This is interesting! When you @bobivry were at @Bloomberg, you guys reported on Ari Rubenstein being involved with Overstock's dividend trading against the wishes of Overstock. Overstock complained and got their lawyers involved but @FINRA allowed Rubenstein and GTS to continue trading their dividend on the OTC. In the same Bloomberg article, Georgetown professor James Angel appears to also question Overstock's actions. Strangely enough, Rubenstein was a member of FINRA's Market Surveillance Advisory Group at that time, and James Angel was linked to both FINRA and Rubenstein's Modern Markets Initiative. So when James Angel again posed as an investor disappointed with the company after FINRA's U3 halt of MMTLP, it was kinda like deja-vu!

Is there an exemption that allows FINRA to bypass their rules such as Rule 6490? Based on the rule it doesn't appear that it's FINRA's role to author the language and dates of an issuer's Corporate Action. In addition to this, the SEC's pending adjudication concerning the 2021 reverse-merger between Torchlight and Metamaterials, and FINRA's blue sheet investigation into both MMAT and MMTLP (initiated on 12/5/22), were two separate reasons to NOT process the MMTLP Corporate Action submission. Based on FINRA's Rule 6490, FINRA was also supposed to review the submission for issues relating to settlement and clearance, but somehow FINRA didn't perform this step until after publishing two separate MMTLP Corporate Actions. Why did the office of @PeteSessions claim that FINRA did deem the submission deficient in December 2022? Doesn't this seem odd? @TheJusticeDept @VP