A Forensic Investigation of the Left v. Anson Dispute and the Weaponization of Regulatory Probes

Executive Summary:

This report’s central conclusion is that a lawsuit filed by short seller Andrew Left on October 31, 2025, is not a simple grievance. It is a calculated maneuver to aid his own criminal defense.

This investigation analyzes the suit, in which Left accuses hedge fund Anson Funds Management LP (Anson) of lying to the SEC. We conclude this is the toxic fallout of a prior, fraudulent partnership. Left’s suit stems directly from his own July 2024 criminal indictment for making false statements to federal investigators.¹ That indictment was built on Anson’s cooperation with regulators.²

Left faces a March 2026 criminal trial.¹ He also recently failed to have his indictment dismissed.¹ He is therefore likely weaponizing this new civil suit to create a counternarrative, generate favorable discovery, and attack the credibility of his co-conspirator.

The original fraud was their collusive “balance sheet arrangement.” This was a profit-sharing scheme concealed with fake invoices.³ This new lawsuit is a public battle between two compromised actors.

Key Findings:

Strategic Timing: The 2025 lawsuit was filed after Left’s pre-trial motions in his criminal case were denied ¹, indicating its primary motive is to aid his criminal defense.
Compromised Actors: Both Left (the accuser) and Anson (the accused) are compromised, having been subject to 2024 SEC/DOJ enforcement actions for the same underlying scheme.¹
Original Fraud: The core issue is the 2018 profit-sharing scheme, where Anson paid Left $1.1M for advance copies of bearish reports, concealing the payment via a third party and fake invoices.³

The following forensic analysis deconstructs this event in six phases, beginning with the news story that triggered the investigation.

I. Phase 1: Deconstruct the Initial News Story

This phase deconstructs the October 2025 news story itself. We treat the nature of its publication and accessibility as the first layer of evidence.

1.1 Source Credibility: The Gold Standard and the Void

The subject of this investigation is a series of articles published on October 31, 2025. The publishers are highly reputable financial news organizations: Bloomberg, the Financial Post, and Bloomberg Law.⁶

These outlets are top-tier sources for financial and legal news. They are known for rigorous editorial standards, fact-checking, and a clear distinction between reporting and opinion. Their publication of a story detailing a new lawsuit is presumptively based on a public court filing.

The headlines are consistent and specific: “Short Seller Andrew Left Says Hedge Fund Lied to SEC About Payment in Trading Probe”.⁶ This language confirms the key entities (Andrew Left, an unnamed hedge fund, the SEC) and the core allegation (lying to a federal agency about a payment in a trading probe).

1.2 The “Dog That Didn’t Bark”: Analysis of Inaccessible Primary Sources

A critical finding of this investigation, and a major red flag, is that the primary source links for the October 31, 2025, articles are “inaccessible”.⁶ This includes links from the Financial Post and Bloomberg Law.

In high-stakes securities litigation, information is a weapon. The “disappearance” of a published story from a major outlet is not a simple technical error.

For a non-expert, this is significant. It suggests the story’s allegations are so sensitive that the defendant (Anson) deployed immediate, expensive legal tactics to scrub it from the public internet.

This inaccessibility strongly suggests the defendant hedge fund took immediate, aggressive counter-legal action, likely within hours of publication. This action could include:

An emergency motion to seal the court record after Left’s filing, arguing it contained confidential information from the prior SEC probe or settlement.
An aggressive cease-and-desist or defamation notice sent to the publishers.

Publishers may have temporarily retracted the stories pending legal review. This is less common for outlets like Bloomberg, which would typically report on the legal threat itself.

This “information gap” is a significant data point.

It indicates the defendant hedge fund is highly sensitive to Left’s allegations and possesses substantial legal resources. The fund is engaged in an immediate, aggressive war to control the public narrative. This is not the behavior of a party confidently dismissing a frivolous suit.

1.3 Language and Framing: The Paradox of the Accuser

The framing of the headlines—”Short Seller Andrew Left Says Hedge Fund Lied to SEC…”—creates an immediate narrative paradox. To understand this, one must cross-reference the accuser’s (Left’s) own legal status.

In July 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the SEC charged Andrew Left with securities fraud.¹

A cornerstone of the DOJ’s criminal indictment (U.S. v. Andrew Left, 2:24-CR-456) is a specific allegation. The indictment alleges Left himself “lied to law enforcement” ¹ and “made false statements to federal investigators”.¹ These false statements were about the very same subject: his financial relationships with hedge funds.

This creates a “pot-kettle-black” scenario.

Left is a defendant in a criminal case for “making false statements”.¹ He is now filing a civil suit using the identical accusation (“lied to SEC”) against his alleged co-conspirator.

This suggests the lawsuit’s primary function is not to win a monetary judgment. Instead, its function is likely to publicly re-frame the narrative ahead of his own criminal trial.

He is attempting to paint himself as the victim of a lie, not the perpetrator of one. This could create reasonable doubt for his future jury.

1.4 Evidence Presented vs. Evidence Missing

The news headlines ⁶ present the allegation but not the evidence. The conspicuously missing primary source is the actual court filing for Left v. [Hedge Fund], October 2025.

Therefore, this investigation must proceed by using the extensive public record from the 2024 enforcement actions. We will use the Anson SEC settlement and the Left SEC/DOJ indictments to reconstruct the context and likely substance of this new 2025 complaint.

II. Phase 2: Investigate the Core “Scientific” Claims (The Financial & Legal Mechanisms)

Here, the investigation scrutinizes the “scientific” claims. In this case, these are the specific financial and legal mechanisms of the alleged fraud.

2.1 The Core Claim: Deconstructing “The Lie”

Left’s lawsuit alleges the hedge fund “lied to SEC about payment in trading probe”.⁶ We must first validate the “payment” and the “probe.”

The Probe: The SEC and DOJ have been conducting a multi-year probe. This probe targeted “short-and-distort” campaigns and the collusive relationships between hedge funds and activist short-sellers.⁴
The Payment: This probe resulted in a June 11, 2024, SEC settlement. The settlement was with the Dallas/Toronto-based hedge fund, Anson Funds Management LP and Anson Advisors Inc. (collectively, “Anson”).²
The “Original Sin”: The Anson settlement (SEC Order IA-6622) confirms the payment. Anson paid an unnamed activist short publisher over $1.1 million in shared trading profits.³ This publisher is widely identified as Andrew Left.⁴ This payment was for “balance sheet arrangements” (a term for profit-sharing ⁴). In this arrangement, Anson received advance copies of Left’s bearish reports on speculative cannabis companies, namely Namaste Technologies and India Globalization Capital.⁴

2.2 The “Extraordinary Claim”: How Anson (Allegedly) Lied

The claim is not that the payment didn’t exist. The claim is that Anson lied about its nature to the SEC.

Anson’s official stance on their $2.25 million settlement was that it was for “insufficient disclosure in our fund documents… [and] the way that certain payments… were recorded”.⁴ Anson’s principals and their supporters framed this as a minor bookkeeping and disclosure violation. As one fund manager quoted in Institutional Investor called it, a “consolation prize for some ticky tack bullshit”.⁴

However, the SEC’s actual order (IA-6622) is far more severe. The order finds that Anson willfully violated the Advisers Act.³

The SEC detailed a “Mechanism of Deceit.” This was not a simple disclosure lapse but an active, fraudulent concealment:

Anson agreed to pay Left a share of its $4.3 million in trading profits ⁵ from the short trades.
To conceal this $1.1 million payment, Anson routed it through a “third-party intermediary”.³
This intermediary then sent “invoices for purported research services that the third-party intermediary had not performed”.³
Anson paid these fake invoices, effectively laundering the payment.

Left’s 2025 lawsuit is likely based on what Anson’s principals (like Moez Kassam) or their lawyers told the SEC/DOJ during proffer sessions to get that settlement.

Anson settled “without admitting or denying the findings”.³ Left’s criminal indictment followed just one month later.¹

This timeline strongly implies Anson cooperated with the DOJ against Left. This cooperation likely secured their (relatively light) $2.25M settlement and, critically, allowed them to avoid criminal charges.

Left’s suit likely alleges that Anson affirmatively lied to investigators. This lie may have painted Left as the architect of the “fake invoice” scheme or mischaracterized their partnership to save themselves.

The DOJ’s indictment against Left hinges on him lying about receiving “compensation” and “coordinating trading”.¹

Left is now suing Anson for how they “cooperated.” He is claiming Anson’s cooperation was a self-serving lie that threw him under the bus.

2.3 Reproducibility and Data: The Chronology of Motive

The interplay of these events is validated by a precise timeline. This chronology synthesizes disparate data points into a clear causal chain. It demonstrates the direct link between Left’s 2025 lawsuit and his 2026 criminal trial.

The sequence reveals that as Anson’s legal troubles ended (with their settlement), Left’s legal troubles began (with his indictment). The timing of the October 2025 lawsuit is the lynchpin. It was filed just after Left’s pre-trial motions were denied.

Table 1: Chronology of Key Legal and Investigative Events (2018-2026)

Date	Event	Subject(s)	Significance / Source(s)
Sep/Oct 2018	“Balance Sheet Arrangement” Trades	Anson, Left (Citron)	Anson shorts cannabis stocks (IGC, NTEC) based on Left’s reports; $1.1M in profits are generated and shared via fake invoices.³
2021	DOJ/SEC Investigation Begins	Anson, Left, others	FBI seizes Left’s computers; broad probe into short-seller/hedge fund relationships begins.⁴
June 11, 2024	Anson SEC Settlement	Anson Funds	Anson settles for $2.25M “without admitting or denying” they used a third-party and fake invoices to pay Left.²
July 25, 2024	SEC & DOJ Charges Filed	Andrew Left	One month after Anson settles, Left is criminally indicted (U.S. v. Left) and sued by the SEC (SEC v. Left) for “bait-and-switch” fraud and lying to investigators.¹
July 7, 2025	Legal Setback for Left	Andrew Left	U.S. District Court denies Left’s motion to dismiss the criminal indictment.¹
Oct 6, 2025	Legal Setback for Left	Andrew Left	Court denies further pre-trial motions for Left.¹
Oct 31, 2025	The Event (This Report’s Subject)	Left, Anson, SEC	Left files a new civil suit alleging Anson lied to the SEC during the 2024 probe.⁶
March 17, 2026	Criminal Trial Scheduled	Andrew Left	The criminal trial for U.S. v. Andrew Left is scheduled to begin.¹

III. Phase 3: Investigate the Financial and Business Aspects (The Actors)

This section follows the financial trail. We investigate the backgrounds and business practices of the accuser (Left) and the accused (Anson).

3.1 Profile: The Accuser (Andrew Left / Citron Research)

From Blogger to Banned:

Andrew Left is the quintessential “activist short seller”.12 He built his brand, Citron Research, from an online blog (StockLemon.com) into a powerful, market-moving force.12

His model is to publish “in-depth and often controversial reports that identify and expose overvalued and fraudulent publicly traded companies”.¹² He later formed his own hedge fund, Citron Capital LLC.¹⁴ This evolved him from a publisher to a registered investment adviser.¹⁵

Career of Conflict:

Left’s career is defined by high-risk, high-conflict operations:

Successes & Influence: His reports have “led to considerable movements in share prices”.¹² His 2015 report on Valeant Pharmaceuticals was a high-profile success. It charged “fraudulent activities including channel stuffing” and preceded the stock’s collapse.¹²
Failures & Controversies: He has also had high-profile failures, such as shorting GameStop (GME). That event resulted in a massive short squeeze and forced him to announce Citron would no longer publish bearish reports.¹⁷
History of Sanctions: His record includes numerous regulatory conflicts. The National Futures Association (NFA) sanctioned him for “false and misleading statements to cheat, defraud or deceive a customer”.¹³ In 2016, Hong Kong’s Market Misconduct Tribunal banned him for five years for a report on Evergrande, even though his report was later proven correct.¹³

3.2 The 2024 Indictment: The Current Crisis

On July 25-26, 2024, the SEC and DOJ charged Left and Citron Capital with a multi-year, $20 million fraud scheme.¹ The indictment includes two main sets of allegations:

The “Bait-and-Switch”: The core allegation is a “bait-and-switch” tactic. Left allegedly recommended a stock (long or short) across 23 companies.² He did this while “falsely representing” his position aligned with his readers’.¹ He would then immediately trade against his own recommendation, profiting from the price movement he created.²
The “False Statement” (The Motive): A key charge, and the one most relevant to this report, is making false statements to federal investigators.¹ He “allegedly lied to law enforcement, stating that Citron ‘never’ exchanged compensation with a hedge fund”.¹ This is the explicit lie that Anson’s 2024 settlement ³ directly contradicts.

3.3 Profile: The Accused (Anson Funds Management LP)

Public Image vs. Private Reality:

Anson Funds is a $2.5 billion 4 “privately held alternative asset management firm” founded in 2003. It operates from offices in Toronto, Canada, and Dallas, Texas.19 The firm’s public materials claim a “market-agnostic approach,” “disciplined risk management,” and a focus on “low volatility”.19

Co-founder Moez Kassam ²¹ has cultivated a public image as a highly successful, mainstream philanthropist. He holds an MBA from London Business School ²¹, sits on the board of the Canadian Olympic Committee ²¹, and is lauded in promotional articles for his investment acumen ²² and charitable donations.²¹

This public image is directly contradicted by two things: online skepticism and the regulatory reality of the 2024 SEC settlement. One post alleges Anson “spent millions hiring the best in reputation management, whitewashing search engines with puff pieces”.²⁶

3.4 Corporate Structure and Transparency: The “Cross-Border” Red Flag

Anson’s corporate structure is a tool for complexity and opacity. It is a cross-border arrangement:

Anson Funds Management LP: The SEC-registered Investment Adviser. It is a Limited Partnership domiciled in Texas.²⁷
Anson Advisors Inc.: The “Exempt Reporting Adviser.” It is a corporation domiciled in Ontario, Canada.²

This bifurcation is not inherently illegal. However, it provides regulatory and legal opacity.

Critically, the SEC’s 2024 order (IA-6622) states it was Anson Advisors (the Canadian entity) that “agreed to pay the principal of a short activist firm” (Left).³ This structure allowed the fraudulent payment to be orchestrated from the Canadian “exempt reporting” entity. This added a layer of insulation and complexity for US regulators.

3.5 The 2024 Settlement: Anson’s Public Deception

Anson’s $2.25M settlement ² was, as one manager called it, a “consolation prize for some ticky tack bullshit”.⁴ Anson’s public statements reinforced this. They claimed the SEC charges focused on “insufficient disclosure” and “the way… payments… were recorded”.⁴

This public characterization is itself misleading. The SEC order ³ details willful, fraudulent acts, not passive disclosure failures. These acts include:

“Concealing payments…through third-party intermediaries.”
“Mischaracterizing trading profit payments as unperformed ‘research services’.”
Making “fraudulent entries in recordkeeping documents.”

This is not a disclosure failure. It is an active, fraudulent concealment scheme.

The “lie” that Left alleges in his 2025 suit is rooted in Anson’s proven 2024 deception.

IV. Phase 4: Analyze External Influences and Non-Traditional Factors

This phase analyzes the external ecosystem. We focus on the high-risk financial typologies and predatory market environment that enabled the collusive scheme.

4.1 Ties to High-Risk Entities and Illicit Financing Typologies

The primary high-risk link is the relationship between Left and Anson. Their partnership utilized the mechanics of a textbook money laundering and illicit financing scheme to conceal their profit-sharing.

We can analyze the payment mechanism, as documented in the Anson SEC settlement ³, as a structured financial crime:

Predicate Offense: A “short-and-distort” market manipulation scheme, or at minimum, a collusive trading arrangement, generates over $4.3 million in profits.⁵
Layering: A $1.1 million share of these illicit profits is owed to a co-conspirator (Left).³
Obfuscation: The payment cannot be made directly. A “profit-share” payment would expose the illegal arrangement.
The Mechanism: The parties engage a third-party intermediary.³ This intermediary sends “fabricated invoices” ⁴ to Anson for “purported research services” that were never performed.³
Integration: Anson pays the fake invoices. The intermediary passes the (now “clean”) money to Left.

This is a classic trade-based money laundering typology. They used it to conceal the proceeds of their collusive trading. The “insufficient disclosure” (Anson’s spin) was, in fact, a structured conspiracy.

4.2 Key Emerging Market Dependencies: The “Cannabis Bubble”

The Anson/Left “balance sheet arrangement” was not executed on blue-chip stocks. It was focused on the “Key Emerging Market” of speculative, over-the-counter cannabis stocks.

The two companies named in the probe, India Globalization Capital (IGC) and Namaste Technologies (NTEC) ⁴, were rife with their own fraud.

India Globalization Capital (IGC): Left’s report called it the “poster child of the cannabis bubble”.⁴ The company was later hit with class-action lawsuits for “deceiving investors by lying”.³² It was ultimately delisted by the NYSE.³³
Namaste Technologies (NTEC): This company was hit with a class-action lawsuit. It failed to disclose a self-dealing transaction where it “sold Dollinger to Namaste insider executives”.³⁴

This was a mutually beneficial, predatory ecosystem. The fraudulent companies (IGC, NTEC) provided the “carrion” for the predators (Left and Anson) to feast on.

The illegality was not in shorting these companies. By all accounts, those companies were engaging in deceptive practices.

The illegality was in the collusion. Left and Anson colluded (Anson received reports in advance ³) and then deceptively shared the profits ($1.1M) through a fraudulent payment channel.³

V. Phase 5: Probing for Black Swans and Blind Spots

This section probes for high-impact, low-probability events (‘Black Swans’). It also challenges the investigation’s own assumptions to identify blind spots.

5.1 Identifying Potential Black Swans

Black Swan 1: What if Left’s Lawsuit Succeeds?If discovery in this new civil suit proves that Anson executives perjured themselves to the SEC/DOJ to frame Left, it could have catastrophic consequences for Anson. It could potentially cause Anson’s 2024 settlement to be voided. It could also expose Anson’s principals, such as Moez Kassam, to the criminal charges they previously avoided. This is a high-impact, low-probability event that Anson’s lawyers are likely fighting to prevent (hence the “inaccessible” articles).6
Black Swan 2: What if the Lawsuit Triggers a New Probe?The DOJ and SEC may be forced to re-open their investigation into Anson. More likely, they may investigate the “third-party intermediary” 3 who facilitated the illicit payment. This could lead to a new, wider-ranging indictment.

5.2 Uncovering Blind Spots (Challenging Assumptions)

The “Dog That Didn’t Bark” (Missing Information):
1. The Lawsuit Itself: The primary news articles ⁶ and the court filing they reference are “inaccessible.”
2. The 23 Companies: The SEC complaint against Left states his “bait-and-switch” scheme involved 23 companies.² The public record snippets ¹⁵ only name a few (e.g., Nvidia, Tesla, GE, Palantir).³⁵ The full list would be a “Rosetta Stone” for Left’s true trading patterns.
3. “Hedge Fund Two”: The identity of this second fund is a critical unknown. The SEC’s complaint against Left alleges he received compensation from “Hedge Fund Two”.¹⁵ Identifying this entity is a crucial area for future investigation. It is essential to understanding the full scope of Left’s alleged “bait-and-switch” scheme. It would also reveal another major financial partner who, like Anson, may have been part of a collusive arrangement.
Challenging Assumption: “Left is lying in his 2025 suit.”The primary bias is that Left is a desperate criminal defendant 1 filing a frivolous suit. But what if the opposite is true? Let’s assume Left is telling the truth that Anson lied.In a multi-defendant federal probe, the first party to cooperate often gets the best deal. Anson (the $2.5B hedge fund) settled in June 2024..² Left (the individual) was indicted just one month later, in July 2024..¹This timeline is prima facie evidence that Anson cooperated with the DOJ against Left.Anson’s $2.25M settlement ⁴ for a scheme involving fraudulent invoices and $1.1M in profit sharing is, in fact, a “consolation prize”.⁴ They almost certainly avoided criminal charges. They did this by providing “substantial assistance” to the DOJ.”Substantial assistance” means testifying. Left’s 2025 lawsuit is an allegation that Anson’s “testimony” (in proffer sessions or to the SEC) was false. He is alleging that Anson lied to save themselves and frame him.The Blind Spot is viewing this as a new fraud. It is not. It is an allegation of betrayal stemming from the 2024 investigation. Left is not just a liar; he may also be a co-conspirator who was betrayed by his partner.

VI. Phase 6: Synthesize and Conclude

The final phase synthesizes all findings. It forms a coherent, evidence-based conclusion about the motive and implications of the 2025 lawsuit.

6.1 Connecting the Dots: The L-T-M (Liability-Timing-Motive) Triad

Liability: Both Anson and Left have documented liability. Anson settled with the SEC for willful, fraudulent record-keeping to conceal payments.³ Left is criminally indicted for lying to the feds about receiving those payments.¹ Both parties are compromised.
Timing: The 2025 lawsuit’s timing is the lynchpin. It is not random. It is filed immediately after Left’s legal team ³⁹ failed to get his criminal indictment dismissed (motions denied on July 7, 2025, and October 6, 2025).¹
Motive: The motive for the 2025 lawsuit is therefore not primarily monetary damages. It is an integral part of his criminal defense.

Left’s criminal trial is set for March 2026.¹ He is charged with “making false statements”.¹

His best defense is to create “reasonable doubt.” He can do this by showing that the government’s entire case is built on the testimony of another party (Anson) who also lied to the SEC.

This 2025 civil lawsuit is a weapon to achieve three goals for his criminal trial:

Public Relations: It creates a media narrative ⁶ that he is the victim, not the liar.
Discovery: It allows his civil lawyers to depose Anson executives and subpoena documents that his criminal defense team ³⁹ cannot otherwise obtain, potentially finding exculpatory evidence.
Witness Discrediting: It is a direct, public attack on the credibility of the government’s star witness (Anson).

6.2 Red Flag Summary

Actor Credibility (CRITICAL): Both the accuser (Left) and the accused (Anson) are compromised. Both have been the subject of 2024 SEC enforcement actions for deceptive conduct related to the same event.
Strategic Motive (CRITICAL): The lawsuit is filed in response to (and as a defense for) a separate, more severe criminal indictment. The timing ¹ is a “smoking gun” for this motive.
The “Original Sin” (CRITICAL): The entire dispute is rooted in a non-transparent, collusive “balance sheet arrangement”.⁴ This scheme was concealed using a “money laundering” typology (fake invoices, third-party intermediary).³
Information Gaps: The “inaccessible” primary news sources ² suggest an aggressive legal battle to suppress the information, validating its sensitive nature.

6.3 Final Conclusion & Assessment

The October 31, 2025, news story describes an event that is not a new, isolated fraud. It is the predictable, toxic fallout of a prior, documented fraudulent partnership.

This investigation reveals a “battle of the liars.”

Andrew Left faces a 2026 criminal trial for lying to the DOJ. He is now suing his former partner, Anson Funds, for allegedly lying to the SEC.

The core fraud is the original 2018 “balance sheet arrangement”.⁴ The 2024 regulatory actions ¹ were the consequence. This new 2025 lawsuit is the strategic, weaponized aftermath.

There are credible and overwhelming indicators that the 2025 lawsuit is a tactical legal filing. It is designed to support Andrew Left’s criminal defense, rather than a simple grievance. The “fraud” it alleges (Anson lying to the SEC) is plausible, but its motive is one of self-preservation, not whistleblowing.

6.4 Next Steps for Investigation

The single most important unanswered question is: What, specifically, did Left allege Anson lied about?

Actionable Next Step: The key to confirming or denying this assessment is to obtain the court filing for Left v. [Anson Funds], filed on or around October 31, 2025. Its absence ⁶ is a red flag; its contents would be the definitive roadmap.
Secondary Step: File Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for all proffer agreements, witness testimony, and settlement communications. These requests should be between the SEC/DOJ and Anson Funds Management LP / Anson Advisors Inc. regarding In the Matter of Anson Funds (IA-6622) and U.S. v. Andrew Left (2:24-CR-456). This would confirm or deny Left’s central allegation of betrayal.

Works Cited

U.S. Department of Justice, United States v. Andrew Left, (Updated Oct. 6, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-vns/case/united-states-v-andrew-left
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC Charges Andrew Left and Citron Capital for $20 Million Fraud Scheme, July 26, 2024, https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-89
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, In the Matter of Anson Funds Management, LP and Anson Advisors, Inc., June 11, 2024, https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/administrative-proceedings/ia-6622-s
Michelle Celarier, Anson Funds Settles With SEC in Long-Running Short Seller Probe, Institutional Investor, June 13, 2024, https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2dcxth6clfikh5eel0zcw/corner-office/anson-funds-settles-with-sec-in-long-running-short-seller-probe
Hedgeweek, SEC penalises activist Anson for secret researcher payments, (June 2024), https://www.hedgeweek.com/sec-penalises-activist-anson-for-secret-researcher-payments/
Bloomberg, Short Seller Andrew Left Says Hedge Fund Lied to SEC About Payment in Trading Probe, October 31, 2025, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-31/short-seller-andrew-left-says-hedge-fund-lied-to-sec-about-payment-to-him
Financial Post / Bloomberg Law, [Inaccessible Articles], (Oct. 31, 2025), https://financialpost.com/news/short-seller-says-hedge-fund-lied-to-sec and https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white-collar-and-criminal-law/short-seller-andrew-left-sues-hedge-fund-alleging-lies-to-sec
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Activist Short Seller Charged for $16M Stock Market Manipulation Scheme, July 26, 2024, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/activist-short-seller-charged-16m-stock-market-manipulation-scheme
U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District of California, Analyst Indicted in Alleged Scheme to Manipulate Stock Market Media Campaigns Then Trading Against His Own Recommendations, July 26, 2024, https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/analyst-indicted-alleged-scheme-manipulate-stock-market-media-campaigns-then-trading
Troutman Pepper, SEC Charges Investment Advisor for Misleading Disclosures About Its Work with Short Publishers, (June 2024), https://www.troutman.com/insights/sec-charges-investment-advisor-for-misleading-disclosures-about-its-work-with-short-publishers/
Quantified Strategies, Andrew Left – Short Seller, (N.D.), https://www.quantifiedstrategies.com/andrew-left/
Wikipedia, Andrew Left, (N.D.), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Left
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, SEC and DOJ charge Andrew Left and Citron Capital with securities fraud, July 2024, https://www.dwt.com/blogs/financial-services-law-advisor/2024/07/sec-doj-charge-citron-and-left-with-illegal-trades
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC Complaint: SEC v. Andrew Left, and Citron Capital, LLC, July 26, 2024, https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2024/comp-pr2024-89.pdf
Warrior Trading, Citron Research: What You Need to Know, (2021), https://www.warriortrading.com/citron-research-know/
Anson Funds, Homepage, (N.D.), https://ansonfunds.com/
Hedgeweek, Flexibility is a core strength at Anson Funds, (N.D.), https://www.hedgeweek.com/flexibility-is-a-core-strength-at-anson-funds/
Wikipedia, Moez Kassam, (N.D.), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moez_Kassam
Exeleon Magazine, Moez Kassam: A Hedge Fund Manager At The Frontier of Investing, (N.D.), https://exeleonmagazine.com/moez-kassam-hedge-fund-manager-at-frontier-of-investing/
My Business Magazine, Moez Kassam: Chief Investment Officer & Co-Founder, Anson Funds, (N.D.), https://www.mybusinessmagazine.ca/single-post/moez-kassam-chief-investment-officer-co-founder-anson-funds-toronto-on
Canadian Olympic Committee, Moez Kassam, Board Member, (N.D.), https://olympic.ca/board-members/moez-kassam/
Anson Funds, Moez Kassam, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer, (N.D.), https://ansonfunds.com/team/moez-kassam/
Reddit, r/Superstonk post: “They are turning on each other…”, (N.D.), https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/1fw6c6y/they_are-turning-on-each-other-moez-kassam-anson/
Radient Analytics, Anson Funds Management LP, (Updated Feb 28, 2025), https://radientanalytics.com/firm/adv/anson-funds-management-lp-125109
Legal Entity Identifier Canada, ANSON FUNDS MANAGEMENT LP, (N.D.), https://www.legalentityidentifier-canada.com/leicert/549300JDCVMHQYMOF172/
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Schedule 13G Filing, Anson Funds Management LP, (2025), https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1390478/000095017025109205/xslSCHEDULE_13G_X01/primary_doc.xml
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, AdviserInfo – ANSON FUNDS MANAGEMENT LP, (N.D.), https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/firm/summary/125109
Ontario Securities Commission, CSA Consultation Paper 25-403 – Activist Short Selling, March 3, 2021, https://www.osc.ca/sites/default/files/2021-03/com_20210303_25-403_anson-advisors.pdf
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Levi & Korsinsky Announces IGC Class Action; IGC Lawsuit, (N.D.), https://zlk.com/press/igc-class-action-igc-lawsuit
Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., KGG Announces Investigation of India Globalization Capital, Inc., (N.D., references Oct 30, 2018), https://www.kgglaw.com/news/kantrowitz-goldhamer-graifman-p-c-announces-investigation-of-india-globalization-capital-inc-nyse-american-igc/
Robbins LLP, Namaste Technologies, Inc. (NXTTF) Sued for Misleading Shareholders, (N.D., references 2018), https://robbinsllp.com/namaste-technologies-inc/
Investopedia, Why the SEC Is Suing Short Seller Andrew Left, (2024), https://www.investopedia.com/why-the-sec-is-suing-short-seller-andrew-left-8684364
Nasdaq, Nvidia, Tesla Trades Under Scrutiny As Andrew Left Faces Criminal Charges, (2024), https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/nvidia-tesla-trades-under-scrutiny-andrew-left-faces-criminal-charges
Citron Research, OpenAI at $500B Puts Palantir at $40, August 2025, https://citronresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/OpenAI-at-500B-Puts-Palantir-at-40.pdf
Dynamis LLP, Accused Short Seller Andrew Left Fights Back, (2025), https://www.dynamisllp.com/media/accused-short-seller-andrew-left-fights
InvestmentNews, Short seller Andrew Left says he’s not guilty of fraud, (2024), https://www.investmentnews.com/ria-news/short-seller-andrew-left-says-hes-not-guilty-of-fraud/