ScifiG88888

$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. 📈⚖️🦋