$MMTLP Warrior Wednesday- The battle continues on Day 978 👊

The Spaces convened activists around the Meta Materials/Torchlight/MMTLP saga to dissect FINRA’s motion to quash subpoenas for CAT (Consolidated Audit Trail), Electronic Blue Sheets (EBS), and related trading records in the MMAT bankruptcy. Curtis led with the core point: this is a landmark, precedent-setting fight over whether market-wide transparency data can be compelled in court. He argued FINRA’s “undue burden” and “regulatory-use-only” defenses are hollow because CAT/EBS are automated, standardized datasets broker-dealers must retain and can produce rapidly, and FOIA correspondence shows regulators already pulled key records around the 2022 halt. The SEC’s own charges alleging “illegally facilitated short squeezes” implicitly acknowledge significant short interest—contradicting prior FINRA FAQs. The group framed Sept 4 (hearing) and a two-week response window as a decisive timeline, urging an outreach blitz: media amplification, cross‑ticker retail coalitions, and congressional engagement to counter regulatory capture. Community helpers shared FOIA tactics (stagger requests, vary templates, confirm ongoing interest) and proposed quantifying public support. The call to action: make this the focus, expand beyond MMTLP, and force transparency that could expose manipulation. If FINRA prevails, participants warned, regulators retain the “keys to the kingdom,” limiting accountability for all issuers and investors.

MMTLP/FINRA Motion to Quash — Twitter Spaces Summary and Action Notes

What this Space Was About

• Core topic: FINRA has filed a motion to quash subpoenas for trading data and a Bankruptcy Rule 2004 examination in the Meta Materials (MMAT) bankruptcy. Participants argued this is a landmark transparency fight with market-wide implications, not just for MMTLP/TRCH/MMAT holders.
• Urgency: A hearing is preliminarily set for September 4, with a two-week window for the trustee/legal teams to respond. Speakers urged immediate, coordinated outreach and advocacy.

Key Speakers (as identified in the Space)

• Curtis (primary analyst/commentator; 说话人 2)
• Iron Tiger (host/moderator; 说话人 1)
• It’s Time (advocacy/strategy; 说话人 3)
• Susie (media outreach; 说话人 4)
• Annette/“Net” (coordination/nest posts; 说话人 5)
• Matt (questions on legal trajectory/settlement; 说话人 6)
• Jack (advocacy emphasis; 说话人 7)
• Mushroom (community; 说话人 8)
• MMTLP Canada (FOIA assists; 说话人 9)
• Dr. E (policy/oversight framing; 说话人 10)
• Jana (congressional outreach; 说话人 11)
• Happy and Positive (media/irony note; 说话人 12)
• Busy (organizing cross-ticker media Space; 说话人 13)

Procedural Status and Timeline

• Motion: FINRA moved to quash subpoenas for trading data and a Rule 2004 exam in the MMAT bankruptcy.
• Hearing date: September 4 (also the 1,000th day since the MMTLP halt, as noted by Mushroom). Multiple matters may be heard that day.
• Response window: Approximately two weeks for trustee/legal teams to oppose the motion.
• Stakes: Speakers characterized this as a precedent-setting case for whether Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) and related data can be compelled and used in court.

Data at Issue and Why It Matters

• Data sought: CAT data, Electronic Blue Sheets (EBS), and other trade/position records tied to TRCH, MMAT, and MMTLP. One cited FINRA claim referenced the burden of generating approximately 23.5 million trade records.
• Community’s position (Curtis and others):
  • This data exists, is automated (CAT), and EBS are standardized; broker-dealers must retain and produce within prescribed time frames (often within 24 hours). MPID and ticker-based queries are routine.
  • Retention and reporting obligations mean producing it is a retrieval task, not a novel data creation exercise.
  • Much of the infrastructure is a sunk cost; claims of new burdens are exaggerated.
  • The data’s core purpose is investigative/enforcement use—exactly the use case here.

FINRA/SEC Arguments vs. Community Counterpoints

• Claimed by FINRA: Production is overly burdensome; certain data is for regulatory use only and lacks legal precedent for courtroom use.
• Counterpoints (Curtis, Dr. E, others):
  • Dual standard: Regulators routinely leverage CAT/EBS against retail investors and issuers, but claim “burden” when production could expose member firms.
  • Transparency gap: FOIA records suggest regulators pulled EBS as early as Dec 5, 2022, and inquiries date back to Nov 2021—so the “burden” narrative conflicts with known activity.
  • Precedent matters: There is no existing courtroom precedent for CAT; denying production here risks entrenching opacity. Granting production would establish a transparency precedent.
  • Cost logic: Community analysis (cited “Trevor’s” breakdown) suggests legal spend to quash already far exceeds the marginal cost of producing the data—signaling desperation.

SEC Allegations of “Facilitated Short Squeezes” and Contradictions

• SEC posture: Allegations that former CEOs (George, Meta Materials Inc.; John, Torchlight) “illegally facilitated” two short squeezes (June 2021 merger period and MMTLP period), benefiting ~ $137 million at the time.
• Community analysis (Curtis, It’s Time):
  • A short squeeze requires significant short interest (naked or legitimate). You can’t assert a “facilitated short squeeze” while publicly claiming there was no concentrated short position/insignificant FTDs (as per FINRA FAQ messaging).
  • If a short squeeze occurred, underlying short interest data is essential evidence; regulators cannot rely on the narrative while withholding the data that would prove—or disprove—it.

Broader Market Implications and CAT Governance

• CAT ownership: CAT is controlled by FINRA CAT LLC. Community fears that if data remains “regulatory use only” with no compelled judicial access, regulators retain uncheckable power over transparency and accountability.
• Industry pushback context: Citadel, Virtu, SIFMA, and the Financial Information Forum have opposed aspects of CAT implementation; community cites this history as background on transparency resistance.
• Precedent risk: If FINRA’s motion succeeds, speakers warned it could be leveraged to block data access in future bankruptcies, fraud cases, and across all tickers and retail movements (GME, AMC, BBBY, DJT, NWBO, Mullen, FingerMotion, Genius Group, Tesla, Wolf, Kodak, etc.).

Next Bridge Hydrocarbons (NBH) and Regulatory Gatekeeping

• Curtis recapped: SEC could have blocked earlier stages (RTO of Meta/Torchlight; MMTLP OTC listing; NBH spin-out registration). Initial NBH S-1 (2022) took ~4 months and 4 amendments; post-Feb 2023 accredited-only share registration has been kept in limbo.
• Message: Regulators “hold the keys,” reinforcing the need to compel underlying trading data now.

Legal Unknowns and Potential Delay Tactics

• Do-or-die on Sept 4? Curtis: Not a lawyer; expects regulators will exhaust all delay avenues if available. Nevertheless, this is the best venue and timing to force data.
• Negotiation to avert a loss? Possible, but unknown.

Funding and Redress Questions

• If manipulation is proven, where does compensation come from? Matt asked whether the US government could front restitution and pursue bad actors later. Curtis: Possible, with historical precedent, but cautioned against getting ahead—focus now on outreach and winning data access.
• It’s Time: Money is not the immediate blocker; political/priority will is. Attention creates priority.

Advocacy Plan and Calls to Action

• Media amplification (Curtis, Susie, Busy, others):
  • Engage journalists/influencers who have covered retail market structure: Kristen Shaughnessy, Dennis Kneale, Charles Payne, Rob Carter, Frank Nez, Richard Hoffman, Michael (GME), and more.
  • Leverage cross-ticker organizers to spread a unified message: A favorable ruling benefits all retail; an adverse ruling harms all.
• Congressional outreach (Jana, Dr. E, Curtis):
  • Representatives are in-district; call and brief them: FINRA is attempting to block court-ordered transparency central to investor protection and market integrity.
  • Tie into existing oversight themes (e.g., Rep. Lisa McClain’s HR 2689 on FINRA oversight “bloat” and accountability). Note: Community referenced prior interest from figures like Devin Nunes (4/23/2024 letter citing the MMTLP open letter) seeking transparency.
  • Address the “don’t influence a court case” pushback: Speakers argued Congress frequently takes positions on pending matters and has oversight of SROs.
• Quantify support (Curtis): Create visible, measurable public backing (e.g., petitions, coalition letters, coordinated posts) that can be submitted within oppositions to the motion.
• Upcoming Space (Busy): Cross-ticker Space set for 3:00 pm Eastern to align narratives and amplify reach. Confirmed invites included Dennis Kneale and Frank Nez; others reviewing documents.

FOIA Strategy and Support

• MMTLP Canada offered hands-on assistance for FOIA submissions (box-by-box help, phone/message support). Volunteers referenced “Wally” templates.
• Practical tips:
  • Stagger multiple requests by a day or two; vary language to avoid mass-lumping and potential delays.
  • Monitor SEC FOIA emails—failure to confirm “still interested” notices results in closures.
  • Expect standard 20-day deadlines to be extended with “unusual circumstances” notices (e.g., volume, inter-office consultations, geographically separated searches).
  • Consider using AI to infer redacted portions contextually (cited a study showing meaningful success rates on filling gaps).
  • Keep pressure up: even denials/extensions force work and keep MMTLP in front of staff.

Community Dynamics and “Litmus Test” Moment

• Curtis: This is a litmus test. Anyone inside the community who impedes the push for data transparency signals suspect motives. “Waiting on the S-1” alone is not acceptable; the community must act on what it can influence now.
• It’s Time and Jack: Watch who tries to derail; motives will become apparent under pressure. This is do-or-die for transparency credibility.

Notable Points and Ironies

• “Duality” theme: Regulators emphasize transparency when targeting retail/issuers, but claim burden/confidentiality when data might expose member firms.
• Happy and Positive highlighted a “transparency” post from “Paul Atkins” (described as SEC chair in the Space) on the same day—seen as starkly ironic given the motion to quash.
• Dr. E framed FINRA as an SRO with blanket immunity and congressional oversight responsibility; argued that oversight engagement is warranted.

Action Checklist (Time-Sensitive)

• Immediately:
  • Share clear, simple messaging across all retail communities: A loss here could set national precedent blocking CAT/EBS access in court for all tickers and cases.
  • Attend and amplify the cross-ticker Space (3:00 pm Eastern) organized by Busy; bring in journalists/influencers.
  • Contact congressional offices: brief staff on FINRA’s motion to quash, the contradiction with investor protection mandates, and the need to support transparency.
  • Coordinate posts across communities; use the “nest” templates and legal filings to ensure accuracy; tag broad networks.
• This week (within the two-week response window):
  • Generate quantifiable support (petitions, coalition statements, media op-eds) that can be cited by legal teams opposing the motion.
  • Submit/maintain FOIA requests (staggered; unique wording; respond to “still interested” emails; track case numbers).
  • Keep messaging consistent: This is a market integrity issue, not just an MMTLP issue.

Core Message to Carry Forward

• If the court grants FINRA’s motion, regulators retain exclusive control over CAT/EBS and can avoid accountability in future proceedings across all tickers.
• If the court compels production, it sets a crucial precedent for judicial access to the truth about market manipulation.
• This is a finite, time-bound campaign. Organize, amplify, quantify support, and keep pressure on until and through September 4.