> There is nothing special about being short more than 100%

The actual value was 113% from S3, but other sources had different values so I rounded down. While there is nothing magic about 113% or 100% or any other number, it is a measure of the difficulty of covering the entirety of the short interest: Higher numbers are more likely to result in a short squeeze, since those covering will likely have a higher bid to attract the attention of longs.

How is that, it means (within the statement made)the stock is lent multiple times if a stock can be lent multiple times then that’s no different from a naked no borrowing short b) if it lent to multiple people it’s owned by none

No. Naked short would be when I sell without borrowing hoping that the stock will drop sufficiently (or new shares will be available for borrowing) that by the time settlement occurs (T+2) I will be able to cover. The “fraud” of naked short is that you fail to deliver the shares at settlement to the new owner. If you re-borrow shares then that’s different since then you really do have shares to deliver.

If a stock is lent multiple times then at least one of the borrowers can’t deliver and hence are naked

It does create an issue for the company of the stock, though.

Unless the company is trying to do a primary raise, which most companies do only once in a blue moon, the price of the stock is fairly irrelevant to the operations of the company.

What issue is that?