Here's more insight! Patricia Casimates was in charge of the Department at FINRA that reviews Corporate Action submissions. (image 1) When an issue is found it gets bumped up to her (based on what I've seen) because every example of a Rule 6490 Deficiency notice that I can find online has been sent by Casimates. (images 2 & 3) Now regarding FINRA's discretion in deeming a submission deficient, some of the other examples show that FINRA deemed submissions deficient for missing financials from 10 to 20 years prior, from previous management. (Just out of the list of 5 potential reasons) In the case of Metatron, they had missing financials and FINRA deemed their Corporate Action submission deficient. Metatron appealed to FINRA's UPC Advisory Committee and was denied, but upon appealing to the SEC and after a multi-year review involving Chair Gensler and the other commissioners. The decision was ultimately remanded back to FINRA. (image 4) Are we supposed to believe that missing financials from 10 to 20 years prior from previous management is more of a valid reason to not process a Corporate Action than pending SEC adjudication and brand new fraud/manipulation investigation? But not only did FINRA have those 2 reasons, FINRA can also deem a submission deficient if there are issues related to settlement and clearance. This is the reason FINRA eventually used to justify the U3 halt. So if Rule 6490 stipulates that FINRA is supposed to specifically check for issues relating to settlement and clearance BEFORE processing a Corporate Action, how is it that FINRA didn't discover the issue in the two 6490 review periods that should've taken place before publishing both versions of the MMTLP Corporate Action? @FBILosAngeles It doesn't make sense, just like it doesn't make sense that the SEC would be contacting FINRA's OTC Corporate Actions Team about the MMTLP Corporate Action at least 4 days before the initial publication. And it doesn't make sense that the SEC made the MMTLP spin-off effective on November 18, 2022 (after 4 months of review and comments), if they were investigating the reverse-merger.

Here's some light reading if you ever have some spare time @JohnReedStark FINRA really misled investors because their 12/6 MMTLP Corporate Action can be interpreted as saying "12/12, after the close of business" was the MMTLP Share Cancellation Date. The real MMTLP Share Cancellation was "12/14, after the close of business". The 12/8 revision can be interpreted as saying "12/12, after the close of business" was the MMTLP Symbol Deletion Date. Neither Next Bridge Hydrocarbons or Metamaterials ever mentioned a Symbol Deletion Date. I'll explain how they did this in great detail, while also providing images to back up my assertions. Under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, issuing official communications or structural changes that contain material misrepresentations or omissions to deceive investors constitutes securities fraud. Next Bridge Hydrocarbons planned a 1-for-1 Exchange for December 14th, 2022 after the close of business, after which all shares of MMTLP would be automatically cancelled. (image 1) Technically, this is the same as saying "Effective the zero hour of December 15th", because the "zero hour" of a new trading day (midnight, December 15th) is practically synonymous with the close of business (after-hours/market close) on the previous day (December 14th). (image 2) The SEC made the Next Bridge Hydrocarbons prospectus effective on November 18th, 2022. If Metamaterials and/or Next Bridge Hydrocarbons were allowed to author their own MMTLP Corporate Action, it would've had to have aligned with what the SEC made effective. Instead FINRA authored both the initial 12/6 MMTLP Corporate Action, and the 12/8 revision. Both of these Corporate Actions place the focus on the zero hour of December 13th, which is technically the same as saying "after the close of business on December 12th". (image 3) In other words, according to the first MMTLP Corporate Action, by saying that the MMTLP shares would be cancelled effective December 13th, and when you observe that the overall Effective Date at the top of the Corporate Action showed a zero hour December 13th Effective Date and time... FINRA basically said that the MMTLP shares would be cancelled on December 12th, after the close of business. (image 4) So if FINRA's obligation according to their Rule 6490, is to facilitate orderly settlement, why would they insist on creating Corporate Actions that significantly remove time, shifting the focus to earlier effective date? I'll add more posts to the thread...