Not really. That would require Bloomberg to deliberately fabricate a false story so that someone could do insider trading based on it.
They definitely fabricated a story, it could be a single reporter (the lead?), not the whole org, because, it makes as much sense as anything else.
I still don't understand why no lawsuit.
>I still don't understand why no lawsuit.
I've seen (unsubstantiated) claims that there was a national security angle to the whole thing and everyone was told to shut up about it.
That's my hunch, based on the way the "debunking" of Bloomberg's articles was done (lots of people speaking from authority, poorly supported nitpicking about accuracy of illustration and other details, pointing to statements from the companies as authoritative) and the lack of retractions. I also got the sense that certain people who would normally like to speculate about the deeper story or provide historical context/additional flavor were unusually quiet.
If you’re talking about the SuperMicro reporting, this isn’t the case. It wasn’t nitpicking, it was a garbage story that was thoroughly debunked.