MMTLP ⚖️ Case: William Lee Kelly v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) 🏛️ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 🔢 Appeal No.: 26-5634 📂 Underlying case: 2:25-cv-01195-APG-DJA, District of Nevada 📄 Filing: Appellant’s Opening Brief — Docket Entry 4.1 📅 Filed: October 9, 2026 ⚠️ Not legal advice. 🔎 What is this about? Kelly is appealing the dismissal of his lawsuit against FINRA concerning the December 2022 MMTLP trading halt and the replacement of MMTLP shares with Next Bridge Hydrocarbons shares. 🙋‍♂️ KELLY asks for another opportunity to correct his complaint and have the district court reconsider his case. 📝 Why did the judge dismiss it? According to the brief, the district court dismissed Kelly’s Rule 10b-5 securities-fraud claim because his latest complaint did not allege a qualifying purchase or sale. 🔒 The judge also denied another amendment & dismissed that claim “with prejudice,” closing the door to correcting it in the same case. Kelly admits his complaint left out important facts—but argues that omission could be fixed. 🔄 His central argument: the share replacement was a transaction Kelly says his MMTLP shares were cancelled and Next Bridge shares were issued in their place. He argues this exchange can qualify as a purchase & sale under securities law, even w/out a conventional trading order. 📚 He relies on SEC v. National Securities. Whether that precedent applies to this particular exchange remains for the courts to decide. 💬 One sentence captures his appeal: “The error on appeal is not the dismissal but its finality.” 🗣️ In everyday terms: “My complaint left something out, but the judge should have let me put it back in.” 📂 Why does he want another chance? Kelly says the cancellation & distribution facts appeared in an earlier complaint & were discussed in an earlier court order. ✅ He argues that restoring those facts would not introduce a new story or surprise FINRA. 🔢 He also disputes the judge’s description of this as his “third attempt.” Although he filed 3 versions, Kelly says only 1 amendment followed a court order identifying deficiencies. He argues the judge counted complaints instead of meaningful opportunities to fix them. (Pg. 12–14.) 🛡️ What about FINRA’s immunity? Kelly says FINRA raised regulatory immunity, but the district court did not decide it. 📣 He alleges FINRA changed the issuer’s corporate-action notice w/out authorization & then relied on those changes to justify the halt. ⚠️ Those are Kelly’s allegations—not findings established by this filing. 🏛️ He wants the district court to address immunity if the case returns. A successful appeal would therefore leave that defense unresolved. 🧩 What happens to his other claims? Kelly argues that other parts of his case fell because no securities-law claim survived: 🇺🇸 Fifth Amendment claim: He wants the district court to reconsider its authority over FINRA for this related constitutional claim if the securities claim returns. ⚖️ Declaratory relief: A request for a court declaration about the parties’ rights. 🛑 Injunctive relief: A request for an order requiring or prohibiting conduct. 🔗 He wants those issues reconsidered if an underlying claim survives—not granted immediately by the appeals court. (Printed pp. 15–19.) ➡️ What does Kelly want the Ninth Circuit to do? 🔓 Set aside the relevant dismissals. ✍️ Reverse the refusal to allow another amendment. ↩️ Send the case back to the district court. 📄 Permit a 3rd amended complaint. 🚦 What would a successful appeal mean? It would reopen the case for further proceedings. It would not establish fraud, award damages, or order MMTLP trading to resume. 🛡️ FINRA’s immunity & the remaining securities-fraud requirements would still need to be addressed. ⏭️ What comes next? Ordinarily, FINRA submits an answering brief, Kelly may submit a reply, and the Ninth Circuit reviews the appeal. Will we see an Amicus Brief from @palikaras?