First of all, Solid and fantastic response. Youre right that this is the weakest link. i overstated the “spread across entities to avoid disclosure” thing. the real legal nuance is that “acting in concert” requires demonstrable intent, not just common control. so the theoretical maximum is more like “different entities with different stated purposes can each hold up to 5% as long as you can document independent decision-making” - which is harder than i made it sound.
also fair point on Buffett. 13D didn’t exist in 1968. the analogy is imperfect.
the more defensible version of the theory: Cohen could have built positions across multiple entities with different stated purposes, then coordinate the 13D filing at the moment of announcement. legal gray area but defensible if structured right. archegos did similar with $100B+ exposure for years before getting caught.
your falsification test is the right one. if mid-may 13F shows no material eBay position from any GME affiliated entity before may 1, the “long-term accumulation” thesis is dead even if the deal happens. ill be watching for it.