued Anson, and won. Other companies covered by Anson on this username should also look into suing. There is a clear pattern of using psuedonyms and other people to put out hit pieces.
See: How Anson Funds Used Seeking Alpha to Crush Companies
Page 28 (sheet 109/110)
BY MR. KIM: Q. No, he said he’s not aware of any electronic form of communication with Mr. Doxtator. Mr. Kassam, on July 6, 2019, you exchanged what WhatsApp messages with Mr. Doxtator regarding CannTrust, and the chats you produced from July 6 to July 22nd, 2022. Did you speak to Mr. Doxtator between these dates? MR. STALEY: If you’re going to refer to documents, can you pull them up and let the witness see them just so he has that context? BY MR. STALEY: Q. Sure. The document is AA 00010536. MR. STALEY: Okay. Well, that’s the first page. The concern I have, Won, is that the text you’re referring to may have content
BY MR. KIM: Q. Sure. Now, Mr. Kassam, you see this document, you first start — you exchange WhatsApp messages with Mr. Doxtator regarding CannTrust on July 6. Is this the entirety of the communication? A. I believe so. Q. Okay. There’s nothing missing? A. I don’t believe so. Q. Mr. Kassam, are there any — did you talk to Mr. Doxtator over the phone during this time? A. I don’t know. (See Canntrust conversation – Hindenburg & Andrew Left)
Page 29 (sheet 111/112)
Q. Did you ever ask Mr. Doxtator to seek out insider information on various cannabis companies? A. As previously mentioned, you know, we are bound by both the OSC and SEC regulation and would never ask for anything outside of what is publicly available. Q. And so you never asked Mr. Doxtator to provide any nonpublic information?
Q. Sure. Did you ever ask Mr. Doxtator to provide any material nonpublic information about cannabis – A. I never asked him to produce any illegal information
This is an outright lie. He did in fact ask Robert Doxtator to obtain non-public information.
(See Canntrust conversation – Hindenburg & Andrew Left)
Page 32 (sheet 122)
BY MR. KIM: Q. Now, Mr. Kassam, did Mr. Doxtator provide you information, research on CannTrust? A. I believe he had a thesis on CannTrust, about the facility being shut down.
Q. And did you use that information? A. You know, we wanted to use the information and it would have resulted in a successful outcome. Unfortunately, that happened over a weekend, and then by Monday morning the company press released that the facility was, in fact, shut down. Q. So you did not use his information and subsequently you did not pay Mr. Doxtator a fee for his research on CannTrust? A. I’m not sure how it ended up working out with the payment to him. I believe we made a payment, something in regards to him and CannTrust, but I’m not actually sure specifically.
Moez did, in fact, use that information. In the Canntrust conversation, he discusses the size of positions he has bought on multiple occasions. (See Canntrust conversation – Hindenburg & Andrew Left)
Page 40 (sheet 154)
Q. How is that different than, say, trolling — you understand that Mr. Doxtator had posted negative information, I believe, on Twitter prior to the publication of the first part of the manifesto. What was qualitatively different in your mind about the manifesto versus negative comments on Twitter? A. I think it was the intention, right, where someone like you said was on Twitter or chatting randomly on Reddit, it’s sort of a little more casual in nature.
Someone went about creating a website dedicated to effectively, you know, smearing my name, my character, my firm. Bought a website with my actual name in it to get the likeness, et cetera, search engine optimization, et cetera. Literally, this was a very thought-out and contrived plan with the intention of discrediting and defaming me.
Is this not what they do with their short reports on people and companies every day. One thing he is spot on about, however, is intent. The regulators can charge people who “intend” to manipulate a company or stock.
Page 52 (sheet 202)
BY MR. KIM: Q. Okay. Let’s break it down. Let’s go to the last sentence of the big
paragraph. It says: “The fact is that we always conduct ourselves with utmost integrity and in compliance with legal and regulatory requirements”. Is that true? MR. STALEY: Which one might reasonably think is denying what’s in the Defamatory Manifesto; right? BY MR. KIM: Q. Yes, I know, but my question is: Is that true, Mr. Kassam? A. I believe so. Q. Do you always comply with the legal and regulatory requirements? A. We try to, yes
This is false. The SEC charges, documents from this lawsuit and other documents on Market Frauds prove otherwise.
Moez transcript Day 2:
Page 3 (sheet 267)
Q. We can come back to these questions, okay. So why don’t we go through the individual tickers, and then we’ll come back to these questions. Mr. Kassam, you advised us yesterday that Anson shares research with a variety of sources and firms. You specifically advised us yesterday that Anson shares research with several specific individuals, including Nate Anderson and Andrew Left; is that correct, sir? A. I believe so. Q. And would you have shared research or information with Nate Anderson about Aphria? A. As I mentioned yesterday, I believe historically we had chatted about Aphria.
(See Schedule B-1 Discussion for emails between Anson and Hindenburg on Aphria)
Page 5 (sheet 275/276)
BY MR. KIM: Q. Now, Mr. Kassam, this may be a question for Mr. Staley. Your Schedule B-1 shows that between March 16th and March 27th, 2018, Sunny Puri emailed Nate Anderson about Aphria six times, on the 16th, 19th, 22nd, 26th and 27th. Can you tell me, Mr. Staley, what is the basis for this privilege? U/A MR. STALEY: We’ll take it under advisement. BY MR. KIM: Q. Okay. I want an undertaking to produce the original emails on the basis that the originals are not privileged. U/A MR. STALEY: We are clearly not going to give you that undertaking, but we will take it under advisement. BY MR. KIM: Q. I want a further undertaking for production of all of the invoices and records of payment from Anderson, Anson or Mr. Kassam personally to Nate Anderson, Hindenburg Research or ClaritySprings Inc.? U/A MR. STALEY: The same answer, under advisement.
This will be interesting.
Page 10 (sheet 294)
Q. Now, I understand what you have said about Mr. Left. He is independent? A. I believe so. Q. So even if you called him and said, Hey, we need something positive out there, he would make up his own mind, right? He would do his own analysis? A. That’s correct. Q. Did Anson ever pay Mr. Left to write any report or publish any tweets about Aphria? A. We have never paid Andrew for anything associated with Aphria. Q. Have you paid Mr. Left on any matters, any tickers other than — excluding Aphria? matter. A. We have never paid Andrew on any Q. Is it a peer cooperation, peer-to-peer cooperation? A. As I mentioned, we work with a wide variety of guys, including Andrew, sharing research and diligence, yes.
This is a lie, as is made clear through the recent SEC charges against Anson Funds:
Page 20 (sheet 335)
Q. Okay. Has Anson ever entered into a trade without reasonable certainty that it could settle the trade? A. As previously mentioned, we are bound by the SEC rules and OSC rules and we have always made our best attempts to adhere to those rules, and I don’t believe we have stepped out of bounds in regards to our short positions.
The first SEC charge against them proves this to be a lie.
Page 23 (sheet 347)
Q. Okay. You have used Canaccord? A. Sorry? Q. Since 2018, you have used Canaccord? A. I used Canaccord to do what? Q. To facilitate a short position, a borrow? A. I believe at times we have used Canaccord to trade and facilitate borrow, yes. Q. What about CIBC? A. No. Q. What about TD? A. Yes. Q. What about RBC? A. No. Q. What about Bank of Nova Scotia?
We have it on very good authority (source within Anson Funds) that Anson is very protective of its relationships with CIBC and RBC. A host of crimes has taken place between Anson and these two banks, which are happy to look the other way because of the high fees involved. Regulators need to look very closely at CIBC and RBC, both of which had placed thousands of spoofing trades for Anson against Facedrive. (See Facedrive file.)
Page 25 (sheet 354/355/356)
Q. Was TD a prime broker you were working with in the fall of 2018? A. TD was a prime broker of ours and continues to be a prime broker of ours. Q. Okay. As at the fall of 2018, did you receive any correspondence from TD advising that they would be pulling your lines? A. No. Q. Did you receive any correspondence from TD during the fall of 2018 to say you have to inject fresh capital into your — to backstop your positions? A. I don’t believe so. Q. You don’t believe so. know?
It is ambiguous what you are saying. So we have correspondence with all our prime brokers all the time, but them asking me to deposit money to cover, to backfill, whatever you said, that is a no. Q. Let me ask a more general question. Did you receive any — were you — did TD express any concerns as at the fall of 2018 about your position with the bank, about you – and when I say “you”, you and/or the Anson entities with the bank? A. As mentioned, we have correspondence all the time regarding the strategies and positions we have and how much positions and concentration continuously with our banks. So I am sure in 2018 and I am sure, you know, in the last month we have had discussions like that. Q. Okay. I would like you to produce any correspondence you received from TD from 2018 to today.
MR. STALEY: No. MR. KIM: I can’t hear you. MR. STALEY: No. It is not relevant.
BY MR. KIM: Q. I am trying my best to get you fired. But let me ask you, Mr. Kassam, could you produce any correspondence you received from the summer to the end 2018 from TD, please? I will reduce my request. R/F MR. STALEY: No. He has already told you that there is nothing out there that corresponds to the request that you are making.
See the TD Bank Files.
(TD Bank email communications)
(TD Bank email communications and attachments)
(Is there another TD Bank scandal in here?)
Page 26 (sheet 357/358)
Q. Okay. Now, Anson took a position on Tilray? A. I believe so. Q. You were short on Tilray? A. We have been short Tilray on and off since awhile, yes. Q. Did you ever get a margin call on Tilray? A. I believe at one point we had — I don’t know if you would say by definition a margin call, but we were made aware that, from a liquidity perspective, we had a certain concentration that made the underlying bank, you know, have pause and they said we should take steps to, you know, reduce that concentration. Q. Which bank was that? A. I believe it was TD. Q. Can you produce the documents that you received from TD with regard to your position on Tilray? U/A MR. STALEY: We’ll take that under advisement.
See the TD Bank Files.
(TD Bank email communications)
(TD Bank email communications and attachments)
(Is there another TD Bank scandal in here?)
Page 29 (sheet 370/371)
Q. How big was Anson’s short position in Facedrive? A. I believe our largest position, short position in Facedrive was 400,000 shares. Q. And where did you borrow the shares? A. I don’t know. Q. Can you find out? MR. STALEY: We’ll take it under advisement BY MR. KIM: Q. And at any time — I understand that prior to the change in guidance from IIROC, you would agree with me that nakedly shorting stocks was technically not offside regulations in Ontario? A. Well, again, if the premise of naked short, I wouldn’t call it “naked short”. I would just call it a short. Q. Right, but I am just saying that did you have — your biggest position was 400,000 for Facedrive? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And you are going to tell me who you borrowed the shares from. A. If that was the undertaking you asked. Q. Yeah, Counsel, I would like an undertaking for all of the records of all positions taken on Facedrive across all of the Anson Funds, including records of where Anson obtained the borrow to cover its short position? U/A MR. STALEY: We’ll take it under advisement
BY MR. KIM: Q. Sir, did you ever communicate with Nate Anderson about Facedrive? A. I believe we have had conversations with Nate Anderson about Facedrive, yes. Q. So you are aware that Hindenburg Research put out a short report about Facedrive on or about July 23rd, 2020? A. I believe so
We know from sources inside the Fund that Anson’s naked short position on Facedrive was huge – in the millions of shares.
Page 29 (sheet 372)
BY MR. KIM: Q. Have you talked to Mr. McArthur about Facedrive? A. I believe we have had conversations about Facedrive. Q. What do you recall about your diligence that you shared with Mr. McArthur? A. I believe we shared diligence, you know, of, you know, publicly available information that was out there that I thought was an interesting story for him.
Greg McArthur is a journalist at the Globe & Mail, which is known to be an Anson Funds mouthpiece in Canada. We are working on a special report just about The Globe.
Page 31 (sheet 379/380)
BY MR. KIM: Q. Now, Mr. Kassam, did you collaborate with Viceroy Research on ReconAfrica? A. I believe we had conversations with the Viceroy people. Q. I am going to pull up document 14699. Are you familiar with this document? A. Yes, I am familiar. Q. Did you share information with Viceroy Research about ReconAfrica? A. I believe we had conversations in regards to ReconAfrica, yes. Q. And what were those conversations about? A. I believe we exchanged diligence, just, you know, looking at the press releases and the people associated with the company and its financials and discussing the merits of the underlying company.
Q. And did your diligence make its way onto this report? A. I believe some of the stuff we discussed is definitely mentioned in the report, yes.
BY MR. KIM: Q. Mr. Kassam, generally do you recall your discussions with Viceroy Research about ReconAfrica? A. I believe they were already looking at ReconAfrica, and you know, because of all the noise in the chat boards and everywhere that we were involved and being short, they came to us to ask us if we had any further information other than, you know, their thesis. Q. And why did they come to you? A. I just said, you know, that, you know, our name was all over the chat boards,
Stockhouse and Reddit, et cetera, that we were short ReconAfrica, and so I guess as part of their diligence process, they reviewed the posts, saw our name. And you know, we historically have shared diligence on other names, So they came to us to say, Hey, you know, this is our theory; what do you think?
Q. What is your relationship with Viceroy Research? A. We — you know, they are another short selling outfit out there, so we at times exchange information on, you know, companies that are out there
(Just so the folks at Recon Africa know who was behind the Viceroy report)
Page 35 (sheet 397/398)
Now, Mr. Kassam, why would you introduce Mr. — I understand the request was made
by Mr. Doxtator. That is your information. Why would you introduce Mr. Doxtator to Mr. Rendell? A. I believe, you know, at that time we were working, you know, and we had started a relationship with Mr. Doxtator, and you know, I was showing him some goodwill by making the introduction. Q. And was it in regard to a particular cannabis stock? A. I don’t know what the — what the specific thing that Mr. Doxtator wanted to speak to Mark Rendell about
This is a lie – it is Canntrust. (See Can trust conversation)
Page 37 (sheet 405)
BY MR. KIM: Q. Now, we spoke about Nate Anderson and Hindenburg. I understand that you shared information with Nate Anderson on Aphria, and that was this morning. What about on Genius Brands? Did Anson collaborate with Mr. Anderson on Genius Brands? A. I don’t believe we did, no.
Again, this is a falsehood. Regulators really need to look into the Genius Brands debacle
Main File page can be found here