Broken Arrow

MMAT / MMTLP — In re Meta Materials Inc., Case No. 24-50792-gs (D. Nev. Ch. 7) Scott Traudt Rule 2004 Motion Denials — Layman’s Breakdown ⚠️ Not Legal Advice Bottom line: Judge Spraker shut down Scott Traudt’s independent discovery efforts because he found Traudt was trying to do the trustee’s job. The court’s message was direct and repeated. Judge’s key language (repeated across these orders) “Mr. Traudt is improperly attempting to conduct discovery on behalf of the estate.” “These efforts attempt to usurp the investigative role of the chapter 7 trustee.” “The Motion is not for a proper purpose under Rule 2004.” “Mr. Traudt has failed to show good cause for the Rule 2004 examination requested.” Plain English: The judge is saying: You don’t get to run your own bankruptcy investigation when the trustee already has the legal duty to investigate. ⸻ DOC 2789 — Charles Schwab Denial What Traudt wanted: A limited Rule 2004 subpoena to Charles Schwab for: March 20, 2023 call recording retention/search records chain-of-custody documentation Court’s response: Denied. Why: Not because Schwab’s records were necessarily irrelevant—but because Traudt wasn’t the proper party to seek them. Layman’s version: The judge didn’t say “this information could never matter.” He said: “The trustee—not you—decides what discovery gets pursued for the estate.” ⸻ DOC 2790 — Jane Street Group Denial What Traudt wanted: Rule 2004 subpoena to Jane Street Group Court’s response: Denied. Why: Same reasoning. The court found Traudt was: exceeding Rule 2004’s intended purpose stepping into the trustee’s investigative lane lacking good cause Plain English: A shareholder/creditor cannot independently launch estate discovery just because they believe the info is important. ⸻ DOC 2791 — Sabby Management Denial What Traudt wanted: Rule 2004 subpoena to Sabby Management Court’s response: Denied. Why: Identical reasoning. Judge’s message: This isn’t a free-for-all discovery process where any interested party can subpoena hedge funds because they suspect wrongdoing. ⸻ DOC 2792 — FINRA Denial What Traudt wanted: Rule 2004 subpoena to FINRA for: MMAT/MMTLP electronic blue sheets MMTLP communications (Oct 15, 2022–Feb 3, 2023) MMTLP trade-start / OTC symbol origination records Court’s response: Denied. Why: Again—not because FINRA data lacks possible relevance. Because: Traudt was attempting discovery “on behalf of the estate.” That authority belongs to: ✅ Trustee Lovato Not: ❌ Individual shareholders / creditors acting independently Important nuance: This denial does NOT mean FINRA records are off limits to the trustee. ⸻ DOC 2793 — Gregory McCabe Denial What Traudt wanted: Limited Rule 2004 document subpoena to Gregory McCabe, and if necessary an examination. Court’s response: Denied. Why: Same exact rationale. Layman’s version: Even if someone believes McCabe has relevant information, the trustee controls whether that discovery happens. ⸻ DOC 2794 — Trustee Lovato Denial What Traudt wanted: Rule 2004 subpoena directed at Trustee Lovato seeking: litigation funding contracts trustee counsel emails alleged conflict communications $500,000 Harrington funding transfer docs Torchlight/META buyer interest list Court’s response: Denied. Why: Again: improper Rule 2004 purpose attempted usurpation of trustee authority lack of good cause Plain English: The court was not going to let a party use Rule 2004 to effectively investigate the trustee herself in this manner. ⸻ Big Picture Takeaway This was not the judge saying: “None of this information matters.” This was the judge saying: “Scott Traudt is not the person who gets to pursue this discovery.” That distinction matters. The trustee retains broad Rule 2004 powers. This ruling reinforces a principle bankruptcy courts care deeply about: One centralized estate investigation—not competing private investigations. ⚠️ Not Legal Advice

MMAT ⚖️Case: In re Meta Materials Inc. Case No.: 24-50792-gs (Chapter 7, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada) Filing Date: May 14, 2026 Docs: 2773, 2774, 2774-1, 2775, 2776, 2776-1 (Documents in comment section) ⚠️ Not Legal Advice Big Picture (Plain English) These filings look like the trustee broadening the financial investigation from market/trading discovery into the company’s banking records. Translation: The trustee isn’t just asking “What happened in the market?” anymore. She’s also asking “What happened to the company’s money?” 💸 ❓ ⸻ DOC 2773 — Ex Parte Motion re Silicon Valley Bank What it is: The trustee asks the court for permission to compel Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) to provide records and potentially have a records custodian examined under Bankruptcy Rule 2004. Layman’s version: “Judge, we need SVB’s records to trace Meta’s money.” What they want: Account ending 7741 Account ending 7011 Any linked/associated accounts Date range: Aug. 5, 2023 to present Including: monthly statements deposits withdrawals wires ACH transfers checks (front/back) internal transfers Why this matters: Trustee explicitly says she wants to understand: potential disbursement of debtor property how those disbursements affected Meta’s financial condition possible recovery for the estate Translation: This is classic money-tracing. ⸻ DOC 2774 — Notice of Subpoena to SVB What it is: Formal notice that the trustee intends to subpoena SVB. This isn’t arguing the merits—it’s procedural notice to interested parties. Plain English: “FYI everyone, the subpoena is being served.” ⸻ DOC 2774-1 — SVB Subpoena (image below) What it is: The actual subpoena paperwork sent to SVB. Notable points: SVB gets ~21 days from service unless otherwise arranged Standard subpoena protections apply: can object can seek to quash privilege protections exist Plain English: This is the enforceable “produce the records” document. ⸻ DOC 2775 — Ex Parte Motion re JPMorgan Chase Same concept as SVB—but bigger. 🗄️Trustee wants Chase records under Rule 2004. Accounts requested: ending 5780, 5970, 6175, 1145, 1946, 6174, plus linked accounts Date range: Aug. 5, 2023 to present Same requested records: statements, deposits, withdrawals, wires, ACH, checks, internal transfers Plain English: “Show us where the money went.” ⸻ DOC 2776 — Notice of Subpoena to JPMorgan Chase Procedural notice to parties that Chase will be subpoenaed. Nothing dramatic by itself. ⸻ DOC 2776-1 — JPMorgan Chase Subpoena (image below) Actual subpoena paperwork to Chase. Again: compliance required unless objection subpoena enforcement mechanisms, exist failure can lead to contempt under Rule 45 ⸻ Why This Matters (Strategic View) This appears to be a parallel investigative track: Track 1: Market conduct Already ongoing: FINRA Nasdaq Citadel Virtu Anson Funds DTCC Schwab TD Ameritrade TradeStation Focus: Was market activity harming Meta? ⸻ 🏦Track 2: Internal financial trail 👀 New here: 📑 JPMorgan 📑 SVB Focus: 💵What happened to Meta’s cash❓ ⸻ 🏦The trustee may be trying to answer questions like: Did cash leave the company in problematic ways? Were transfers ordinary business activity? Were there potentially avoidable transfers? Were there insiders/payees worth examining? Are there recoverable estate assets? Rule 2004 is intentionally broad, and this fits squarely inside a trustee’s investigative powers. 🔍 ⸻ ✅ Bottom Line This is not about naked shorting. This is about following the money inside Meta Materials itself. If the prior subpoena wave was: “What happened in the market?” This wave is: “What happened in Meta’s bank accounts?” 🕵️‍♀️💵