$MMAT $MMATQ $MMAX $MMTLP $TRCH $GME $AMC $DJT $MULN $BBIG @elonmusk @DOJNatSec @ryancohen @CEOAdam @DOJCrimDiv @JusticeOIG @DOGE @DOGE_SEC @JDVance @DevinNunes @pulte @RobertKennedyJr @realDonaldTrump 🚨🚨THIS IS A MUST READ!!!🚨🚨 THE @OTCMarkets NEEDS SHUTTING DOWN AND INVESTIGATING IMMEDIATELY, ITS BEING USED AS A BOTTLE NECK FOR WALL STREET TO BE ABLE TO TRAP, MANIPULATE & STEAL MONEY FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC/RETAIL INVESTOR’S BY PURPOSLEY KILLING PUBLICLY LISTED COMPANYS WHETHER LISTED ON THE NASDAQ, THE NYSE OR OTHER!! #Justice_Must_Be_Served #ItsTimeToFixTheBrokenSystem

$MMATQ $MMAX @palikaras @JWesChristian So let me get this straight…. 🧐 After firing the founders/co founders, advisors, scientists, engineers and any other staff apart from the BOD and a few execs who are named below… Meta Materials sold NTS to Authentix for pennies on the dollar, sold NPORE to 24M (a company who was being investigated for patent infringement on metas battery patents) for pennies on the dollar, then sent the company into Ch.7… and now thanks to @kimkep4796 for bringing this up we see this: CEO/CFO/COO Uzi Sasson took a $100K prepaid consulting fee via “His Own” LLC company… Bdalcom. This fee was “Prepaid” meaning it must have been paid before they filed for bankruptcy. Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t “Consulting” literally be a part of the CEO ’s job which he’s paid to do in his salary? That looks like self dealing, and last minute looting to me… not leadership. Then we have… CLO Dan Eaton who also got a $100K prepaid fee via “E10 Consulting LLC”. But the only E10 Consulting LLC I can find in U.S. registries is a Florida entity dissolved in 2017 for failure to file annual reports. 🤷🏻‍♂️ If it’s not and shouldn’t be the same one, then which E10 is it? Because I can’t find any record of another and more importantly, an active E10 Consulting LLC. So who got paid? A company preparing to file for Ch.7 handing $200K in prepaid insider fees while employees and creditors are left empty-handed reeks of insiders looting the last cash. I hope Trustee Lovato and investigating legal teams are leaving no stones unturned here because these bastards along with those involved in the fraud and market manipulation in this company need solid jail time, not some small fines like always seems to be the case now days!! #LockThemUp 🤬🚨👮🏻‍♂️⛓️‍💥

Looks like they want to pay off their loan as well as buy back the series A stock they issued to Panther Bridge In the August 2025 8k Next Bridge issued Panther Bridge LLC 3,000,000 series A preferred shares as well as taking a $6,000,000 loan from Panther. Panther bridge is managed by Gregg McCabe Jr (Gregg McCabe Sr’s son). Neither of the MCcabe’s have any economic interest in panther bridge and panther bridge is apparently owned by unnamed/anonymous outside investors. 🤔 Wonder who those Unnamed investors are… 🙄🧐 $MMTLP $NXBR

Next Bridge Hydrocarbons Announces SEC Declares Effective its S-1 Registration Statement Company prices and commences a public offering of 40 million shares prnewswire.com/news-releases…

$MMAT Even this partial win is a big win for the bankruptcy trustee FINRA didn’t want to hand these over - but the judge ruled it must ✅ short interest reporting ✅ TRF trading data ✅ Reg SHO short sale data - @kimkep4796 $MMTLP $TRCH

⚖️ WHAT THIS MEANS PRACTICALLY The trustee now gains access to a significant amount of trading data that the Court believes may help determine: 🧩 Whether viable claims exist 🧩 Whether wrongdoing occurred 🧩 Whether the estate suffered damages 🧩 Whether litigation should be filed before limitation deadlines This does NOT mean: ❌ Anyone has been found liable ❌ Manipulation has been proven ❌ The trustee automatically wins anything BUT… ✅ The investigation survived. ✅ Discovery survived. ✅ The Court largely sided with allowing investigation over shutting it down. dropbox.com/scl/fi/7sdv2artv…

MMAT | In re Meta Materials Inc. | Case No. 24-50792-gs | Doc 2820 | Filed May 27, 2026 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part FINRA’s Motion to Quash Trustee Subpoenas ⚠️ Not Legal Advice The big picture This is a major discovery win for the Chapter 7 Trustee. Judge Spraker basically said: “FINRA, you do have to turn over important trading/manipulation-related data. But there are limits, and the trustee has to pay certain production costs.” This order is directly tied to the trustee’s investigation into potential manipulation of Meta stock (MMAT / TRCH / MMTLP). ⸻ What happened in plain English FINRA tried to block the subpoenas FINRA asked the court to either: Kill the subpoenas entirely (motion to quash) OR Narrow them significantly via protective order. The judge said: Not entirely. Some yes. Some no. Hence: “Granted in part, denied in part.” ⸻ What the Trustee WON 🥇 1) Short Interest Data — PRODUCE IT FINRA must turn over reported short interest data. That includes: TRCH MMAT Sept. 21, 2020 → Aug. 21, 2024 MMTLP June 28, 2021 → Dec. 14, 2022 Layman’s meaning: This shows what broker-dealers were reporting as short positions. This helps answer: Was short interest unusually elevated? Did reported short positions match actual market behavior? Were there anomalies around key events? ⸻ 2) TRF Data — HUGE 🧨 FINRA must produce Trade Reporting Facility (TRF) data. Same date ranges. This is likely one of the most important parts of the order. Why? TRF captures off-exchange / OTC reported trades, often associated with internalized trading / market maker activity. Layman’s translation: If the trustee is investigating alleged manipulation, this is where some of the most meaningful footprints could live. Judge even ordered: FINRA must expedite production due to time pressure. That’s important. ⸻ 3) Reg SHO Daily Short Sale Volume Data FINRA must produce this too. Same date ranges. This helps show: Daily short sale activity Short-sale patterns Whether activity spiked during sensitive periods Not proof of wrongdoing by itself. But valuable puzzle pieces. ⸻ Timing priority (important) 👀 📆FINRA agreed to prioritize production in this order: MMAT 2023 MMAT 2024 MMAT 2022 MMAT 2021 Then TRCH Then MMTLP Why that matters: The trustee likely wants the most actionable data first given statute/time pressure. ⸻ Judge explicitly referenced manipulation investigation This is a key line. Judge ordered FINRA to move quickly because of: “potential manipulation of Meta stock.” That’s notable. This is not a finding that manipulation occurred. But it confirms the court recognizes the trustee’s investigation as legitimate and time-sensitive. ⸻ Requests put on HOLD (not denied yet) Requests 4–5: Monthly OTC Summary Report Data Weekly OTC Summary Report Data Judge said: Let’s wait. Reason: The trustee may get enough from Requests 1–3 first. If more is still needed, the parties must meet and confer. If they still fight, they can come back to court. Translation: This door is still open. ⸻ What FINRA WON Requests 6–9 were QUASHED entirely. Meaning: FINRA does NOT have to produce whatever those categories were seeking. So this was not a total trustee sweep. ⸻ Costs — trustee pays Because FINRA is a nonparty, Rule 45 cost protections apply. Meaning: If producing the data is expensive or burdensome: the trustee pays the production costs. This matters because FINRA had argued massive burden. The judge basically said: “Produce it—but the estate can shoulder the cost.” ⸻ Protective order remains in place Anything produced stays under the existing protective order. Meaning: This data is not automatically public. It’s controlled discovery material. So no—this does not mean shareholders get to immediately see raw trading records.

🦋⚖️ $MMAT / $MMTLP — Meta Materials Inc. ⚖️ U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada 📄 ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH 📅 Filed: May 27, 2026 ⚠️NLA 🚨 BIG PICTURE — WHAT JUST HAPPENED? Judge Gary Spraker just issued a MAJOR ruling against: 🏢 Citadel Securities 🏢 Virtu Financial 🏢 Anson Funds These firms tried to QUASH (block) the bankruptcy trustee’s subpoenas seeking trading data tied to: 📈 $MMAT 📈 $TRCH 📈 $MMTLP The Judge said: ❌ The subpoenas are NOT being fully thrown out. ✅ The trustee CAN obtain important trading records. ⚠️ BUT there will be strict protective-order limitations. ⸻ 🧠 LAYMAN’S TERMS The trustee believes there MAY have been market manipulation or wrongful conduct connected to Meta Materials trading activity. The trustee is trying to determine: 🔍 Was trading activity harming the company? 🔍 Did it impact fundraising? 🔍 Did it damage the bankruptcy estate? 🔍 Are there potential legal claims worth pursuing before statutes expire? The Judge basically said: “The trustee has the right to investigate.” ⚖️ ⸻ 📌 THE COURT EMPHASIZED RULE 2004 IS VERY BROAD The Court repeated that Rule 2004 examinations are basically: 🎣 “Fishing expeditions” 📂 Broad investigative tools 🔎 Used to uncover wrongdoing or estate assets The Judge cited multiple cases saying trustees can investigate third parties to determine whether wrongdoing occurred. ⸻ 🚨 HUGE PART — THE COURT ACCEPTED THE TRUSTEE’S THEORY ENOUGH TO ALLOW DISCOVERY The trustee identified: 📊 11 separate “events” where Meta or Torchlight allegedly: 💰 Sold treasury shares 📉 Issued dilution 📈 Raised capital 📄 Issued warrants/acquisition stock during periods where the trustee claims trading manipulation may have affected pricing. The Non-Parties argued: ❌ “Meta wasn’t actually selling into the manipulated market.” ❌ “The trustee lacks standing.” ❌ “This is too speculative.” Judge Spraker was NOT persuaded enough to stop discovery. 👀 ⸻ ⚠️ VERY IMPORTANT — THE JUDGE DREW A LINE The Court said: 🛑 This is NOT the stage where the Court decides whether Citadel/Virtu/Anson actually committed wrongdoing. Instead: ✅ The trustee only needs enough justification to INVESTIGATE whether viable claims might exist. That distinction matters A LOT. ⸻ 👀 THE JUDGE ALSO SHOWED SOME CONCERN This part is important. The Court acknowledged concerns that: ⚠️ The trustee’s special counsel is involved in OTHER securities litigation against Citadel and Virtu. ⚠️ Rule 2004 discovery cannot simply become a shortcut for outside litigation. ⚠️ Discovery should benefit the bankruptcy estate — not unrelated lawsuits. So the Judge imposed guardrails. ⸻ 🔒 PROTECTIVE ORDER INCOMING The Court ordered the parties to negotiate a STRICT protective order. That order must: 🔒 Limit use of produced data -THIS bankruptcy 🔒 Limit use to trustee-related litigation 🔒 Restrict dissemination of data 🔒 Restrict access to trustee approved professionals only 🚨 RESPONSE DEADLINE: 📅 June 18, 2026 — Protective order must be submitted to the Court. ⸻ 🚨 BIGGEST DEADLINE OF ALL 📅 JUNE 25, 2026 The Judge ordered Citadel, Virtu, and Anson to PRODUCE: 📊 Market-wide trading data 📈 For the 161-day schedule identified by the trustee 📂 Under the Rule 45 subpoenas unless modified by the protective order. That is the MAJOR headline here. 🚨🚨 ⚖️ WHAT THIS MEANS PRACTICALLY The trustee now gains access to a significant amount of trading data that the Court believes may help determine: 🧩 Whether viable claims exist 🧩 Whether wrongdoing occurred 🧩 Whether the estate suffered damages 🧩 Whether litigation should be filed before limitation deadlines This does NOT mean: ❌ Anyone has been found liable ❌ Manipulation has been proven ❌ The trustee automatically wins anything BUT… ✅ The investigation survived. ✅ Discovery survived. ✅ The Court largely sided with allowing investigation over shutting it down. SIGNIFICANT legal victory for the trustee!

@Trading212 Can you tell me and other clients what changed all of a sudden as to why you stated $MMTLP would not be trading on your platform because you cannot source an official price from the OTC Grey market. If this is the case how can you source a price to sell/close only? 👀

Guess their custodian 🤓 Answer: Interactive Brokers Notice the communications regarding MMTLP shown below prior to the halt from both Interactive Brokers and Trading 212.

🧵2/3) $MMAT $MMAX $MMTLP $NXBR $TRCH @nbhydrocarbons  @palikaras  @JWesChristian  @WarshawBurstein  Something smells off to me here… Interactive brokers is Trading 212s intermediary, they were trading MMTLP somewhere on one of the OTC markets in October 2021 see below.

@IvanAshminov @Trading212Help @IBKR @IBKR_Europe @Trading212 I asked @Trading212 on the day of this press release which was 157 days ago if you could DRS all of my private none tradable, none valued @nbhydrocarbons $NXBR holding to AST. I’ve also asked multiple times since that day on Trading212’s platform chat for an answer but sadly I keep getting left in the dark. Can you look into this please as it’s becoming more and more frustrating being told “I will hear back from your team” but then never seem to get any follow up or reasonable response. @IBKR I’m told the delay of information/clarification is from your end as the intermediary. This always seems to be the case whenever I have any questions, they’re never answered properly because of lack of communication or information means query’s are either unanswered or not answered correctly as in a timely manner. Can both party’s look into this please as I know I’m not the only UK/European investor who is in this frustrating position and is concerned about their investment. Thanks in advance. $MMAT $NXBR $MMTLP

$MMTLP $NXBR I also received this email today and honestly I read it as a positive for once. A lot of UK/European investors (myself included) have been frustrated that we haven’t had the option to transfer our NXBR shares to the transfer agent (AST/Equiniti) directly. Now Trading 212 are finally allowing it. At the end of the day, if these shares are private/non trading with no current market value, I personally don’t see much benefit in them sitting in a broker account anyway unless the company eventually decides to make them tradeable again. I’m happy to pay the transfer fee so my Next Bridge shares can FINALLY be directly registered in my own name instead of sitting in an omnibus/street name account where I’m only the beneficial owner. Basically this cuts out the middleman (Trading 212) and puts the certificates directly in our names instead of the broker’s. Personally, I’d prefer that but each to their own. Happy Friday 🫡😊👍🏼

$MMAT / $TRCH / $MMTLP 🦋 Case: In re Meta Materials Inc., Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada DOC: 2806 Date Entered: May 19, 2026 ⚠️ Not Legal Advice What happened in plain English: 🎣 Rule 2004 = Bankruptcy’s “fishing expedition” (yes, the judge basically says that) The judge reiterated what he’s hinted at before: Rule 2004 discovery is VERY broad. Translation: A bankruptcy trustee gets wide latitude to investigate: ✅ what happened to the debtor ✅ possible wrongdoing ✅ transactions involving third parties ✅ whether there are claims worth bringing for the estate This is not normal narrow civil discovery. It’s intentionally broad. ⸻ 📉 Nasdaq’s argument: “This is too burdensome” Nasdaq argued: 🛑 The trustee wants too much data 🛑 It would require custom/expert work 🛑 About 4 years of data is too much 🛑 Producing “order type” information would require creating special work product 🛑 Rule 2004 is being used as a pre-lawsuit litigation weapon ⸻ 👨‍⚖️ Judge’s response: Not buying most of it The judge was blunt. Big takeaway quote: “The court is not persuaded that in modern times, producing roughly fifteen gigabytes of data in spreadsheet form is unduly burdensome for any entity, let alone one as sophisticated as Nasdaq.” That’s a pretty direct rejection. 💥 Translation: “Nasdaq, you’re a major market operator. Don’t tell me 15GB is impossible.” ⸻ 📂 Trustee’s clarification mattered Judge noted trustee said: ❌ She is NOT asking Nasdaq to create a brand new custom “order type” field ✅ She IS asking Nasdaq to produce existing trade data and identify how order type can be determined from existing fields That distinction appears to have helped. ⸻ 🧱 Nasdaq’s Rule 45 procedural argument failed Nasdaq argued the subpoena process was improper. Judge said essentially: ❌ Nope. Nevada bankruptcy local rules explicitly allow Rule 45 subpoenas in this context. So that argument went nowhere. ⸻ 🎯 Standing / scope argument also failed Nasdaq argued: “Third-party stock trades aren’t Meta’s property.” Judge’s answer: The trustee presented evidence Meta was issuing stock during the relevant time. AND… The trustee identified possible estate claims like: 💰 breach of fiduciary duty 💰 unjust enrichment 💰 professional malpractice Meaning: This isn’t just curiosity—it could directly affect the estate. That makes Rule 2004 discovery appropriate. ⸻ 🧠 Pre-litigation concern (Nasdaq had one valid point) The judge acknowledged Nasdaq’s concern: Rule 2004 cannot be abused just to get a free head start in litigation. BUT… He ultimately deferred to the trustee’s business judgment. That’s important. Translation: “Yes, I see the concern—but I’m not stepping in here.” ⸻ 👀 Prior production hurt Nasdaq’s credibility This is a sneaky but important line. Judge notes Nasdaq already produced 6 months of data previously. Translation: “If you already produced similar data, it’s harder to argue further production is impossible.” 💥 That undercuts Nasdaq’s burden argument significantly. ⸻ THE ACTUAL ORDER 📜 NASDAQ MUST PRODUCE BY JUNE 9, 2026 ⏰ Nasdaq must produce transaction data for: ✅ MMAT ✅ TRCH Date range: 📅 September 21, 2020 → August 21, 2024 Including: 📊 RASH data /CORE data 📊 data dictionaries / all orders 📊 executions / cancellations 📊 replacements / order type modifiers 📊 order attributes BUT: ❌ Nasdaq does NOT have to create a custom new “order type” field ⸻ Denied? “All other requests” in the subpoena package were denied w/out prejudice. That means: 🚪 not necessarily dead forever 🚪 trustee may potentially narrow/repackage later ⸻ Practical takeaway 🦋 This is a meaningful trustee win. Nasdaq fought production. Nasdaq lost the core fight. The trustee gets a multi-year transactional dataset—exactly the kind of raw market data that can be used for forensic analysis. The judge imposed guardrails, but the headline is clear: Nasdaq must produce. 📈⚖️🦋

$MMATQ $MNAX $TRCH $MMTLP $NXBR

RT @palikaras: 🚨Breaking news: 🦋 @Nasdaq just LOST its Motion to Quash. Read that again s l o w l y . . . The Bankruptcy Court in Nevad…

RT @palikaras:

MMAT🦋 MMTLP TRCH NB Meta Materials Bankruptcy Case Docket Watch - No updates yet regarding the Judge’s ruling regarding the motions to quash. 👀

🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️🌶️ 🦋 $MMAT | In re Meta Materials Inc. (Bankr. D. Nev.) 📅 Filed: May 8, 2026 🌶️ 📄 Document 2769 — Stipulated Protective Order Relating to Subpoenas to FINRA 🧠 Layman’s Breakdown This filing is actually good news for the trustee’s investigation. In simple terms: 🚨 What just happened? The trustee and FINRA reached an agreement on the rules for turning over sensitive information. Translation: FINRA is preparing to produce documents/data, but wanted strict confidentiality protections first. This is NOT a fight over whether information can be produced. This is more of a: 🤝 “Fine, we’ll produce it—but here are the rules.” That’s a meaningful shift. ⸻ 🎯 Why does this matter? FINRA previously fought hard, arguing: ⚖️ burden 🔒 privilege 📁 confidentiality 🕵️ investigative protections Now we have a signed protective order. That usually means: ✅ Production is moving forward ✅ Logistics are being finalized ✅ The trustee is getting closer to actual evidence ⸻ 📜 What is a protective order? Think of it like a court-enforced NDA. Sensitive material can be handed over, but: ❌ not dumped publicly ❌ not posted online ❌ not used outside this case ✅ only approved people can see it ⸻ 📊 What can FINRA label confidential? A LOT. Examples: 📂 internal regulatory materials 🕵️ investigation-related information 📈 trading / transactional data 🏢 proprietary business info 👤 customer/member information 💰 investor/fund positions 📨 nonpublic communications Translation: The trustee may be getting highly sensitive market data. ⸻ 🔐 Two levels of secrecy 🟡 1. CONFIDENTIAL Can be seen by: 👩‍⚖️ trustee ⚖️ trustee’s attorneys 👥 staff helping the case 📊 retained experts 🛠 litigation consultants ⸻ 🔴 2. ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY Even tighter. Basically limited to: ⚖️ lawyers 🧠 approved experts 🖥 support personnel Meaning: 🚫 not broad distribution ⸻ 👀 HUGE practical point: Who’s on the trustee team? This filing specifically identifies outside counsel helping the trustee: ⚖️ Hartman & Hartman ⚖️ Christian Attar 🔥 Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP ⚖️ Robison Sharp Sullivan & Brust / SBW ⚖️ Schneider Wallace Why this matters: Kasowitz is not your average routine bankruptcy admin firm. That suggests: 💥 serious litigation preparation ⸻ 🛡 What FINRA still protects Important caveat: FINRA is NOT waiving privilege. They specifically preserve: 🔒 attorney-client privilege 📚 work product 🕵️ investigative file privilege ⚖️ other legal protections Translation: This is NOT “open the vault.” ⸻ 🌐 Can shareholders see this data? Not automatically. If filed with court: 🔐 likely under seal ⚖️ public release would require further steps So: 👀 shareholders probably won’t immediately see raw production. ⸻ 🚀 Big strategic takeaway This strongly suggests discovery is shifting from: ❌ “Should FINRA produce?” to ✅ “How do we handle what FINRA produces?” That’s a meaningful procedural win. The real question now: 🤔 What’s in the data? ⸻ 🦋 Quick Summary FINRA and the trustee just agreed on confidentiality rules for subpoenaed materials. That usually means production is moving forward. Sensitive market/regulatory data may be coming in, heavyweight litigation counsel is clearly involved, but much of the evidence may remain sealed unless used later in litigation. ⚠️ Not legal advice dropbox.com/scl/fi/0as7ge4pu…