A judge will never force a broker to provide a unique share to a client (just a share exactly equal in value). So for convenience sake, they don’t assign a uni

A judge will never force a broker to provide a unique share to a client (just a share exactly equal in value). So for convenience sake, they don’t assign a unique share to you, because why make it so that you have to keep a complex record of a bunch of fungible things? (i.e. Uh oh, that specific share is being lent to a short seller, but the true owner wants to sell it). In practice, he bought the right to be given a share of Slack, not a specific piece of paper. His broker can prove they bought unregistered shares, but they’re not the plaintiffs here.