Under U.S. securities laws (specifically Regulation SHO and anti-fraud provisions like Rule 10b-21), naked short selling, also known as counterfeiting shares is illegal, regardless of the fundamental outlook, financial health, or future prospects of the target company. So called experts can say whatever they want about Torchlight or the assets that MMTLP represented, but even if they are correct, it wouldn't justify illegally engaging in Market Manipulation. When Torchlight was about to transition to a dividend placeholder representing Torchlight's assets, options were applied for and approved just two weeks before TRCH was to stop trading. This options activity seemingly allowed for more manipulation, it provided a way to delay settlement of short positions, and it seemingly anticipated that a pathway would be created for the dividend to become tradeable, even though it went against the wishes of the issuer. Fast forward to just before MMTLP was U3 halted. It isn't FINRA's role to author the Corporate Action but they did, changing the dates that were made effective by the SEC. Why is this so easily overlooked? Then FINRA met with the DTCC without the issuer and revised the Corporate Action unilaterally. FINRA eventually claimed that the U3 halt was due to the timing and structure of the Corporate Action that they themselves created. So why didn't FINRA discover the issue during their two Rule 6490 review processes before the publication of each MMTLP Corporate Action? It's because FINRA and the SEC knew there was a problem and the way FINRA planned their version of the Corporate Action and U3 halt allowed them to hide the imbalance which would've been obvious if brokerages were allowed to force liquidate short positions and conduct position close only transactions on December 9th and December 12th, 2022. So look at image 1... Why would it matter what a pumper or influencer said about trading MMTLP if the brokerages were communicating to clients that trading would occur on 12/9 & 12/12? It also says that New Buys wouldn't be allowed after 12/8 so these transactions were about reconciling obligations, not about people buying that wouldn't have settled positions on 12/12. Image 2... More evidence of what brokerages had planned based on the Corporate Actions that FINRA published. FINRA knows that these messages were going to investors, giving them the impression that trading would occur up until 12/12, so why didn't FINRA provide clarity instead of just halting trading? Image 3... FINRA suspected the issuer of fraud/manipulation and initiated a blue sheet investigation on 12/5/22, one day before publishing the first MMTLP Corporate Action. The problem here is that based on FINRA's Rule 6490 and common sense, how are you protecting investors by proceeding with the Corporate Action while simultaneously suspecting the issuers of fraud/manipulation? Image 4 provides a clue! The FIF which represents the broker-dealers that traded MMTLP, admitted to the SEC that FINRA's U3 halt prevented addressing MMTLP shares out on loan. This is what is referenced in images 1 & 2 concerning the Position Close Only trading and forced liquidations that would've occurred if FINRA didn't U3 halt trading.