This sounds like an excuse in the line of “there were several different cases where what we did would have been legal, for instance if regulations forced it....

This sounds like an excuse in the line of “there were several different cases where what we did would have been legal, for instance if regulations forced it.... anyway, no market makers forced us” It begs the question, are they not stating the specific reason because there isn’t one and they would get caught in a lie? And are they not claiming to not have been influenced at all only because technically a direct personal call from someone who’s a ceo of a market maker isn’t the same as the company themselves applying pressure? I have to think that the reason they can’t issue a simple three line explanation is because there is none they could truthfully tell. So instead you get a page full of misdirection and carefully crafted “technically not lies”.