diff --git a/Institutions/Hedge-Funds/Point72/2021-08-26-Point72-asked-SEC-for-Certain-Exemptions.md b/Institutions/Hedge-Funds/Point72/2021-08-26-Point72-asked-SEC-for-Certain-Exemptions.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0b7c4de
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Institutions/Hedge-Funds/Point72/2021-08-26-Point72-asked-SEC-for-Certain-Exemptions.md
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+Point72 asked the SEC for certain exemptions today!
+===================================================
+
+| Author       | Source       | 
+| :-------------: |:-------------:|
+|  [u/tophereth](https://www.reddit.com/user/tophereth/) | [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pc5fht/point72_asked_the_sec_for_certain_exemptions_today/) | 
+
+---
+
+[News 📰 | Media 📱](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/search?q=flair_name%3A%22News%20%F0%9F%93%B0%20%7C%20Media%20%F0%9F%93%B1%22&restrict_sr=1)
+
+[Link to the notice](https://www.sec.gov/rules/ic/2021/ic-34365.pdf)
+
+[What's New on the SEC Website, August 26, 2021](https://www.sec.gov/news/whatsnew/wn-today.shtml)
+
+I'll edit the OP later on unless someone beats me to an explanation in the comments.
+
+EDIT:
+
+The stuff in this notice is pretty juicy - but first, the post title needs some clarity - as per the source:
+
+> *The application was filed on* *September 28, 2018 and amended on July 21, 2020, and June 16, 2021*. *Hearing or Notification of Hearing:* *An order granting the requested relief will be issued* *unless the Commission orders a hearing...*
+
+Explain to me how it's fair they can file it 3 years in advance, amend it twice during periods when they're speculated to be on the *really* bad side of some bets, have a history of insider trading, have clear conditions that would allow them to abuse the exemptions, and then get it conditionally approved on the verge of a colossal market correction that they likely made worse and accelerated.
+
+The meat and potatoes of this exemption request involves employee exemptions. Here's a juicy tidbit:
+
+> *A Future Fund may be structured as a domestic or* *offshore limited* *or general partnership, limited liability company, corporation, business trust or other entity.* *Point72 may also form parallel funds organized under the laws of various jurisdictions* *in order to create the same investment opportunities for Eligible Employees (defined below) in other jurisdictions.*
+
+Fuck off Stevie
+
+> *Interests in the Funds will be offered in a transaction exempt from registration under section 4(a)(2)*
+
+Google section 4(a)(2) to get:
+
+> *What is section 4?*
+>
+> *This is often referred to as the private placement exemption for issuers. ... A Section 4(a)(2)* *private placement provides an attractive capital-raising alternative for a foreign issuer considering offering securities in the United States**.*
+
+Again, fuck off Stevie
+
+LOL - wow
+
+> *Applicants request an exemption from* *section 17(j) and the provisions of rule 17j-1 (except for the anti-fraud provisions of rule 17j-1(b))* *because they assert that these requirements are burdensome and unnecessary as applied to the Funds.*
+
+Guess the title of rule 17(j)-1? [*Personal investment activities of investment company personnel*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/270.17j-1)
+
+Oh, you don't want an exemption from the anti-fraud provisions? *How noble of you.* Out of curiosity, what're the sections of [rule 17j-1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/270.17j-1)?
+
+> *rule 17j-1(a) - Definitions*
+>
+> 10+ sub-paragraphs
+>
+> *rule 17j-1(b) - Unlawful actions*
+>
+> 4 sub-paragraphs
+>
+> *rule 17j-1(c) - Code of Ethics*
+>
+> 10+ sub-paragraphs
+>
+> *rule 17j-1(d) - Reporting requirements of access persons*
+>
+> 10+ sub-paragraphs
+>
+> *rule 17j-1(e) - Pre-approval of investments in IPOs and limited offerings*
+>
+> 1 sub-paragraph
+>
+> *rule 17j-1(f) - Recordkeeping requirements*
+>
+> 7 sub-paragraphs
+
+Wait a second, you want to be exempt from the code of ethics but not unlawful actions? That seems like it works against what GG claims as *the spirit of the law*. Just look at the first paragraph in the code of ethics!
+
+> *...* *must adopt a written code of ethics containing provisions reasonably necessary to prevent its Access* [*Persons*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=3df16bcba79f5e9f4c3cc2c8c60b0903&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:17:Chapter:II:Part:270:270.17j-1) *from engaging in any conduct prohibited by* [*paragraph (b)*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/270.17j-1#b) *of this* [*section*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=ae77e4ab315ae0b3a3e66d2e23fa9ec3&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:17:Chapter:II:Part:270:270.17j-1)*.*
+
+That's a fucking joke, right? The rules in *rule 17j-1(b) - Unlawful actions* are absurdly vague. The code of ethics section (edit: for clarification) details requirements for how to communicate to employees what unlawful *actually* means. You'd think that'd be kind of important if:
+
+> *Point72 may also form parallel funds organized under the laws of various jurisdictions*
+
+I'm not even going to get into how obviously necessary reporting requirements are.
+
+Remember how Stevie got away from his first insider trading trial? The lack of the flow of information. How do *your employees* know what's unlawful when you're not telling them what specific actions would make it unlawful - especially with respect to different countries?
+
+Stevie is a fraudster. Do SEC personnel approve these on their lunch break or what?
+
+I'll go out on a limb here and say these exemptions should not have received delayed approval. Fuckery abound.
+
+And for any of you whistleblowing lurkers out there, there is an opportunity for a hearing if you've got compelling information:
+
+> *Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by e-mailing the Commission's Secretary at* [*Secretarys-Office@sec.gov*](mailto:Secretarys-Office@sec.gov) *and serving applicants with a copy of 2 the request by e-mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on September 20, 2021, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the 1940 Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by e-mailing the Commission's Secretary at* [*Secretarys-Office@sec.gov*](mailto:Secretarys-Office@sec.gov)*.*