Glitch

1.6K posts

Glitch

Glitch

@Gamerup13

California, USA Katılım Aralık 2014
73 Takip Edilen47 Takipçiler
Glitch retweetledi
Ann Vandersteel™️
Ann Vandersteel™️@annvandersteel·
@SECPaulSAtkins @SECGov @dcexaminer Really??? What about #MMTLP? What have you done for those people who were robbed by Gensler’s SEC and Ruehmler’s FINRA???? What about snakes like Anson Fund who naw short sell companies out of business?
English
20
174
374
3.6K
Glitch retweetledi
Ann Vandersteel™️
Ann Vandersteel™️@annvandersteel·
The wheels of justice move slowly. But the Wall Street Rabid Wolves are about to meet Justice served cold. Kudos to the #MMTLP community for being the standard bearer for all investor communities who have been robbed, demoralized, bankrupted or sadly taken their own life due to the criminal conspiracy to steal from honest, hard working American families. @EdMartinDOJ
JunkSavvy@JunkSavvy

If there is a winning argument to deny TRANSPARENCY to tens of thousands of defrauded investors, don't you think the best attorneys money can buy would be making it??? They tried, THEY FAILED!!! 1 Down, 4 to go.... #Discovery "And why do they want to know whether our client caused a spike? Because they want to name us as a defendant in the lawsuit." ~Peter Fountain, Counsel for Citadel, VIRTU, Anson Funds NONE of you can stop what is coming... MMAT MMTLP TRCH NBH

English
15
243
482
10.3K
Glitch retweetledi
JunkSavvy
JunkSavvy@JunkSavvy·
NEW FOIA reveals 5 SEC Commissioners (including Gensler) corresponded re: MMTLP in 13,177 emails in the days immediately preceding FINRA's U3 Halt on December 8/9, 2022. Former Chairman Gensler testified to Congress that FINRA did not seek advice from the SEC regarding the trading halt which occured 2 days before the published and promoted end of trading, trapping 65k+ investors. What do you think they discussed???.... #FOIA Credit: @thedocespo
JunkSavvy tweet media
English
19
289
452
16.8K
Glitch retweetledi
Ann Vandersteel™️
Ann Vandersteel™️@annvandersteel·
Court docs just pulled the curtain back. Coordinated short attacks. Paid hit pieces. Billions wiped out while insiders cashed in. This wasn’t trading. It was a machine. TL;DR A new lawsuit against Anson Funds lays out a detailed “short-and-distort” scheme, alleging coordinated attacks on public companies to drive down stock prices for profit. According to the filing, Anson and its leadership worked with third party publishers to spread negative, often false, information after establishing short positions, triggering massive selloffs. One highlighted case shows a company’s stock collapsing over 40% and ultimately going to zero following such an attack. The suit claims these tactics generated millions in illicit gains while wiping out billions in shareholder value, with patterns of similar behavior cited across multiple prior cases and regulatory actions. You can file this in the POS category. marketfrauds.to/anson-funds-ne… @stockmannnbroo
Ann Vandersteel™️ tweet media
English
28
282
601
13K
Glitch
Glitch@Gamerup13·
#mmtlp community has been halted for more than 3 years! Please help us and bring accountability to the American system. @annvandersteel @jonstewart support us! We need your help! @realDonaldTrump @JDVance @joerogan @TheJusticeDept
Ann Vandersteel™️@annvandersteel

🔫This is one of several smoking guns. The 1st $MMTLP Corporate Action stated shareholders would receive one (1) share of Next Bridge Hydrocarbons on 12/14/22, while simultaneously declaring MMTLP shares cancelled effective 12/13/22. As written, that is logically impossible. A security cannot be cancelled before the date required to receive the distribution. Had this Corporate Action been properly reviewed under @FINRA Rule 6490, it never should have appeared on the Daily List. Meanwhile, the SEC was engaged in email communications with FIF, a broker-dealer trade organization, regarding concerns over synthetic (fake) shares and uncovered short positions being carried by broker-dealers. Rather than force reconciliation or require shorts to cover, FINRA, the regulator overseeing those same broker/dealers, ensured they never had to. FINRA later claimed it relied on language from a December 23rd press release, yet still failed to include the correct 12/14/22 (after market close) share cancellation date. Instead, FINRA doubled down by deleting the MMTLP symbol on 12/13, an action that typically coincides with share cancellation. By doing so, FINRA, not Meta Materials or Next Bridge, forced a Mandatory Exchange/Reorganization on December 13, regardless of issuer intent. Every brokerage was compelled to comply because it was FINRA’s Corporate Action, not the issuer’s. Then, just three days before the position was set to close, FINRA invoked a U3 halt, an extraordinary measure reserved for industry preservation emergencies, to halt a security that was never supposed to trade in the first place. The result: short positions were frozen in place, reconciliation was avoided, innocent investors were locked out, and entire #MMTLP portfolios were effectively wiped out leaving a path of destruction and despair for over 65,000 #MMTLPFAMILY members. FINRA later removed the requirement that MMTLP be held through 12/14/22, a change that appeared only months later in its first FAQ, after the damage was already done. This is a clear example of regulatory coordination and FINRA acting outside its scope of duty. Unless someone can point to where FINRA is authorized to rewrite an issuer’s Corporate Action in a way that causes settlement failure and protects broker/dealers, this was regulatory misconduct. Perhaps representatives from FINRA and the @SECGov or @SecScottBessent would like to comment at the upcoming Press Conference in front of the SEC? Will the @TheJusticeDept send anyone? The #MMTLPARMY will be there...💪

English
0
0
0
83
Glitch retweetledi
Ann Vandersteel™️
Ann Vandersteel™️@annvandersteel·
🔫This is one of several smoking guns. The 1st $MMTLP Corporate Action stated shareholders would receive one (1) share of Next Bridge Hydrocarbons on 12/14/22, while simultaneously declaring MMTLP shares cancelled effective 12/13/22. As written, that is logically impossible. A security cannot be cancelled before the date required to receive the distribution. Had this Corporate Action been properly reviewed under @FINRA Rule 6490, it never should have appeared on the Daily List. Meanwhile, the SEC was engaged in email communications with FIF, a broker-dealer trade organization, regarding concerns over synthetic (fake) shares and uncovered short positions being carried by broker-dealers. Rather than force reconciliation or require shorts to cover, FINRA, the regulator overseeing those same broker/dealers, ensured they never had to. FINRA later claimed it relied on language from a December 23rd press release, yet still failed to include the correct 12/14/22 (after market close) share cancellation date. Instead, FINRA doubled down by deleting the MMTLP symbol on 12/13, an action that typically coincides with share cancellation. By doing so, FINRA, not Meta Materials or Next Bridge, forced a Mandatory Exchange/Reorganization on December 13, regardless of issuer intent. Every brokerage was compelled to comply because it was FINRA’s Corporate Action, not the issuer’s. Then, just three days before the position was set to close, FINRA invoked a U3 halt, an extraordinary measure reserved for industry preservation emergencies, to halt a security that was never supposed to trade in the first place. The result: short positions were frozen in place, reconciliation was avoided, innocent investors were locked out, and entire #MMTLP portfolios were effectively wiped out leaving a path of destruction and despair for over 65,000 #MMTLPFAMILY members. FINRA later removed the requirement that MMTLP be held through 12/14/22, a change that appeared only months later in its first FAQ, after the damage was already done. This is a clear example of regulatory coordination and FINRA acting outside its scope of duty. Unless someone can point to where FINRA is authorized to rewrite an issuer’s Corporate Action in a way that causes settlement failure and protects broker/dealers, this was regulatory misconduct. Perhaps representatives from FINRA and the @SECGov or @SecScottBessent would like to comment at the upcoming Press Conference in front of the SEC? Will the @TheJusticeDept send anyone? The #MMTLPARMY will be there...💪
Rare DD@RareDealsHere

The 1st $MMTLP Corporate Action said "...will receive one (1) share of Next Bridge Hydrocarbons Inc. for every one (1) share of MMTLP held on Pay Date of 12/14/22." It then goes on to say that "MMTLP shares will be cancelled effective 12/13/22." As written, it was impossible to receive shares of Next Bridge on 12/14/22. If the Corporate Action was properly reviewed according to @FINRA Rule 6490, this Corporate Action never would've made it to the Daily List! The 2nd image includes wording from the December 23rd PR that FINRA claims to have used to create the MMTLP Corporate Action. Observe that using the correct December 14th (after market close) share cancellation date would've prevented the issue that FINRA created. But FINRA didn't include the correct December 14th Share Cancellation in the revised Corporate Action either. They instead included that FINRA would be Deleting the MMTLP SYMBOL on December 13th. SYMBOL DELETION is an action that usually coincides with SHARE CANCELLATION. So essentially they were doubling down on December 13th being the SHARE CANCELLATION DATE because they didn't include the correct SHARE CANCELLATION DATE until 3 months later in their first FAQ. FINRA also removed that part about having to have held MMTLP on December 14th in their revised Corporate Action. Whether the MMTLP SYMBOL was Deleted on December 13th or not, every brokerage had to take part in a Mandatory Exchange/Reorganization on December 13th because it was always FINRA's Corporate Action, it didn't matter what Metamaterials or Next Bridge wanted to do! A clear example of FINRA acting outside of their scope of duty! (Unless someone can comment below where it says that FINRA is allowed to modify/revise/amend an issuer's Corporate Action in such a way that it CAUSES settlement issues.) I'll wait! Investor Protection Market Integrity @SECGov @SECEnfDirector @GaryGensler @HesterPeirce @FBI @FBIWFO @FBILosAngeles @NewYorkFBI @DOJCrimDiv @TheJusticeDept @SecretService @RepRalphNorman @MikeCrapo #MMTLPsetaDate

English
41
742
1.1K
33.3K
Glitch retweetledi
Glitch retweetledi
George Palikaras
George Palikaras@palikaras·
FINRA's counsel's reaction on the screen was really something to watch today... (at least to me) He was visibly distressed, holding his forehead, looking devastated at times and blank at others, not facing directly the screen like everyone else, one time his head was looking down so far that you could only see his hair (hands looked like texting someone profusely), fidgeting on his seat the whole time, head turned to 9/3 o'clock... seemed to not be alone in the room looking at them, and a lot of his narration/answers were rushed... with an unnatura/reading from an AI/live screen. This demeanor is important IMO as it will make sense when i explain the turning point of the hearing... In contrast on the Trustee side, 2 out of 3 lawyers came and left (Wes and Clay), very relaxed and very very confident, didnt push on the CAT because they got that thet came for... remember folks, they are triangulating. the TRF data plus Nasdaq plus marke makers etc etc... would you bet that the data will show exact consistency and no irregularities across multiple sources?? 🤣😂 I bet FINRA will be very unhappy after today: Even though FINRA won on Requests 6, 7, 8, 9, at the PRELIMINARY phase, the overall ruling was a disaster for FINRA because: ❌ FINRA Lost the Big One: TRF Data THIS was the MOST BURDENSOME request (25 MILLION items!!! - FINRA claimed it would take weeks/months and cost hundreds of thousands Judge said: "Produce it anyway, trustee will pay" 😂🤣 This is what FINRA REALLY cared about ❌ FINRA also Lost short interest and Reg SHO Data These were easier but still part of the market-wide data fishing expedition FINRA wanted to STOP ❌ The Judge's tone was against FINRA What I heard and saw today was the: - Judge repeatedly criticizing FINRA's approach - Judge essentially said the trustee was "reasonable" and FINRA wasn't cooperating - Judge essentially telling FINRA to work with the trustee or face consequences.
GIF
English
32
244
513
16.5K
Glitch retweetledi
Rare DD
Rare DD@RareDealsHere·
FINRA is claiming that providing data to the MMAT Bankruptcy Trustee is too burdensome but... 1. Since FINRA already investigated, the majority of the requested data should already be available. 2. The podcast linked in the quote post below features FINRA's Sam Draddy. He's the guy that told the SEC on 12-5-22 that FINRA was actively Blue Sheeting (investigating) MMAT & MMTLP. In the podcast he talks about how AI dramatically decreases the time it takes to conduct investigations. FINRA is lying, they didn't protect investors, the data will prove this. MMAT traded for a good amount of time AFTER MMTLP was U3 halted. If FINRA discovered manipulation in MMAT during their Blue Sheet investigation, why wasn't the SEC altered to do something about it? @SECPaulSAtkins @SECGov @TheJusticeDept
Rare DD tweet media
Rare DD@RareDealsHere

Based on this podcast featuring FINRA's Sam Draddy, it should be easier than ever for FINRA to provide data to a Bankruptcy Trustee. @palikaras "...investigations that historically may have taken up to six tc eight months are now being completed in less than half that time, with many being completed in a matter of days and weeks as opposed to months." finra.org/media-center/f…

English
6
166
223
8.6K
Glitch retweetledi
George Palikaras
George Palikaras@palikaras·
BREAKING NEWS 🚨 Judge's Motions to Quash Decisions in April 20th 2026 Hearing... lets start with the facts Impotant Note to remember: this is a Preliminary Investigation Phase... (Disclaimer these are my notes, the pending final transcripts will reveal and support my findings, and I expect the community to accept, scrutinize or suggest edits if anything is innacurate) Based on the court ruling, here are the judge's decisions on each of the nine requests in FINRA's motion to quash: FINRA DENIED (Trustee Prevails): Request 1 - Short Interest Reporting Data: - Court will deny the motion to quash. - FINRA agreed this data could probably be produced - Judge noted discussion about duration (4 years vs. shorter period) needs clarification but denied the motion Request 2 - Trade Reporting Facility (TRF) Data: - Court will deny the motion to quash - Despite FINRA's claims of significant burden (25 million items), judge found it not "unduly burdensome" under Rule 45 - Trustee to bear costs of production - Judge emphasized need for good faith meet and confer on scope, timing, and cost-shifting Request 3 - Daily Short Sale Volume Report (Reg SHO) - Court will deny the motion to quash - Falls between short interest data (easier) and TRF data (more burdensome) - Consistent with prior ruling on TRF data GRANTED (FINRA Prevails) Requests 6 & 7 - FINRA Investigation Records and Public Communications - Court will grant the motion to quash - Judge found this seeks litigation-style discovery under Federal Rules, not preliminary Rule 2004 information - Rife with attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, and investigative file privilege Would provide strategic advantage at PRELIMINARY stage (Note: again emphasis on the word -> "preliminary" hence no guarantees to block CAT for later...?) Request 8 - FINRA Electronically Stored Communications (Emails) - Court will grant the motion to quash - Falls on "document side" rather than "data side" of the dichotomy - Unduly burdensome and inappropriate under Rule 2004 - Seeks litigation-style discovery rather than preliminary information Request 9 - Order Quotations and Execution Records (CAT Data) - Court will grant the motion to quash - Judge found that information in Requests 1-3 effectively provides same information - Mirrors motion to compel-style discovery rather than preliminary investigation - Represents strategic advantage seeking under Rule 2004 There was an interesting section where the Judge then discussed CONDITIONAL/SEQUENCED items: - Requests 4 & 5 - Monthly and Weekly OTC Summary Report Data: Court will deny the motion to quash (conditionally) Judge noted these are "not necessarily critical" per trustee's own admission and proposed sequencing: - produce Requests 1-3 first, then reassess 4-5 - if computer-generated reports: deny motion to quash - If laborious/individualized: requires further detail to determine if burden is "undue" - Trustee to bear costs (they seems happy to do so) The judge ordered: 1. David Burnett to draft a proposed order reflecting the ruling for FINRA's review. 2. Good faith meet and confer on TRF data (Request 2) regarding scope, burden, timing, and cost-shifting 3. Parties to leave past disagreements behind and work cooperatively 4. One-paragraph summary of the 161-day data period requested for other Rule 2004 productions to be provided to court for clarity... My opinion is that once the judge gets this report he should have enough to not need any additional hearings and Citadel, Virtu and all others will get their answers too. did i miss anything? comment below⬇️ Next i will post my observations and interesting things I saw... and in my opinion what was the turning point in the hearing today that caught FINRA completely off guard and send their counsel in panic mode, judging from the body language!
George Palikaras tweet media
English
28
353
568
15K
Glitch retweetledi
kristen shaughnessy
kristen shaughnessy@kshaughnessy2·
FINRA Claims It’s Too Expensive to Hand Over Data - After Dropping An Estimated $1.4 - $2.3 Million to Keep It Hidden “…FINRA is arguing: “Production is too burdensome and expensive” But the reality is: 👉 They have likely already spent $1.4M – $2.3M+ 👉 just to resist producing the data…” - @kimkep4796 MMAT MMTLP TRCH NBH
KKep@kimkep4796

MMAT MMTLP TRCH NBH ⚖️ Estimated Legal Spend – FINRA (Meta Materials Bankruptcy Only) (⚠️Not legal advise) 💰 1. What FINRA Itself Says (Baseline) From its own declaration: •E-discovery (one-time): 👉 $457,000 – $556,000 •Monthly hosting: 👉 $13,312/month •Data scope: 👉 ~4.9 million messages 👉 ~2.56 TB ⸻ 🧾 2. Realistic Cost Breakdown (What’s Missing from Their Filing) FINRA’s numbers focus mainly on vendor + review costs, but exclude major legal spend 👀: 📊 A. E-Discovery Vendor + Review (their estimate) •Collection / processing / review: 👉 ~$500K •Hosting (12 months): 👉 ~$150K ✅ Subtotal: ~$650K ⸻ ⚖️ B. Outside Counsel (Squire Patton Boggs-level firm) Typical rates: •Partners: $800–$1,200/hr •Associates: $400–$700/hr Estimated effort (1 year of litigation + briefing + hearings): •Motions to quash + replies + supplemental briefs •Hearing prep + appearances •Coordination with multiple parties 👉 Estimated: $500K – $1.2M 💰💰💰💰💰 ⸻ 🏢 C. Internal FINRA Legal + Staff Time Includes: •Office of General Counsel •Investigators •IT / data teams •Compliance personnel 👉 Conservative estimate: $250K – $500K equivalent cost 💰💰 ⸻ 🧮 3. Total Estimated Spend (Bankruptcy Only) CategoryEstimated Cost E-discovery (vendor + hosting)$650K Outside counsel$500K – $1.2M Internal staff / legal$250K – $500K TOTAL$1.4M – $2.35M+ 💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰 ⸻ ⚠️ 4. Key Insight (This is the Real Story) FINRA is arguing: “Production is too burdensome and expensive” But the reality is: 👉 They have likely already spent $1.4M – $2.3M+ 👉 just to resist producing the data 💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥 ⸻ 🧠 5. What This Means Strategically 🔥 Important distinction: This is NOT about: •whether costs exist (they do) This IS about: •whether the burden is undue ⸻ 💥 Key contradiction: FINRA has already: •Conducted keyword searches across millions of records •Quantified the data precisely •Built cost models •Litigated extensively across multiple filings 👉 Which shows: The data is identifiable, accessible, and manageable ⸻ ⚖️ 6. How a Court Typically Views This A court will not punish a party for spending money, but it may note: 👉 If a party can: •litigate extensively •analyze the data •quantify the burden Then: 👉 targeted production may not be “undue” ⸻ 🎯 Bottom Line •Estimated spend (bankruptcy only): 👉 ~$1.4M to $2.35M+ •Core takeaway: 👉 The dispute is not really about cost 👉 It’s about control of sensitive internal records 🤐🤫🤐🤫🤐

English
42
458
751
27.3K
Glitch retweetledi
Ann Vandersteel™️
Ann Vandersteel™️@annvandersteel·
George!! This is massive! This ruling just changed everything. The trustee now has access to real trading data including dark pool activity. Not the delayed version the public has been fed. Five minute snapshots hide the truth. Ten second data starts to expose it. Now we begin to see which broker dealers were active and who may have been manipulating the market. If the patterns are there, the next step is deeper forensic data. Evidence incoming! Wooohooo #MMTLP #MMAT
English
15
332
644
9.9K