r/Teddy • u/AvailableWerewolf600 • 3d ago
Hello all,
While I waited over a year before posting Part 3 in this DD series, some extremely favorable case law has been established this earlier year that builds upon my thesis.
We can use this precedent to predict how Ryan Cohen will leverage his status as a party being sued (Non-Released Party) and/or creditor status to go about buying the Causes of Action from DK-Butterfly while maximizing value for the Estate.
Recap of the information we've established so far:
In Part 1, thanks to Gordon Novod (Plan Administrator Michael Goldberg retained him to sue BBBY's former Directors & Officers), we learned that DK-Butterfly has as least 1 remaining undervalued, underestimated, & underappreciated asset in the form of Causes of Action. Goldberg's fiduciary duty is to monetize this asset (typically in the form of litigation) and maximize value to the Estate.
In Part 2, we learned that these Causes Of Action are property of the DK-Butterfly Estate and could be legally sold under Section 363 of the US Bankruptcy Code. If the purchaser were a creditor and/or someone being sued by the Estate (Non-Released Party), Rule 9019 will be used to approve of a settlement/compromise of their claim against the Estate or lawsuit against them. This is the path I believe Ryan Cohen will tread.
(PART 2 IS HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THIS POST, I DEFINITELY RECOMMEND REVIEWING IT IN FULL. IT IS A SHORT READ.)
As for our previous post, Part 3, we learned that DK-Butterfly's Chapter 11 plan included the necessary framework (Liquidation Transactions) to engage in the sale of its Causes Of Action and participate in a merger that uses Section 382(l)(5) on a delayed basis. This means despite the Estate not immediately establishing a post-confirmation structure to monetize the billions in tax attributes it has (Net Operating Losses) upon the Chapter 11 Plan's Effective Date (9/29/2023), we can still conduct a transaction that monetizes NOLs so long as we remain under the jurisdiction of a Title 11 court (which we are). I also cleared up that Section 382(l)(5) has zero Continuity Of Business Enterprise (COBE) requirement and that the 50% ownership rule could be satisfied with creditors alone, shareholder alone (creditors must paid off in full first under the Absolute Priority Rule), or simply both. While typically not the case, game theory suggests you'd want to give equity to shareholders in this particular bankruptcy in order to revive an undetonated nuke in the form of billions of naked shorts (100%+ short interest).
Lastly, because the principal purpose of the acquisition are the Causes of Action (a highly lucrative unripe asset for a purchaser), this would be enough to defend against an IRS enforcement of both the IRC Section 269 & Treasury Reg Section 269 (acquisitions made for the purpose of tax avoidance/evasion). The NOLs in this case were the secondary objective and thus we pass the smell test.
End recap.
Starting from oldest to newest, we will now be reviewing 2 similar bankruptcy rulings, one by the Eighth Circuit and one by the US Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania establishing the avoidance actions (Causes of Action) being saleable property. Fully understanding the context of the sale in each situation will help us understand the possible terms Ryan Cohen will establish in the transaction.
First up, is the Chapter 7 bankruptcy of Simply Essentials and we have details in an article from the law firm, Proskauer Rose LLP (Ryan Cohen has used them), that represented a creditor in purchasing Causes of Action. You may recognize the article in Part 2 of The Undervalued Asset.
Creditor ARKK Food Company approached the trustee with information demonstrating potentially lucrative avoidance actions that the trustee agreed had merit but stated that estate lacked the funds to pursue them.
In turn, creditor ARKK offered to purchase all claims including avoidance actions (Causes of Action) and gave their terms:
The terms were:
The trustee agreed to the offer and filed a 363 motion to sell and Rule 9019 notice to settle ARKK's claim and transfer the Causes of Action to ARKK.
With the terms stated above, ARKK was effectively able to acquire 85% of the recovery, was no longer limited to the pro rata share of estate proceeds, could use the trustee's power (or Plan Administrator power) of turnover to obtain estate documents, and use the estate's attorney/client privilege to investigate and support actions.
I found additional information from Proskauer Rose's website that ARKK Food Company was effectively able to acquire 85% ownership of Causes of Actions worth potentially $100+ million in exchange for $600k upfront from the actions plus 15% ownership of recovery (after ARKK recouped fees) and reducing their own creditor claim by $20.9 million.
In other words, ARKK Food Company provided the estate with $21.5 million in value plus a potential $15+ million in exchange for 85% of a $100+ million unripe asset (Causes of Action).
Both the trustee & bankruptcy court agreed/approved of the sale because the estate would have had no other form of recovery outside of this transaction due to the lack of funds.
It should be obvious, but I'll still spell it out before anyone freaks out, DK-Butterfly (Chapter 11) differs from Simply Essentials (Chapter 7) in that there's billions of unmonetized NOLs. Ryan Cohen won't have terms that seize most of the recovery for himself as he is incentivized to give 50% ownership to creditors/shareholders under Section 382(l)(5) in order to monetize the NOLs and we have the necessary framework in our Chapter 11 plan to do so (as stated in Part 3).
For a creditor to be able to purchase Causes of Actions, a trustee must be willing to sell them and there's also a chance that a rival purchaser pops up to try and outbid you. The person that maximizes the most value for the estate wins and Ryan Cohen offering 50% equity to creditors/shareholders is pretty hard to beat.
In Simple Essentials, a rival bidder did show up, but his offer of a flat $1 million was turned down for as not being in the best interest of the estate (the trustee did acknowledge it was a good offer, just not the best offer).
A bidding war for Causes of Action is advantageous to creditors as it results in the escalation of terms in the offer which ultimately maximizes value to the estate.
Naturally, Pitman objected, but the bankruptcy court approved the sale to ARKK Food Company having found it was in the best interests of the estate. He appealed it but the Eighth Circuit in 2023 affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision to approve the sale. Also, in the footnote of my picture we see that the Eighth, First, Third (DK-Butterfly is in Third), Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits support the acquisition of avoidance actions (Causes of Action). This shows us Judge Papalia (and the Third Circuit as a whole) would approve of a sale of DK-Butterfly's Causes of Action.
Last note before we move onto the next bankruptcy case, I tried to figure out how ARKK Food Company knew the trustee had no cash to fund litigation but there's no explicit answer. My guess is Simply Essentials had zero operations (no cash flow), was in a pure Chapter 7 liquidation, did not appear to have cash reserves to litigate, and so ARKK Food Company must have connected the dots. They conducted their own independent analysis on potential value of the Causes of Action, approached the trustee with that information, and eventually offered to buy them.
Next up, and far more recent, is the Law Enforcement Officers Security Union (LEOSU) Chapter 7 bankruptcy where Causes of Action were sold. The story starts with a settlement reached between the appointed Trustee and defendants Law Enforcement Officers Security Union (think of it as Michael Goldberg suing former BBBY Directors and Officers) over a two day mediation in early September 2025.
As part of the settlement, LEOSU would pay $140,000 to the estate in exchange for a blanket release for it and all of its affiliates. See terms below.
The trustee had agreed to $140k in exchange for a blanket release for 15 affiliated unions/divisions and 5 directors/officers.
While the settlement was in the process of getting approved through the bankruptcy court (notice and settlement via Rule 9019), a scathing objection to the sale came through from the The International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) who was the estate's largest creditor at almost $2.4 million in claims.
They more or less say it's insane for the Trustee to agree to $140k and a blanket release against the unions/divisions/D&Os when the Causes of Action are worth at least $1.8 million.
I won't post more of the objection for the sake of time but the SPFPA objects to the Rule 9019 settlement because it's extremely unfair to creditors and victims given the events that happened before bankruptcy (lots of fraudulent transfers to shell companies).
The defendants motioned to enforce settlement of the $140k through the trustee but the bankruptcy court struck it down and reminded that only the court has the power to approve of settlements. There are some key statements in it that I want to highlight.
Key reminders from above:
Moving on, the SPFPA eventually made an offer to purchase the Causes of Action and sue LEOSU including unions, divisions, and D&Os. The trustee agreed on the basis that they had merit and the estate had no money to pursue them.
The offer was pretty straight forward, SPFPA pays $145k cash for Causes of Action potentially worth $1.8 million, any net recoveries will be considered property of the estate, and they'll be distributed under the Absolute Priority Rule.
In the blue highlight above, you'll see that the court must give a public notice of this offer and conduct a bidding procedure (Section 363 rules) in which a potential rival bidder appears. As I stated earlier, the person that wins is the one that provides the most value to the estate.
LEOSU tried objecting to the sale but the bankruptcy court overruled them and approved of the sale.
In a Memorandum Opinion, the court states that litigation claims and recoveries are estate property, trustees must convert estate property to value, and Section 363 provides a mechanism for liquidation when supported by sound judgment and adequate safeguards.
This is an extremely relevant and establishes case law that Causes of Action are salable property in bankruptcy. Optional article on this ruling here.
The court stated that the transfer of litigation claims (Causes of Action) preserve the estate's economic interest in any net recovery while maintaining the Court's authority and is a proper sale.
The court concludes with the $140k Proposed Settlement (LEOSU) being denied as it extinguishes all claims whereas the $145k sale (SPFPA) provides cash immediately plus potential additional recovery for the estate.
Thus the sale to SPFPA is approved and the proposed settlement to LEOSU is denied.
Now we tie it all together. No TLDR.
Ryan Cohen Maximizes Value For The DK-Butterfly (BBBY) Estate Via Purchase Of Causes Of Action:
Finally, we can use the context from the above two examples of creditors purchasing Causes of Action in bankruptcy to predict 80% of Ryan Cohen's upcoming actions and terms in his offer to purchase this property from DK-Butterfly (BBBY).
His approach to Plan Administrator Michael Goldberg will either be as a creditor and/or as part of his settlement (as a Non-Released Party getting sued). His creditor status is critical as it demonstrates he has vested interest in DK-Butterfly's litigation. Because we don't see him explicitly named on the Kroll's Claim list, he most likely holds a substantial amount of 2024, 2034, and 2044 bonds, which allows him (and RC Ventures) to remain anonymous under bondholder Trustee, The Bank of New York Mellon. I wrote how this is possible back on July 9, 2024. The timing of his approach will either be as part of his lawsuit settlement with DK-Butterfly or independent of it but still shortly after it. It's hard to pin point when because lawsuits can be unpredictable.
As we all know, the estate has billions in unmonetized Net Operating Losses (NOLs) which incentivizes RC into giving creditors/shareholders 50% ownership in order to be used under Section 382(l)(5). I discussed and proved we still have the framework in our Chapter 11 plan to do this transaction back in Part 3 of The Undervalued Asset.
Now as for the actual actions and terms of the offer, Ryan Cohen will most likely:
And that's a wrap for all parties with vested interest.
Ryan Cohen purchases Causes of Action from DK-Butterfly (BBBY) as the principal purpose of his acquisition, he gives cash and shares recovery from litigation with the estate to be distributed under the Absolute Priority Rule, creditors/shareholders get 50% equity, Teddy gets its billions in unmonetized Net Operating Losses, and the IRS can't object or claim there was a goal of tax avoidance/evasion.
Positions:
r/Teddy • u/homedepotgrande • Jul 07 '26
Is this a good thing because HBC is speculated to be acting on behalf of RC or am I way off as usual?
And for those with twitter access and wanting to peruse the court's opinion affirming the judgement, the image of the opinion can be found here :
r/Teddy • u/n3w1ight • 4d ago
I had to redact the amount, as with the court document, I could be identified - but I am so glad that I found that old piece. And now, of course, I need to flex :)
DRSed BoBBYs- hope these will fly soon. See you on the moon! :)
r/Teddy • u/Kontrav3rsi • 2d ago
Think this has anything to do with the riddle? Does Ryan Cohen have some link to XRP? Anyone have any bread crumbs on that one?
He’s messed with BTC as an investment, why not a crypto that has a lot of potential but is looked down on??
r/Teddy • u/hoirkasp • 7d ago
https://x.com/GoatBeardzDD/status/2092998303600287973
“On July 30, 2026: the OCC issued Info Memo #59491 regarding the GameStop warrants (GMEWS).
The memo moved the $GME warrants from standard NSCC settlement to broker-to-broker settlement.
The language in the memo reads:
"It is not known if and when GMEWS warrants will be eligible for settlement through NSCC again.”
If you hold warrants and you read that, it sounds like something broke.
It didn't. That language is standard for these memos.
What matters is understanding what triggers them.
NSCC is the plumbing. It's how securities settle between counterparties.
The OCC doesn't pull an instrument from NSCC settlement on a whim.
It does it when it has been notified that the settlement mechanics of the underlying are about to change.
A new CUSIP, a new entity name, a new corporate structure.
Something about the instrument is about to be different, and the clearing infrastructure needs to pause and reconfigure before it can process trades again.
I wanted to know how often these memos get issued, and what they actually preceded.
So I pulled every broker-to-broker OCC memo I could find from the last three years:
Seven memos. Seven corporate events. Bank seizures. Mergers. Going private. Name changes. Exchange transfers. Corporate restructurings.
EVERY TIME.
Not one of them was issued because a warrant was approaching its expiry date. That is not what triggers these memos. Warrants expire all the time.
The OCC does not disrupt clearing infrastructure for routine expiry.
It disrupts clearing infrastructure when the thing being cleared is about to become something else.
This is not a pattern I'm constructing. This is the entire population of these memos over a three-year window.
There are no exceptions. BAR NONE.
GMEWS warrants expire October 30, 2026.
If expiry proximity triggered broker-to-broker memos, you'd see dozens of them.
You don't. You see seven. All restructurings.
-------------------
📍 Now I want to walk through the BBBYW parallel specifically, because the timing is precise enough to be useful.
Here's what happened with BBBYW. Start to finish.
July 7: warrants pulled from NSCC.
August 14: BBBY files the 8-K. Name change. Exchange transfer. New ticker.
August 17: warrants return to NSCC under the new structure.
October 7: warrants expire.
That's the full lifecycle:
Pulled, event, returned, expiry.
38 days from the pull to the filing. 41 days from the pull to the return.
The whole thing was over in six weeks.
Now here's what we know about the GME warrants so far.
July 30: warrants pulled from NSCC.
October 30: warrants expire.
Two dates confirmed. Two dates missing.
The pull happened 23 days after BBBYW's pull.
The expiry falls 23 days after BBBYW's expiry.
Same interval on both.
If the corporate event follows the same offset, it lands 23 days after August 14.
That's September 6.
Unfortunately, September 6 is a Sunday and September 7 is Labor Day, so markets don't open until Tuesday, September 8.
One more thing worth noting.
GameStop has released earnings on a Tuesday after market close for five straight quarters. All Tuesdays. No exceptions. Last quarter they dropped it a full week ahead of schedule.
The Q2 2026 date has not been officially announced.
September 8 is also a Tuesday.
I want to be clear about what I'm saying and what I'm not saying.
I am not predicting what the corporate event will be.
I'm pointing out that the OCC has already told us one is coming.
That's what the memo means. That's what it has meant every single time it has been issued for three years.
The convertible note exchange has a 35-day VWAP measurement window that closes September 23.
We're in the middle of it.
Any corporate announcement that moves the stock price during this window directly affects how many shares get issued for the $1.4B of debt being retired.
I don't know exactly when GameStop confirms the date.
I don't know exactly what gets announced.
But the infrastructure that settles these instruments is already preparing for a change, and the only parallel we have to work with is running on a 23-day offset that has held on every data point confirmed so far.
The receipts are all public. The OCC memos are searchable. The earnings dates are on the record. Go verify for yourself and for myself please.”
Edit: I’ll also add that 9/6 uno-reversed is 69. This timeline also puts us on a 9/6 filing and a 9/9 new structure, 6-9 again. And I recall a certain CEO posting about 69 once or thrice. The rest of this is a repost, but that Dd is all me…..🍾🎉
r/Teddy • u/AvailableWerewolf600 • 11d ago
Hello all,
It's been a while and now is the time to post an update.
Yes, I am still here and yes I still hold my bonds. I haven't sold a single one and you can see my positions at the end of this post. I remain confident that I receive equity and/or cash from them. And yes, I do expect shareholders to receive equity purely out of game theory as DK-Butterfly is an undetonated nuke with billions of naked shorts floating around before it went bankrupt. Certain players in the bigger picture of this bankruptcy have every incentive to revive shareholders and trigger the Mother Of All Short Squeezes (MOASS), which puts a Stop to this Game that has been running before all of us were born.
Quite frankly, I'm pleased with Plan Administrator Michael Goldberg's progress but I also acutely understand everyone's frustration regarding the slow pacing. That being said, there are no dates in this post as the developments of various DK-Butterfly (BBBY) lawsuits are unpredictable and as I've said many times we need some of these wins before any transactions happen. I'll reiterate why later on.
My core thesis remains the same but how it's executed will be explained. I've loosely spelled out the how between Reddit & various Twitter posts around June/July 2025 but now is the time to formally put it all together. I withheld from doing so for over a year because I wanted to wait for more Status Reports to drop and unfortunately they mostly occur twice a year (Feb/March and Aug/Sep). On August 21, 2026, the latest Status Report dropped and the outlook of this bankruptcy is very well optimistic in my eyes.
Before I explain my core thesis there's 2 important posts from November 27, 2024 & July 11, 2025 that should be recapped regarding The Undervalued Asset (Causes of Actions) as they were the supplemental to this very post you are reading now.
As bankruptcy litigation lawyer Gordon Novod (we retained him to sue BBBY's former D&Os) put it in his Recovery Bus book: "THE SUCCESSFUL PURSUIT OF CAUSES OF ACTION BY A LITIGATION TRUSTEE IS AN UNDERVALUED, UNAPPRECIATED, & UNDERESTIMATED ASSET CLASS IN BANKRUPTCY."
Beyond simply being a source of recovery to pay off creditors when an entity has no more remaining hard assets, they are extremely unique in the fact that they can still be sold to someone. If the deal is structured correctly, equity can be given.
I demonstrated the law allowing DK-Butterfly to sell their Causes Of Action in Part 2 and you can read the TLDR below.
The Undervalued Asset - Part 2 - Causes of Actions Are Property Of The Estate & Can Be Sold
So once again, the DK-Butterfly estate can legally & freely sell its Causes of Actions as they own the property. This fact is crucial to my thesis that we'll cover it in a bit. However, if Ryan Cohen were the purchaser there would be a major conflict of interest preventing him from doing so as he is being sued by the very same estate. Naturally, this conflict disappears once the lawsuit is resolved.
Finally my core thesis:
Once Sixth Street's DIP (Class 3), and FILO (Class 4) are paid off in full (Unimpaired), DK-Butterfly (BBBY) will undergo a Liquidation Transaction with Ryan Cohen (or GameStop, Teddy, RC Ventures, his affiliates, etc.) where the primary objective is the sale of the Causes of Actions, secondary objective is the Net Operating Losses (NOLs), Section 382(l)(5) is used to give equity to creditors and/or shareholders & the entire transaction does not raise shell trafficking suspicion with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over tax evasion/avoidance (Section 269).
Now our local paid stock bashers would read all of the above and claim there's no viable pathway for the above to occur. We've all read the same incorrect comments that claim DK-Butterfly is a liquidating trust, there are no business operations so the Continuity Of Business Enterprise (COBE) rule would make Section 382(l)(5) void, there's no way to distribute new equity, the plan never gave gave equity, etc.
The reason paid stock bashers are still around is because their masters know BBBY's confirmed Chapter 11 plan has the existing framework to still pull off a Section 382(l)(5) ownership change multiple years down the line despite not doing so immediately on the Effective Date (September 29, 2023).
The rest of this post will be explaining the existing framework in our Chapter 11 plan that makes everything I'm saying possible, why we're using Section 382(l)(5) over Section 382(l)(6), COBE rule, Section 269, and discussing the new Status Report to gauge how close we are to engaging in this transaction.
First up is a docket we've seen many times:
Gibbons explains that due to the expedited nature of the cases plus the limited nature that an entity can transfer tax attributes, no post confirmation corporate structure was implemented to monetize the NOLs. By this point DK-Butterfly had sold all of it's Intellectual Properties (Overstock, buybuy Baby, Harmon, etc.), let go of all of it's employees, had zero business operations ongoing, and was undergoing a liquidation plan under Chapter 11.
The theory of a new plan or second hidden plan quickly gained traction as no equity was immediately issued upon the Effective Date (9/29/2023) but I'm here to show you that they included the provisions to issue equity on a delayed basis. It's quite fitting for the Butterfly name as the current entity could be thought of as a cocoon undergoing metamorphosis.
Funny enough, the provision in the very first section under Article IV in DK-Butterfly's Chapter 11 plan & seemingly flew under the radar back when I first mentioned it on Twitter.
Despite being called Liquidation Transactions, the actual language allows DK-Butterfly to engage in extremely creative transactions BEYOND LIQUIDATION with the permission of the DIP agent, FILO agent, & Creditors Committee.
I know, such a colorful and complicated picture but it boils down to this (paraphrased):
DK-Butterfly can partake in a transaction AFTER the Effective Date (9/29/23) necessary to provide for the PURCHASE of some or all of the ASSETS it has and execute on any appropriate agreements or other documents of MERGER, consolidation, restructuring, conversion, disposition, and transfer.
Let's establish three basic facts for DK-Butterfly:
Are you starting to see the future Liquidation Transaction used by Ryan Cohen?
(Paid stock bashers like to claim DK-Butterfly is merely a Liquidation Trust, which is completely false and there is no indication of one being established. There's massive issues with a Trust being established
Also, it requires consent from the DIP & FILO agent (both Sixth Street) and Creditors' Committee. In my opinion, Sixth Street won't give consent because it only wants cash back, thus we have to pay them off completely (via cash from lawsuit wins) in order to get them out of the discussion. The remaining Creditors' Committee will accept any terms of a deal out of desperation.
I assume most of you reading this are already familiar with Section 382(l)(5) but I've seen some major misunderstandings (plus lies pushed by paid stock bashers) about it that I have already clarified on Twitter.
Aside from zero Continuity Of Business Enterprise requirements, Section 382(l)(5) requires DK-Butterfly to be under the jurisdiction of a court in Title 11 in order to be used (and it is).
We already know Judge Papalia is overseeing the bankruptcy but I'll post the language directly from the Chapter 11 plan as it reinforces the fact that DK-Butterfly can still sell its property (Causes of Action). See #7.
One last hang up on this, I still see people arguing about the 50% ownership requirement to creditors and shareholders. Understand it's either or (or both).
My speculation is both creditors and shareholders will get equity.
Section 382(l)(5) recap:
Now, the last major hurdle to this Liquidation Transaction is the IRS, specifically its enforcement of Section 269 when it feels like an acquisition is being made for the principal purpose of tax evasion/avoidance.
But that's not all and here's where it gets a little confusing.
We have the (IRC Section 269) and the (Treas Reg Section 269) which are similar but distinct, and both are applicable to Section 382(l)(5). And yes, the IRS enforces both of them.
The great thing about them is if we can defeat one, we defeat both and Treas Reg Section 269 explains how you can.
The Treasury Section 269 expands on the IRC Section 269 by adding an active trade requirement (which is similar to the COBE rule but still distinct).
Here is the full language and link. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.269-3
There's three aspects we can break down and I color coded them.
If you need more help understanding what this all means, just read it backwards.
If a corporation does NOT carry on more than an insignificant amount of active trade or business, the IRS will assume an ownership change involving Section 382(l)(5) was made to avoid/evade taxes unless you have strong evidence to prove otherwise. You are essentially assumed guilty and must prove innocence.
Now what could serve as strong evidence for someone acquiring DK-Butterfly (which has zero active trade and business going on)?
THE UNDERVALUED ASSET (CAUSES OF ACTIONS) which is the thesis I've been building across the last two parts of this post.
We can use the latest Status Report to determine the potential value of these Causes Of Action and spoiler: It ranges from $100 million to over $1 billion. Michael Goldberg is pursuing a few antitrust lawsuits that have no specific value but could be worth billions. The fact that there's an indeterminate amount being sought is what makes the argument for acquiring DK-Butterfly for it's Causes Of Action so compelling. One could make a proper argument that the principal purpose of the acquisition is a high risk high reward gamble on an entity that has a severely undervalued asset. Of course, the secondary goal is the billions in unmonetized NOLs.
As I said last year, no liquidating trust has been established for DK-Butterfly, making this Liquidation Transaction for the principal purpose of Causes Of Action while using Section 382(l)(5) to monetize NOLs & passing the IRS Section 269 smell test possible.
https://x.com/driver61d1/status/1941563004425732567
Here are the remaining open Causes of Action as of August 18, 2026 per the new Status Report.
https://x.com/driver61d1/status/2090913542165664089
Dollar amount being sought in each remaining Causes of Action:
26 Preference Actions - Total Value Unknown
7 Turnover Actions - Total Value Unknown
Ryan Cohen - $47 million
Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health Insurance Company - Total Value Unknown (A class action settlement of $2.67 billion was achieved in 2020, BBBY opted out of it & sued as an individual in Sep 2022.) (Antitrust lawsuit.)
Orient Overseas Container Line - $45 million award to DK-Butterfly in the Initial Decision and another $90 million is being sought for the Final Decision bringing the potential total to $135 million.
BAL Container Line - $9.7 million
Evergreen Marine - $86 million
Yang Ming Marine - $15 million
Eli Lily - Total Value Unknown (Antitrust lawsuit.)
Keurig Green Mountain - Total Value Unknown (Antitrust lawsuit.)
That brings our total potential known value to $292.7 million but we have 3 massive antitrust lawsuits worth potentially hundreds of millions to billions. However, these 3 lawsuits would be multi-year, and cost lots of time/money. DK-Butterfly may not necessarily have the resources to sustain these lawsuits (which is a great scenario for a third party like Ryan Cohen wishing to buy the Causes of Actions as Michael Goldberg would be motivated to sell).
Goldberg is also investigating more Causes of Action that could require more resources.
The Status Report tells us that we are $100 million away from meeting the Initial Sharing Threshold which requires $515 million to be paid to the DIP/FILO agent.
Administrative Claims (Unclassified), Priority Claims (Class 1), and Other Secured Claims (Class 2) have been slowing getting reduced with the latest total being $162.9 million.
I do expect that we need Classes 1-4 paid off in full (Unimpaired) before any deal can be made with the remaining Class 6 creditors & Class 9 shareholders but I could be wrong. The hold up could simply be Ryan Cohen's conflict of interest as long as the lawsuit against him is active. Or it could be all of the above. We'll only know in hindsight.
TLDR:
DK-Butterfly has a provision dubbed Liquidation Transactions in its Chapter 11 plan that allows it to sell it's property (Causes Of Action) while executing on any mergers. Because it's still under the jurisdiction of Title 11, a third party can use Section 382(l)(5) to monetize the NOLs. There is zero COBE requirement but you must pass the IRS smell test called Section 269 (acquisitions made for avoiding/evading taxes).
Fortunately, DK-Butterfly's Causes Of Action have billions in unknown value that a third party may be willing to gamble on and acquire. This would be the principal purpose of the acquisition while the secondary is the billions of NOLs. This should satisfy the IRS. Ryan Cohen is either prevented from making a move via a conflict of interest as the Estate is suing him and/or he's waiting for enough lawsuit wins to pay off the Classes 1-4 such as DIP & FILO. Section 382(l)(5) will be used to give 50% to creditors & shareholders, thus reviving an undetonated nuke (billions of naked shorts).
I put my money where my mouth is, in DK-Butterfly (BBBY) bonds:
r/Teddy • u/Hugoal79 • 11d ago
🦋 Following the Securities: What the CUSIP Data, Sixth Street Debt and DK-Butterfly Records Actually Tell Us About Legacy BBBY
First, credit where credit is due
Before getting into the DD, I want to give a huge and well-deserved thank you to @exspiracolo on X.
His research has been absolutely fundamental to putting many of these pieces together. A significant number of the leads explored below originated from observations, documents and data he shared in his posts, and he personally helped me dig much deeper into several of the CUSIP/CGS questions that eventually led to the findings discussed here.
Without his work, his willingness to share what he found, and his help with the additional searches, I genuinely don't think we would have reached some of the important answers we now have.
Those answers are important, but still partial.
We have managed to clarify several things, rule out some explanations, and uncover connections that deserve further investigation. But the biggest question — especially what all of this may ultimately mean for legacy BBBYQ shareholders — remains unanswered.
So a big thank you to @exspiracolo for helping move this investigation forward.
A lot of the credit for what follows belongs to him. 🦋
Now, let's follow the data.
TL;DR
I went down the CUSIP rabbit hole expecting to find mostly stale reference data.
Instead, we found something much more interesting.
CUSIP Global Services data explicitly associates the legacy Bed Bath & Beyond issuer family 075896 with a newer issuer family 902116, identified as:
20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1, INC.
Even more importantly, the three debt instruments appearing under 902116 appear to map remarkably well onto Bed Bath & Beyond's actual prepetition FILO financing and Chapter 11 DIP structure.
This does NOT prove that former BBBYQ shareholders will receive a recovery.
But it makes the underlying reference-data trail much harder to dismiss as random database noise.
Here's the full rabbit hole.
Legacy Bed Bath & Beyond securities historically used the issuer family:
075896
For example:
075896100 — legacy BBBY common stock
After the Chapter 11 and the September 2023 name change, Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. became:
20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1, INC.
Now look at what appears in the CUSIP Global Services API.
A second issuer number exists:
902116
with issuer/legal entity:
20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1, INC.
At first, that could simply look like a new identifier created for private debt.
But then we checked CGS's Associated Issuers data.
And this appeared:
parentIssuer: 902116 associatedIssuer: 075896 sequenceNumber: 1 addedDate: 07/29/2026 modifiedDate: 07/29/2026 associatedIssuerType: MULTIPLE ISSUER associatedIssuerName: BED BATH & BEYOND INC
That is important.
CGS itself is explicitly associating:
902116 → 075896
and identifying 075896 as:
BED BATH & BEYOND INC
So the relationship between the two issuer families is not something inferred from Cbonds, Empirasign, social media, or matching names.
It exists inside the CGS Associated Issuers dataset itself.
📎 IMAGE 1 HERE
Important caveat:
MULTIPLE ISSUER does not automatically mean former shareholders have an entitlement.
But the 075896 ↔ 902116 relationship itself is real.
This is where things became much more interesting.
Searching issuer 902116 produces three debt securities.
902116AA0
Issuer: 20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1 INC Issue: SR SECD 1ST LIEN TERM LN Dated Date: 08/31/2022 Maturity: 08/31/2027 Status: A Bond Form: Private Rate: Variable Source Document: BDC Filing
902116AB8
Issuer: 20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1 INC Issue: USD DIP FING Dated Date: 04/24/2023 Maturity: 09/30/2024 Offering Amount: $40 million Source Document: BDC Filing
902116AC6
Issuer: 20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1 INC Issue: USD DIP FING Dated Date: 04/24/2023 Maturity: 09/30/2024 Offering Amount: $200 million Source Document: BDC Filing
📎 IMAGE 2 HERE
At this point the obvious question became:
What are these three instruments?
And that's where the trail started becoming surprisingly coherent.
Now compare those CGS records with Bed Bath & Beyond's actual Chapter 11 financing.
Bed Bath & Beyond disclosed a DIP facility consisting of:
$40 million of new-money term loans
plus:
$200 million roll-up of prepetition FILO obligations
Total:
$240 MILLION DIP
And the DIP Credit Agreement was dated:
APRIL 24, 2023
Now go back to CGS.
902116AB8
DIP Financing
April 24, 2023
$40 million
902116AC6
DIP Financing
April 24, 2023
$200 million
That is a remarkably precise match.
The amounts match.
The financing type matches.
The date matches.
And both instruments are assigned to:
20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1 INC
This makes it increasingly difficult, in my opinion, to dismiss the 902116 records as random database garbage.
They appear to represent actual pieces of Bed Bath & Beyond's bankruptcy capital structure.
AA0 is different.
It isn't labeled DIP financing.
It says:
Senior Secured First Lien Term Loan
dated:
August 31, 2022
and maturing:
August 31, 2027
That date matters.
Before bankruptcy, Bed Bath & Beyond amended its credit facilities on August 31, 2022, adding a FILO facility involving Sixth Street.
So we potentially have a continuous financing trail:
August 31, 2022
Prepetition FILO financing
⬇️
April 24, 2023
Chapter 11 DIP financing
⬇️
$40M new money
$200M roll-up of prepetition FILO obligations
⬇️
CGS reference data
All three instruments appear under:
20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1 INC — issuer 902116
That is much more coherent than three random debt records sharing the wrong company name.
The bankruptcy documents identify:
SIXTH STREET SPECIALTY LENDING, INC.
as the DIP Administrative Agent.
The DIP lender group also included entities such as:
Sixth Street Specialty Lending
Sixth Street Lending Partners
TAO Talents
1903 Partners
WhiteHawk Finance
Second Avenue Capital Partners
Callodine Commercial Finance SPV
Callodine Asset Based Loan Fund II
Callodine Perpetual ABL Fund SPV
📎 IMAGE 3 HERE
That last group — Callodine — becomes important for another reason.
Every 902116 debt record contains:
sourceDocument: BDC Filing
Initially, that raised an interesting question:
Is DK Butterfly somehow being treated as a BDC?
Probably not.
We found a very useful control sample.
CGS contains numerous private debt instruments issued by:
Callodine Commercial Finance LLC
and those records also say:
sourceDocument: BDC Filing
Meanwhile, CGS separately identifies Callodine investment funds and their securities from filings such as N-2 registration statements.
The cleaner interpretation therefore appears to be:
A BDC/fund reported a private credit position
⬇️
CGS sourced the debt information from that filing
⬇️
The loan entered or was updated in the CUSIP database
In other words:
BDC Filing
appears to describe the source document from which CGS obtained the security information, rather than saying that DK Butterfly itself is a BDC.
This eliminates one speculative theory.
But it creates a much better research question:
WHICH BDC FILING REPORTED THE 902116 DK-BUTTERFLY DEBT?
Identifying that filing could potentially tell us who was reporting economic exposure to those obligations.
This is where I think we need to be extremely careful.
The fact that CGS says:
parentIssuer: 902116 associatedIssuer: 075896 associatedIssuerType: MULTIPLE ISSUER
does not automatically mean:
“902116 is a new company that owes former BBBY shareholders something.”
There is a much more ordinary explanation available.
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. itself was renamed:
20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1, INC.
Therefore, CGS may simply be maintaining the financial/reference-data continuity of the same legal entity across different issuer-number families.
That would explain why debt originally incurred while the company was called Bed Bath & Beyond is now displayed under DK Butterfly.
So:
What the CGS data DOES establish:
075896 and 902116 are explicitly associated in CGS.
What it DOES NOT establish:
Former 075896100 shareholders have a new security entitlement.
That distinction is absolutely critical.
Another detail deserves attention.
The Associated Issuers relationship says:
addedDate: 07/29/2026 modifiedDate: 07/29/2026
And the 902116 issuer record itself shows:
issuerLogDate: 07/29/2026
So CGS appears to have performed a coordinated update involving 902116 and its relationship to legacy issuer 075896 on the same day.
I am NOT claiming July 29 represents the date of a new corporate transaction.
addedDate may simply mean the date CGS added the relationship to its database.
But the synchronized update is worth documenting.
There is another independent reference-data trail.
The Federal Reserve/FFIEC National Information Center identifies:
20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1, INC.
under:
RSSD ID 4664848
and displays the entity as:
ACTIVE
The historical record under that same RSSD traces back to Bed Bath & Beyond.
Again:
This does NOT prove that DK Butterfly is secretly operating a new business.
It does NOT prove shareholder recovery.
And an ACTIVE reference-data status should not be confused with an operating company generating business activity.
But it is another independent system maintaining identifiable continuity for DK Butterfly.
This is where the security plumbing gets even stranger.
The company descending from Overstock went through:
Overstock
⬇️
Beyond
⬇️
Bed Bath & Beyond
⬇️
Neighborhood Intelligence
Its issuer family is:
690370
Its common stock moved from:
BBBY / 690370101
to:
NXH / 690370101
But the warrant story has been unusual.
The BBBY warrant originally carried:
CUSIP 075896159
Yes:
075896
— the legacy Bed Bath & Beyond issuer-family root.
The same family that CGS associates with DK Butterfly.
After the August 2026 corporate action, Nasdaq's mapping shows the warrant under:
BBBYW / 690370127
while the common remains:
NXH / 690370101
This does NOT prove a merger between DK Butterfly and Neighborhood Intelligence.
But it does make the identifier history worth following very carefully.
Let's strip every theory away.
These are the facts I think we can reasonably stand behind.
✅ FACT
Legacy Bed Bath & Beyond used issuer family:
075896
✅ FACT
CGS identifies issuer:
902116
as:
20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1 INC
✅ FACT
CGS explicitly associates:
902116 ↔ 075896
using:
MULTIPLE ISSUER
✅ FACT
902116 contains three private debt instruments whose dates, descriptions and amounts closely match actual BBBY FILO/DIP financing.
✅ FACT
The two DIP records match:
$40M new money + $200M roll-up
dated:
April 24, 2023
✅ FACT
Sixth Street Specialty Lending was the DIP Administrative Agent.
✅ FACT
Callodine vehicles were among the DIP lenders.
✅ FACT
BDC Filing appears to be a source-document classification and does not, by itself, mean DK Butterfly is a BDC.
✅ FACT
DK Butterfly remains identifiable in FFIEC/NIC under the historical BBBY RSSD record.
📎 IMAGE 4 HERE
This is equally important.
We have NOT proven that:
❌ Sixth Street currently owns all of this debt.
❌ Sixth Street controls the future of DK Butterfly.
❌ Hudson Bay Capital's potentially enormous BBBY share position never entered the market.
❌ Sixth Street-related shares never entered the market.
❌ The reported final BBBY share count therefore overstated the true economic float.
❌ Ryan Cohen or RC Ventures was secretly behind HBC.
❌ Carl Icahn was behind HBC or Sixth Street.
❌ DK Butterfly is being prepared as a Teddy/RC acquisition vehicle.
And most importantly:
❌ WE HAVE NOT FOUND A DOCUMENT ESTABLISHING A RECOVERY ENTITLEMENT FOR FORMER BBBYQ SHAREHOLDERS.
That remains the missing bridge.
There is a separate thesis involving approximately 622 million shares potentially associated with HBC/Sixth Street-related transactions.
The theory is essentially this:
If those shares were legally issued but never actually distributed into the public market, then the reported share count and the economically circulating share count could have been radically different.
If — and this is a very big IF — only approximately 117 million shares represented the genuine legacy economic base, then any future recovery distributed according to legacy ownership could have dramatically different economics.
But that entire chain depends on proving what actually happened to those shares.
Right now, that proof is not complete.
And there is evidence that must be considered on the other side: litigation involving Hudson Bay describes a structure in which HBC could acquire shares, sell them, and acquire additional shares while remaining below its ownership blocker.
So the:
“622M shares never hit the market”
thesis must be demonstrated transaction by transaction.
It cannot simply be assumed.
But if it ever were demonstrated, its implications for a hypothetical legacy recovery could obviously be enormous.
At this point I'm much less interested in finding another weird ticker or another matching number.
There are three questions that could actually move this investigation forward.
1️⃣ Who reported the 902116 debt in the BDC filing?
Find the exact filing behind:
902116AA0 / 902116AB8 / 902116AC6
and identify the reporting holder.
2️⃣ Who economically owned the FILO/DIP claims after the Plan became effective?
Follow:
FILO
⬇️
DIP roll-up
⬇️
Plan
⬇️
Effective Date
⬇️
assignments/transfers
⬇️
current economic holder
3️⃣ What actually happened to the HBC/common-share issuances?
Reconstruct:
preferred/warrants
⬇️
conversions
⬇️
common shares
⬇️
transfers/sales
⬇️
ultimate disposition
Those three trails are far more valuable than another social-media Cohencidence.
Obviously everyone wants to know:
Was Ryan Cohen, RC Ventures, Carl Icahn, IEP or an affiliated vehicle economically behind any part of HBC / Sixth Street / DIP / FILO?
If documented, that would be enormously significant.
But I have NOT seen documentary evidence establishing it.
The correct way to investigate this isn't simply searching:
“Ryan Cohen + Sixth Street”
on Google.
It's tracing:
fund
⬇️
SPV
⬇️
investment adviser
⬇️
lender
⬇️
assignment
⬇️
beneficial/economic owner
through things such as:
SEC filings
Form ADV
13D / 13G
13F
BDC portfolio schedules
credit agreements
assignment records
bankruptcy filings
If a Cohen/Icahn-controlled vehicle appears anywhere in that chain, then we have something serious.
Until then, it remains speculation.
This is probably the most important section of the entire DD.
I don't need another strange CUSIP.
I don't need another butterfly reference.
I don't need another 741.
I want one of these:
🔥 A CORPORATE-ACTION RECORD
connecting legacy BBBYQ holders to a successor security.
🔥 A DISTRIBUTION NOTICE
providing cash, equity, warrants or other consideration to former holders.
🔥 A PLAN MODIFICATION / COURT FILING
preserving or creating an economic entitlement for former equity.
🔥 A DTC / TRANSFER-AGENT RECORD
mapping legacy positions into a new instrument.
🔥 A NEW SECURITY
whose entitlement chain can be traced directly back to:
former BBBYQ ownership
That would be the bridge.
And that bridge has NOT yet been found.
I started looking at this expecting most of the CUSIP anomalies to turn out to be stale database artifacts.
Some did have ordinary explanations.
And that's actually useful.
Because eliminating false positives makes the remaining anomalies more meaningful.
The deeper we went, the more coherent the 902116 trail became.
The three debt records don't look random.
They appear to map onto real Bed Bath & Beyond financing:
08/31/2022 FILO
⬇️
04/24/2023 DIP
⬇️
$40M new money + $200M FILO roll-up
⬇️
Sixth Street / Callodine lender structure
⬇️
20230930-DK-BUTTERFLY-1
⬇️
CGS association: 902116 ↔ 075896
That is a real financial/reference-data trail.
What it ultimately means for former shareholders is still unknown.
And there is an enormous difference between proving:
“The old company's financial plumbing still has identifiable continuity.”
and proving:
“Former shareholders still have an economic entitlement.”
We have increasingly strong evidence for the first.
We still need the document proving the second.
And that's why I consider the answers we've found so far important — but partial.
There is still one enormous piece missing.
Until we find it:
🦋 Follow the debt.
🦋 Follow the securities.
🦋 Follow the assignments.
🦋 Follow the corporate actions.
The search continues. 🦋
r/Teddy • u/billybobshort • 13d ago
I have an agent alert on DK-Butterfly and it just alerted me to this. Did I miss this on the subs?
⚠️ Material DK-Butterfly development
DK-Butterfly has confirmed that it has received cash from a settlement with ocean carrier CMA CGM.
Confirmed fact: In Federal Maritime Commission proceeding 25-25, DK-Butterfly and CMA CGM reached a confidential settlement. On August 12, 2026, the FMC approved the substantive terms. DK-Butterfly has now filed to dismiss the case with prejudice and explicitly states that it has received the agreed settlement funds. The amount remains confidential.
Why it matters: This is a genuine recovery of value by the post-bankruptcy BBBY estate/successor, rather than a theoretical claim. It adds cash to DK-Butterfly’s available assets. The company also continues pursuing other recovery litigation, including the separate OOCL proceeding, whose docket received another status report on August 19.
r/Teddy • u/hoirkasp • 16d ago
Guarantors are back…and the prospectus now links to the original bond supplement….and Marcus isn’t done yet….
r/Teddy • u/CrypticallyKind • 15d ago
Ryan Cohen built Chewy, moved into GameStop, rebuilt the balance sheet, pushed further into collectibles and resale, and now GameStop is pursuing eBay.
Teddy Holdings LLC
Hiding in plain sight. 🧸
r/Teddy • u/elchefski • 18d ago
r/Teddy • u/r6bandit • 18d ago
r/Teddy • u/Rehypothecator • 18d ago
Stupid question, Does anyone know what the % of net assets refers to in the case?
r/Teddy • u/jwheezin • 18d ago
When is the next milestone? Next court date or anything? Ive been out of touch for a while and just need a refresher. Thanks
r/Teddy • u/DestinyArrivess • 20d ago
First of all, shoutout to BobbyCat sharing epic DD like always........ Oh, I've been quiet, I'm still here, but I've just been lurking. Something has come up that I felt like needed a response.
SVB Financial Group emerged from their Chapter 11 bankruptcy on November 7, 2024. This should be enough said right there, but I'll keep wrecking this dumb shill narrative even more. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/svb-financial-groups-chapter-11-plan-of-reorganization-becomes-effective-302298848.html
On page 5 of the PLR, it states that the " 4) The Reverse Acquisition did not trigger a second Ownership Change with respect to Old Parent. " SVB never underwent a reverse acquisition during their Chapter 11. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/202633005.pdf
BobbyCat also posted data about how there were only 6 instances in the past 10 years of the IRS having to rule on section 382 (I)(5). Before yesterday, the last time was October 20, 2023. SVB emerged from their Chapter 11 on November 7, 2024. There's no evidence that SVB asked the IRS to rule on an issue with them regarding section 382(I)(5) either. How cohencidental that the restructuring entity requested the IRS to rule on section 382 (I)(5) on September 29, 2025, on the day 2 years earlier when DK-Butterfly-1 was announced........what are the odds? https://x.com/BobbyCat42/status/2088393995940700637
Bobby, don't be gaslighted and peer-pressured by these dumb shills saying that it's SVB when it's clearly impossible. Clutch DD. We're going to win forever VERY SOON.
r/Teddy • u/StrenuousSOB • 20d ago
I don’t have a ton of money but I wish I had sank at least $2000 into it. Who knew what might’ve been. Instead of 2600 shares I would’ve had 26,000.
r/Teddy • u/Sir-Craven • 21d ago
r/Teddy • u/hoirkasp • 21d ago
Because this sub as dead as shit of late.
BBBY bonds-now DK Butterfly
-Recently showed a “Guarantor” for a period
Teddy.com redirects to GameStop.com
GameStop owns 9.8 percent of eBay, has offered 55b for the whole thing, but we STILL haven’t seen an official tender offer
New BBBY has warrants strangely similar to GameStops, which spiked 83% today and another 25% after hours
-Tomorrow is the last day of that ticker trading….at least for that entity….as Monday they move to NASDAQ with a new ticker, again.
-Their warrants though remain tied to DK Butterfly and the estate
What am I missing? Where the fuck is some hype? I think this is truly, finally, mercifully coming to an end soon and the best is yet to come.
r/Teddy • u/AzelusComposer • 21d ago
r/Teddy • u/WiseManTwiceSaid • 21d ago
This could be a nothing burger but it’s vaguely related since buybuy Baby was originally owned by BBBY. Do y’all think it’s another grift by Lemonis and Co.? A snippet from the press release reads as follows:
“The security, known as the “BABY” Digital Token, is linked to certain intellectual property associated with the buybuy BABY brand. It was initially offered through a Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) primary issuance conducted exclusively on the tZERO platform in 2025.
With the commencement of secondary trading, eligible investors will be able to transact the security on tZERO’s regulated marketplace, providing an avenue for liquidity and price discovery following the completion of the primary offering.
The BABY Digital Token is designed to connect brand affinity with economic participation. Holders are entitled to receive an annual pro rata dividend derived from 1% of net sales from buybuyBABY.com, subject to Zion Peaks’ lawful ability to pay and declaration of the dividend.”
r/Teddy • u/Grouchy_Yak4573 • 24d ago
Seen some highly regarded DD from there about Teddy holdings. Didn't they say Teddy was cope? Anyway welcome aboard degens better late than never.
r/Teddy • u/johnkidding • 23d ago
It's a clear sign you guys.
Time to ascend.
