What if one firm bought shares and held them. Then one or two shorted the hell out of the thing. The one with the actual shares could also lend the shares out and receive considerable interest income. This would also allow the others to cover positions when the stock moves in the opposite direction. Working together by naked shorting a stock, putting out negative analyst reports and media reports, they drive the stock down until the point where the funds shorting cover and pay back the hedge fund that lent the shares out.
I don't see how this would work. Assuming SAC was a conspirator, what would they have to gain from the long position? Besides, the conspirators, in total, being net neutral, would not profit from the sell down.
The statement by SAC lawyer Klotz sounds quite unequivocal to me. Given that their trading positions are well documented and easily verified, it seems unilikely that a lawyer would make such a declaration without basis. Based solely on the "facts" from the article, I don't see how a case can be made for SAC's role in a conspiracy.
The Chanos/Gwynn link looks more promising and points to unethical and perhaps illegal activity but whether it is enough to prove conspiracy is still questionable, imo.
