Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Kurtis Profile picture
@bleedblue18
Feb 5, 2023 • 11 tweets • 5 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
$MMTLP It's time to take the gloves off. It's time to drag those responsible for the MMTLP situation into the light. It's time to narrow our collective focus from organizations that have facilitated fraud to the individual names and responsibilities. A #FINRAfraud exposé thread🧵
The Series A Preferred Shares (now known as MMTLP) became tradable after a Form 211 was submitted without knowledge or permission of the issuer (TRCH/MMAT) and that included FRAUDULENT, outdated information. Video courtesy @johnbrda & @AlfromBoston617.
Who reviews Form 211 submissions? Introducing Yvonne Huber (Yvonne.Huber@finra.org, 240-386-5034), Vice President OTC Compliance and Short Sale Regulation. Yvonne previously served as VP of Market Regulation at FINRA. What an interesting crossover of responsibilities! 🤔
I'd like everyone to take a peek at the @SEC Roundtable on Regulatory Approaches to Combating Retail Investor Fraud featuring recorded comments from Yvonne Huber on Pages 80-82, 85-86, 91-92, 95-96, 99 (pg 21-26 of the pdf). This is going to get juicy. 😏
sec.gov/spotlight/equi…
Ms. Huber has worked at FINRA for over 32 years. She's admittedly been around since the inception of the Form 211 filing process. She heads the OTC compliance team and specializes in surveillance/investigations in fraudulent activity AND short sale regulatory responsibilities.
Here Ms. Huber explicitly states the responsibility of her team, OTC compliance, in reviewing Form 211 applications from broker-dealers (like GTS and Canaccord 🤓). They look for deficiencies, red flags, or discrepancies. You know...like information from Torchlight in 2012?
Continued on Page 82, Ms. Huber states after deficiencies or discrepancies have been addressed, FINRA allows the broker-dealer to begin quoting the security. Again, she emphasizes the COMPLIANCE review.
Page 85 features Troy Carlson, SVP @ FIG Partners commending the effort to transition Form 211 into an electronic submission. Ms. Huber calls additional attention to "onus on the broker-dealers" for potential fraud.
Is there a theme here? Seems important...
Page 86 Ms. Huber acknowledges that red flags aren't typically caught in the submission information alone, but rather in their inquiry back to the firm for additional information.
Page 91 - My personal favorite quote from Ms. Huber regarding retail investor protection. "If you let frauds go through, if you let companies who are frauds be traded and quoted, in time, that's going to erode investor confidence."
Yvonne Huber...$MMTLP TRADING FRAUD IS ON YOU!
$MMTLP Do you need more validation? How about @johnbrda not receiving responses back? Why would she answer when the truth reveals either gross incompetence or collusion? You know the answer... #FINRAfraud

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Kurtis

Kurtis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @bleedblue18

Kurtis Profile picture
Dec 30, 2023
$MMTLP Another 🧵in response to the November 6th, 2023, FINRA MMTLP Supplemental FAQ attempting to explain their actions regarding the corporate actions and trading halt.


FUN FACT: @FINRA has used the "Investor Insights" content section of to provide educational tools catered to retail investors for 8 years. Guess how many "articles" have ever been centered around a single ticker? TWO and both were addressing #MMTLP. Ticker based FAQ's from FINRA are even more rare than a U3 Halt.

Link to prior #FINRAfraud FAQ rebuttal:


While FINRA attempts to cast blame on the issuer and their corporate action, what they fail to address, or intentionally ignore, is the issuer’s Corporate Action was submitted with ample time for an exhaustive review, and then rewritten by FINRA at the eleventh hour; an action FINRA declares they lack authority to do in their various communications and publications. Conveniently absent from all of FINRA’s FAQ’s, the corporate action’s instructions were so confusing to the impacted parties (including, among others, the DTCC), FINRA failed to appear at a scheduled meeting meant to provide guidance and clarity to those parties. Coincidentally, FINRA took these actions knowing there was possible fraudulent activity in the trading of MMTLP, as evidenced by their email correspondences with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) beginning in late November 2021 through the morning of December 5, 2022 when they reviewed of the Electronic Blue Sheets (EBS) – none of which they have publicly admitted to as of yet in any of their FAQ’s.

FINRA continues to receive questions regarding the circumstances surrounding these events because of the lack of real transparency with both the investing community and the multitude of Congressional inquiries to FINRA and directly to SEC Chair Gary Gensler. Instead, FINRA elicits more suspicion by the complete lack of transparency, misdirection of the core issue of the MMTLP situation (were investors defrauded with counterfeit shares), and finally, their refusal to provide a certified audited share count of the 105 broker/dealers holding open short and long positions in MMTLP, something recently ordered, in an unrelated case, by a federal judge in In Re Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc.

From the outset, FINRA attempts to disparage the grassroots retail community that evolved out of the MMTLP situation’s central issue and feigns a lack knowledge of what is meant by the term “counterfeit shares.” Rather they describe the situation using the more innocuous industry term “naked short selling” as if to imply the selling of US Securities without having a proper locate somehow legitimizes the actions of market participants and magically makes the practice legal and viewed as normal market mechanics. It doesn’t. 🤨

Investors’ concerns are further legitimized as broker/dealers (FINRA’s members) have made attempts by shareholders of MMTLP to transfer their shares to Next Bridge Hydrocarbon’s transfer agent confusing and prohibitive with untruths, conflicting instructions, exorbitant fees, and excessive timelines, with many even refusing to transfer the shares at all. More egregious are documented occurrences of FINRA’s member firms terminating customer relationships and closing accounts of shareholders requesting transfer of their MMTLP shares to the issuer’s transfer agent, a process that enables their shares to be directly registered in the shareholder’s name, in book entry, with the stock issuer. This is particularly ironic given the SEC’s recent publication outlining the benefits of direct registration of US Securities.

The following response provides a rebuttal to FINRA’s FAQ and calls on them to definitely address the questions posed to them by MMTLP investors and Congressional Representatives.finra.org/investors/insi…
FINRA.org
Image
12. Were the right number of Next Bridge shares distributed in connection with the corporate action?
Yes, the “right” number of NBH shares were distributed. However, FINRA fails to make the distinction (implying indistinguishability) between the distributed number of issued shares of both Meta Materials Series A Preferred Shares [MMTLP] and Next Bridge Hydrocarbons ([NBH), and the delivery of ALL shares to existing open long positions held by beneficial owners, in street name, under bulk certificates at FINRA’s broker/dealers. Discrepancies in issued shares and open long positions hide behind the veil of bulk certificates. In both FINRA FAQs, FINRA acknowledges that open short positions and open naked short positions exist in MMTLP. Every share of MMTLP sold short has a buyer with a corresponding long position, therefore it is factually incorrect to assert that ALL shareholders of MMTLP received their NBH shares, and simultaneously acknowledge open short/naked short positions. If there are existing open short/naked short positions in MMTLP, then there are more open long positions in MMTLP than issued shares of NBH. Furthermore, FINRA suggests only issuers can issue shares, which fails to recognize that market makers create short/naked short shares.

FINRA cannot claim enough shares were issued and identify a short position on a non-tradable security at the same time. Investors have experienced differences in identifiers held at each broker since the FINRA U3 halt. It is impossible to identify a short/long/counterfeit stock unless the exact allocation of “sold shares” from each broker is audited in comparison to the original allotment of shares issued by NBH.Image
13. Can FINRA perform an audit of Next Bridge’s / MMTLP’s share count?
Any answer other than “Yes” to this question leaves serious doubt as to FINRA’s regulatory capabilities. Not knowing the number of shares held in member firms by account holders seems counterintuitive to FINRA’s mission statement of “protecting investors.” While the MMTLP community and Congressional members have requested several forms of information related to shares held at FINRA member firms (admittedly using a variety of nomenclature), FINRA continuously relies on the number of shares issued by NBH and plays the role of “absent minded professor” when asked for an audited share count. The fact that FINRA states this is not the “type of review . . .conducted . . . nor does it have the . . . data to do so” establishes the SRO model is clearly not working in this instance. The assertion that FINRA lacks the jurisdiction and authority to perform a “share count audit” of “beneficial owners in the appropriate amounts across all custodians and the transfer agent” is laughable at best and incompetent at its worst. It is axiomatic the organization charged with regulating registered broker dealers in the United States has the jurisdiction (and authority) to pick up the telephone and ask their member firms “how many shares are in your customer accounts.”

We realize this may be simple technology by today’s standards, but it may be helpful in FINRA cultivating relationships with their member firms so they’d feel more compelled to follow the rules and regulations and prevent them from selling “counterfeit shares.” Unfortunately, given FINRA’s lack of technology to determine how many shares exist in a security that is no longer trading on any exchange, it may be the only way for them to determine if their member firms have violated any laws regarding the MMTLP situation.
One wonders how FINRA knows at any given time whether any security is oversold, again, a seemingly simple regulatory function. Even a lone Federal Judge in Texas was able to discern the existence of “naked short shares” (counterfeit shares) by issuing an order requiring certain brokerages to provide both long and short positions held in accounts (without customer data of course). Clearly those firms are able to determine the number of shares in customer accounts, so it would appear the real problem is FINRA does not have anyone capable of using a telephone.Image
Image
Read 12 tweets
Kurtis Profile picture
Mar 24, 2023
$MMTLP 🧵In response to @FINRA 's March 16th, 2023 FAQ: MMTLP Corporate Action and Trading Halt: finra.org/investors/insi…

FINRA's response is disingenuous and intentionally deceptive. It is also a magnification of the simple fact that the U3 Halt of MMTLP exclusively benefited… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
It was clearly stated in the SEC approved proxy statement that the Series A Preferred shares were not to be listed or traded on any exchange. Additionally on June 21, 2021, the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC) released a memo stating the settlement of the Series A Pref shares… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
1) The prospectus was finalized on November 25th, 2022, giving FINRA a two week window of opportunity to avoid "an extraordinary event", a subjective phrase with no specific criteria disclosed by FINRA. If FINRA truly had investors' best interests in mind, any concerns regarding… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Read 24 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(