🚨MMAT / MMTLP / TRCH 📄 DTCC Delay Timeline - a closer 👀 ⚖️June 16, 2026 - Hearing Before Judge Gary Spraker ⚠️Not Legal Advice The Trustee’s June 11 filing paints a clear picture: DTCC has been delaying production for more than a year while statute-of-limitations deadlines continue to approach. ⏰ 📅 Key Timeline 🔵March 2025 Trustee serves Rule 2004 subpoena on DTCC. Production due April 8, 2025. ⬅️⬅️⬅️ 🔵March 26, 2025 DTCC acknowledges subpoena. Requests extension and protective order. 🔵April 7, 2025 Trustee grants DTCC a two-week extension. 🔵June 16, 2025 DTCC states it can provide: •Participant Daily Activity Statements •CNS Reports •UTC Reports (including Correspondent Clearing Data) for approximately $25,200. 💵 ⸻ 🚩 October 2025 – Frustration Boils Over 🔥 🔵October 21, 2025 Trustee counsel David Burnett warns: “If we don’t hear from you this week we plan to file a motion to compel.” 🔥 Later the same day, Burnett responds to DTCC: “You are the one that has not responded to our questions for four months or given edits or comments on the protective order for five months.” 💥 DTCC responds that production would occur only under an: “appropriately scoped Rule 2004 subpoena” and continues to reserve objections. ⸻ 🔵November 4, 2025 Burnett follows up again: “Please provide us the courtesy of a substantive, timely, and constructive response.” and warns: “If you continue to delay we will enforce our rights with the court.” ⸻ 📅 March 26, 2026 DTCC finally makes a partial production. However, Trustee says the critical transaction-level Correspondent Clearing Data was missing. ⁉️ ⸻ 📅 April–May 2026 🔵April 24 Trustee requests missing Correspondent Clearing Data. 🔵May 5 Another follow-up. Still unresolved. 🔵May 12 🚨Burnett warns: “Because of the time-sensitivity on our end and this dragged-out process, the Trustee is prepared to move to compel.” 🔵May 21 DTCC responds: IT team is still working on the report and having difficulty with aged data. 🔵May 26 Burnett replies: “We would like to get the additional data as soon as possible given time-sensitivities on our end.” ⏰ ⸻ 🔥 Key Statements From Burnett’s Declaration 📆Over One Year of Delay “I have been corresponding with DTCC’s in-house counsel… for over a year.” ➡️More Than 40 Emails “I have sent more than 40 emails to Ms. Bandler since spring 2025.” ➡️Weeks Between Responses “Ms. Bandler did not respond to some of my emails, and in some cases she did not respond for weeks.” 🌶️ ➡️Statute Concerns “Statute of limitations deadlines make DTCC’s immediate production of the remaining discovery very time-sensitive.” ⸻ ⚖️ What To POSSIBLY Expect Tuesday ⚠️NLA Judge Spraker will likely focus on: What specific data remains missing? Can DTCC actually produce it? How long will production take? How do the statute-of-limitations deadlines impact the estate? The Trustee’s filing appears designed to show: ✅ Subpoena issued March 2025 ✅ Extension granted ✅ Protective order negotiations ✅ 40 emails ✅ Partial production only ✅ Missing Correspondent Clearing Data ✅ Statute concerns repeatedly raised If DTCC arrives without a firm production timetable, Spraker may push for specific deadlines, status reporting, or a path toward a motion to compel. The filing strongly suggests the Trustee is documenting a year-long pattern of delay and connecting it directly to potential claim deadlines. ⏰⏰⏰⏰⏰⏰⏰⏰⏰⏰⏰⏰⏰⏰

🔥 MMAT Update – June 11, 2026 📄 Docket Nos. 2863, 2864, 2865 & 2866 What happened? Trustee Christina Lovato filed a series of motions asking Judge Spraker to schedule an expedited status conference regarding DTCC’s subpoena compliance and production delays. ⸻ 🎯 The Main Issue The Trustee says DTCC still has not fully produced certain subpoenaed records, particularly transaction-level Correspondent Clearing Data that has been requested since 2025. According to Trustee counsel David Burnett: “That data is very important to our analysis.” In simple terms, this appears to be data that could help identify who was actually involved in specific trades, not just trading totals. ⸻ ⏰ Why The Rush? This is the biggest takeaway. The Trustee specifically warned the Court that continued delays could impact potential claims because of statute-of-limitations deadlines. Burnett also stated: “Statute of limitations deadlines make DTCC’s immediate production … very time-sensitive.” 🚨 That’s strong language coming directly from Trustee counsel. ⸻ 📬 What’s Next? At this point: ✅ DTCC has not filed a Motion to Quash ✅ Trustee has not filed a Motion to Compel ✅ Trustee wants Judge Spraker to step in and hold a focused conference to address DTCC’s outstanding production and determine next steps. ⸻ 👀 What Stands Out The repeated focus on: 🔹 Correspondent Clearing Data 🔹 Transaction-level records 🔹 Time-sensitive discovery 🔹 Statute-of-limitations concerns suggests the Trustee believes this remaining DTCC data is important to the ongoing investigation. 📌 Bottom Line: The investigation appears very much alive, DTCC remains an active discovery target, and the Trustee is pushing for answers sooner rather than later. ⚖️ Not Legal Advice • For Discussion & Entertainment Purposes Only ⚖️ dropbox.com/scl/fi/pzyf05xks… dropbox.com/scl/fi/f5e7strlu… dropbox.com/scl/fi/n7umzargy…

🚨 NEW SEC FOIA RESPONSE 🚨 FOIA 26-00651-FOIA This one matters. This FOIA requested records showing communications/referrals between SEC Corporation Finance and SEC Trading & Markets regarding Next Bridge Hydrocarbons’ S-1 activity. The response shows something important: Once FIF entered the discussion, the tone and substance appear to shift. Before FIF: SEC / NBH S-1 communications were largely about registration mechanics, eligibility, disclosure, and process. After FIF steps in: The discussion turns to operational market-structure concerns: • shares on loan • lending broker-dealers unable to recover shares • customer protections under SEC Rule 15c3-3 • IRA/tax consequences • transfer-agent capacity • whether shareholders should be forced out of bank/broker/nominee holding One FIF point is especially hard to ignore: “Because of the prior FINRA trading halt, there are shares on loan that lending broker-dealers cannot recover.” That is not retail speculation. That is an industry group raising operational concerns to the SEC about the Next Bridge S-1 process. And FIF’s recommendation? Do not force participating customers out of bank, broker-dealer, or nominee custody — because preserving that structure would allow for “future reconciliation of outstanding stock loans.” Read that again. Future reconciliation of outstanding stock loans. This FOIA does not prove every theory. But it does prove the S-1 issue was not just routine paperwork. It involved broker-held shares, loaned shares, customer protections, transfer mechanics, and reconciliation concerns. That is exactly why MMTLP shareholders have been asking questions for years. #MMTLP #MMAT #NextBridge #FOIA #SEC #FINRA

If @FINRA revealed that it was GTS and or Canaccord that was involved with getting MMTLP tradeable, all of their disclosures would show that they fit the description of market manipulators and people would question why they weren't being investigated. And why aren't they being investigated? It could be Ari Rubenstein's (the CEO of GTS Securities) relationship with FINRA dating back to at least 2017. (images 1 & 2) And when it comes to an issuer's security trading on the OTC without their permission, MMTLP wouldn't be the first time that Ari Rubenstein and GTS were involved... Shortly before MMTLP, Overstock's OSTKO traded on the OTC without their permission. When Overstock complained guess what FINRA did! (images 3 & 4) Nothing, they sided with their good buddy Ari Rubenstein and allowed it to continue. In the case of Overstock, both their regular stock and their dividend squeezed to some degree. Given how close these squeezes occurred to the MMTLP Fiasco, one might conclude that the U3 halt was initiated to prevent a recurrence.

$GTII My notes from @KnotLegaladvice latest (2026-05-25) YouTube livestream. My take away is that his joke’s are better than Claude’s! He started by reviewing a bit of historical information. He reiterated that DTCC refused to cooperate with the Receiver which triggered the request to expand the scope of the receivership. Granted on 19 May, 2026. DTCC has stated that that Alpine has a concentrated short position in GTII. Reichman has 15 accounts with Alpine. Apparently subpoenas have been served to Alpine and depositions should be coming. —————— He asked Claude (AI) to examine the Receivership. Claude determined that shareholders have not been well represented by the Receiver regarding the audit but praised the Receiver on the following points. Removed bad management Pursued claims against bad management Pursued litigation against other parties Froze illicit shares Recovered illicit shares Discussed the strong likelihood that a settlement will be forthcoming with David Reichman. He feels that Reichman should receive nothing or next to nothing in any settlement based on all the fraudulent activity raised in the Receiver reports. That said, he realises that compromises are often made to move things along. The Receiver’s counsel hinted that cash funds would also be part of the settlement which will probably pay for legal fees and the audit. Personally, I suspect compromises were done to move things along. Richard will file a brief to request clarity on the Aiversity deal. If it’s no longer on the table, that information should be made public so that other parties can approach for a potential transaction. We await news on the audit which is on the agenda for the status hearing on 17 June, 2026. * Apologies if I got anything wrong. 🙏🏼

Imagine selling something you don’t own. No borrow fees. No one forces you to close your position. The OTC market became the Wild West. MMTLP holders never expected their Nasdaq dividend to end up trading there. Why won’t regulators enforce close-out requirements? Follow

Paper trails always outlive spin. #FAFO

Richard, you are and have been indispensable. Many, many thanks

DD 911: $MMTLP (I know I started something else today, but this is actually pretty important and time sensitive) Can EU holders can ask their brokers for FIGI numbers on their Next Bridge shares... and if its changed recently, or has a change scheduled? Even ask about ISIN, SEDOL, WKN identifiers. This is a critical thing to monitor because EU has more transparency for investors, and the synthetics are tied there. And US holders: you can call and ask for ISIN, CUSIP, and if you can get FIGI - its gold. Having to disclose the FIGI number on a EU synthetic in an American holder's account is a noose. This is when they will make mistakes. This is when research nerds need to be watching.

Please everyone do this if you can! Just login to your broker account, look at the profile page for the preferred shares/nextbridge and send a screenshot to @fromveiltovail! If you have old screenshots with bid/ask, also send her those to, from any date (and include date if you can remember).

🚨META MATERIALS LITIGATION FUNDING AGREEMENT UPDATE: Private Equity backs out. Law firms go contingent. ▶️Parabellum has withdrawn its litigation funding arrangement. ▶️The Trustee will now move forward using a pure contingency fee structure with the law firms instead. ▶️The firms will advance costs and expenses themselves and be repaid first out of any recovery. FROM THE TRUSTEE: “This arrangement will significantly enhance any recovery to the Meta Estate from successful resolution of securities related litigation pursued by the Trustee.” Why did Parabellum withdraw and the attorneys agree to take on the costs??? YOU CAN NOT STOP WHAT IS COMING!!! MMTLP MMAT TRCH @Metamaterialtec

I just called. There’s lots of options. Wait till the end and representative will come to the line.

I don’t care about interviews. I don’t care about spaces. I don’t care about everybody’s “opinion“. The only thing that matters for EVERYONE involved SHOULD be TRANSPARENCY for MMTLP. Everyone, call and get your emails into President Trump to get that MMTLP letter for transparency signed. DO IT TODAY. Don’t let anybody convince you that it’s not important and that he won’t listen. Numbers don’t lie, only people do. What is the freaking share count? 1 (202) 456-1111 And / Or whitehouse.gov/contact/

Below is added context for the comment about @JohnBrda "not selling a share". It was said on a Sunday after the Friday close price was $2.46 a share. Drew is right that John had not sold a share up to that point. Amy has been evasive and disingenuous. For example, she cites the META PR saying the shares were exchanged and the spinout was successful. Yes, all of the shares authorized to be pieced out to the bulk certificates of the broker-dealers based on what was on record at the time of the merger in June 2021. Any overages/liabilities that existed based off the final day (after 14 months of trading) are on the books of the brokers and are what requires a forensic audit. Until that happens, there is uncertainty. There is in writing admission by Howard Meyerson of the Financial Information Forum (FIF), representing a group of broker-dealers, that FINRA's halt has prevented shares from being delivered because there are shares on loan that cannot be recovered. The fact that shares were on loan tells you that brokers were ready for trading to continue on the 9th and 12th to close positions. Otherwise brokers would not have allowed shares to be on loan on the 8th. And even if some BTO trade slipped through the cracks, FINRA's Rule 11893 would have been used. That's how they reverse the "Too late to Cancel" (executed) trades. There was no settlement concerns. They fabricated the whole thing. Also, FINRA's removal of the 14th on the revised corporate action was a violation of SEA Rule 10b-17. Their halt also forced all broker-dealers with positions in $MMTLP to violate SEA Rule 15c3-3 due to shares being on loan and unrecoverable. The shares of $MMTLP carried the rights to the NBH common stock. DTCC eligibility is not required to cure the FTDs because the shares being offered in the S1 to sell 40 million shares are of like-kind. DTCC eligibility is not required to sell and deliver these shares to accredited investors who need to cure these FTDs. @thatgirltrader is absolutely wrong. She doesn't want transparency. That speaks volumes. JOHN BRDA "HAVEN'T SOLD A SHARE" POST👇 x.com/MetaGuyMarduk/status/1…