🔥 Stop The Insanity 🔥

$MMAT 🦋 ⚖️ Lovato, et al. v. Citadel Securities LLC, et al. 📂 Adversary Case No. 26-05036-gs 📑 DOC. 51 — Oct. 5, 2026 | DOC. 62 — Oct. 12, 2026 📌 Not legal advice. Allegations unproven. References are PDF pages. Docs linked in my prior post. 🚨 SUBPOENA-PRODUCED TRADING DATA IS BEING USED IN THE LAWSUIT. 🔐 DOC. 51, PAGE 12 — “Filing of Unredacted Complaint” Defendants state: “On August 7, 2026, shortly after Defendants made their Rule 2004 productions and the Court entered the Protective Order, the Trustee and Collins filed the Complaint on the public docket.” They say the complaint: “…publicly disclosed trading data and other materials that certain Defendants had produced through Rule 2004 discovery…” 📥 IMPORTANT: Defendants acknowledge producing records that appeared in the complaint. Their objection concerns confidentiality & use. This does not concede manipulation. The motions do not identify which subpoena supplied each figure. 🛑 DOC. 51: DEFENDANTS WANT THE COURT TO WAIT Citadel, Virtu & Anson ask the bankruptcy judge to postpone selecting lead plaintiffs & lawyers until the district court decides whether to take over. Alternatively, they request a pause of the entire adversary proceeding. 🏛️ They argue proceeding now could duplicate work & question the bankruptcy court’s authority over investor claims. 👥🔐 They also question shared representation of the Trustee & investors when access to subpoena-produced information is restricted. 🔀 Page 18: “This jurisdictional question could split the case.” That is defendants’ argument. These filings do not order a split. 👥 DOC. 62: PLAINTIFFS SEEK LEADERSHIP APPROVAL Trustee Lovato & Doug Collins seek appointment as lead plaintiffs, with Grant & Eisenhofer & Kasowitz as lead counsel. They argue their financial interests, similar injuries & experienced lawyers qualify them to represent the proposed class. 📊 THE DETAILS MATTER: Doc. 62 repeats specific trading allegations from the complaint. 🔎 PAGE 7 — ORDER COUNTS & QUANTITIES “…at least 44,002 manipulative and deceptive ‘spoofing’ orders…” “…totaling at least 42,058,275 shares…” These are alleged orders involving that share quantity, not necessarily completed trades. ⏱️ PAGES 7–8 — TIMING & PRICE MOVEMENT Plaintiffs allege defendants placed baiting orders, then: “…cancelled those Baiting Orders from the Limit Order Books within seconds after achieving the desired directional price movement.” 🔍 That links orders, price movements & cancellations. It appears to reflect detailed order-record analysis, although the motion does not trace each figure to its source. 📅 PAGE 8 — FREQUENCY “…‘spoofing episodes’ on 730 of the 792 trading days during the Class Period…” 💥 Plaintiffs allege a recurring pattern. Whether the activity constitutes illegal spoofing remains disputed. 💰 PAGES 10–11 — HOW MMAT ALLEGEDLY LOST MONEY The attached excerpt identifies company share sales & the market prices used to calculate MMAT’s proceeds. The table labels share quantities “Pre-Split Adjusted.” 📍 April 1, 2022: 10,752,700 shares; 10-day volume-weighted market average. 📍 June 22, 2022: 22,348,190 shares; 20-day volume-weighted market average. 📍 February 19–21, 2024: 85 million shares through an at-the-market offering. 🧩 Their theory: depressed market prices meant MMAT received less when selling shares tied to those prices. Company-sale terms may come from public or company records, not necessarily subpoenas. ✅ Doc. 51 CONFIRMS subpoena-produced material was used in the complaint. Doc. 62 describes specific trading patterns & claimed harm. Whether the evidence proves the allegations remains for the court. 📅 SHARED HEARING: NOVEMBER 19, 2026 🕜 1:30 p.m. Pacific / 4:30 p.m. Eastern, via Zoom. ⚖️ Docs. 51 & 62, plus case status & scheduling. The question: approve leadership now or wait for the district court? Approval would not itself certify the class or award compensation.