Prosecutors accuse short-seller Andrew Left of manipulating markets and misleading retail investors.
Two stock analysts who challenged Left's bearish reports have testified in court.
Left's defense stresses that varying opinions on stocks are routine and do not signal fraud.

Amid complex financial terms in short-seller Andrew Left's securities fraud trial, the defense repeatedly poses a basic question: Can't people simply disagree about stocks?

Founder of Citron Research, Left gained fame for his GameStop bets and regular financial media spots. He faces allegations of market manipulation and deceiving retail investors via misleading reports. Prosecutors claim Left publicly commented positively on over 20 stocks while trading against those views, pocketing more than $20 million.

Three days into the trial, the defense approach to prosecution witnesses has sharpened.

Focus has centered on two companies where prosecutors say Left issued negative tweets before trading: the social platform once named Twitter and cannabis producer Cronos Group.

Prosecutors emphasized Left's critical reports and summoned analysts who rejected his conclusions. The defense maintained that such clashes in views do not amount to fraud.

In a December 2018 report titled "Twitter has become the Harvey Weinstein of social media," Left referenced an Amnesty International study on abusive content targeting women. He forecasted a $20 stock price, far below the roughly $30 trading level.

Douglas Anmuth, a JPMorgan internet analyst, testified Wednesday that he followed Twitter then and disputed Left's analysis. He noted hate speech problems were widely recognized, with the company implementing fixes.

The defense grilled Anmuth on whether analyst differences implied wrongdoing.

"Fair to say that when you or other analysts disagree, it might just reflect differing opinions, correct?" asked Adam Fee, Left's attorney.

Anmuth agreed. Soon after, Fee reiterated: "You would agree that reasonable people can differ on how market information affects stock prices?"

"People can disagree," Anmuth responded.

For a third time, Fee queried Anmuth - whose Twitter target was $45 amid the Citron report - on whether "reasonable people" might diverge on price targets.

A parallel exchange occurred earlier Wednesday with Martin Landry, who analyzed Cronos Group in August 2018 when Left tweeted critically. Landry said he penned a rebuttal deeming some of Left's claims "unfounded and biased."

During cross-examination, Fee pointed out Landry did not label Left's information false, only contested its weighting.

Fee added, "If you recommended 'buy' and another said 'sell,' the 'sell' call was not fraud, correct?" Landry concurred.

Fee pressed further: "You agree people can reasonably disagree about a company's value?"

This questioning echoed the defense's opening remarks Tuesday: "He shares what he believes - the truth - and trades on that truth for profit. It's not fraud. That's trading."

Left's team highlighted his over 20 years in markets. In openings, they argued his longevity and sway proved no deception.

"You would not have thrived 20 years picking stocks if driven by improper motives?" Fee asked Landry.

"Exactly," Landry replied.

"Because people would have stopped listening, correct?" Fee followed.

"Yes," Landry confirmed.