TraderZero

Zero Emotion. Zero Hesitation. Zero Bags. Zero Fucks. TraderPro GPTZ Trading Assistant

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

$MMTLP No it doesn't do that at all. Its strictly procedural. This simply moves the offering from a preliminary S-1/A to a live 424(b)(3) prospectus. Same 40M shares. Same $15 fantasy price. Same no-market/no-DTC reality. Same first-priority use of proceeds: payoff Greg Jr.'s Panther Bridge investors.

[TradingSecrets @TradingSecrets7]

$MMTLP Next Bridge Hydrocarbons submits an update to the S1 under SEC Rule 424(b)(3).
The purpose of this is to present new information that represents a material change or expansion of information previously disclosed and to update investors with this information.
https://t.co/P5Ud0R4pay

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

RDOs usually close with about 25% sold. The debt service will absorb most if not all of it.

$MMTLP / $NBH's real math is ugly. Check it out:

Torchlight’s best revenue year was roughly $5.45M.

NBH’s current liabilities are roughly $62M.

That means NBH would need ~11.4x Torchlight’s best annual revenue just to cover current liabilities at a fantasy 100% margin.

At more realistic O&G cash margins, the revenue hurdle looks more like:

• 60% margin: ~$104M revenue • 50% margin: ~$124M revenue • 40% margin: ~$155M revenue • 30% margin: ~$207M revenue

That is roughly 19x–38x Torchlight’s best year.

Next Bridge will never generate the revenue to be profitablr. It is a pass through shell to drive cash to McCabes family.

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

$MMTLP / NBH is offering new shares directly to selected accredited investors via a reasonable best efforts registered direct placement. This is not an open-market purchase; Roth Capital and NBH control who receives an allocation.

Even if Roth allocated some newly issued primary shares to a broker-dealer or participant with legacy MMTLP/NBH fail-to-deliver or short exposure, Reg SHO Rule 204, 17 CFR § 242.204, still requires FTDs to be closed out by borrowing or purchasing, on the open market, securities of like kind and quantity in a manner that allows proper delivery, clearance, and settlement.

A direct issuer allocation does not automatically cure a legacy fail or short obligation. The newly issued shares must actually be legally deliverable, cleared, and accepted against the specific pre-existing position.

That process is not publicly confirmed here because:
NBH shares have no established secondary trading market; the S-1 states, “There is no established trading market for the shares of common stock and we do not expect a market to develop.”

They are not DTC-eligible.

There is no ordinary lending pool or clearing mechanism.
Bottom line: A broker-dealer with legacy NBH/MMTLP fails cannot simply point to a direct offering allocation and declare the fail cured. This offering creates new registered shares and brings cash into the company. It does not create a normal market-based close-out mechanism for old obligations.

Rule 105 only blocks recent restricted-period shorts from using the offering as a loophole. Rule 204 is the standing close-out rule for FTDs, but Rule 204 still requires an actual borrow/purchase and valid delivery/settlement not merely possession of newly allocated direct offering shares.

[Amy @thatgirltrader]

Hey $MMTLP -

-The $15 does NOT apply to YOUR shares.
-You will NOT see $15 a share in your account.
-NO ONE is getting margin called.
-NO ONE can be forced to close.
-There will not be a “bidding war.”
-YOUR share value has been diluted by OVER 100% since distribution.

🫡

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

Bloomberg reports that Mapp Biopharmaceutical Inc. Is the partner.

Mapp is a closely held private firm. The play here is through Aridis Pharma (ARDS), delisted from Nasdaq and currently on OTC ExMkt. If the MAPP contract is approved and the program succeeds, ARDS holds exclusive international development and global commercial rights upon licensure for the two pan-Ebola and pan-Marburg monoclonal antibody programs from MAPP. That's ~$1B+ in BARDA funding guaranteed.

Worth watching ARDS for any activity that signals them preparing to move to a tradable OTC tier. Set an alert on your trading platform to monitor news, SEC filings, trading volume. Good instinct to dig on this.

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

9.

So if anyone is evaluating this S-1 on the merits and not some bullshit theories concocted by bagholders, this is how it reads:

As of April 30, 2026, NBH is earmarking $9,759,013.15 of offering proceeds that are not guaranteed, to retire a son-managed Panther Bridge financing package. If not paid immediately, that amount climbs by $2,958.90 per day. If carried to the August 20, 2026 maturity, the all-in Panther Bridge cleanup cost reaches about $10.09 million. And that is before you even get into the fact that Panther Bridge also received a 12.5% net profits interest with a one-time conversion option into working interest. Brutal.

Panther Bridge cleanup cost as of 4/30/26: $9,759,013.15.
Daily bleed: $2,958.90.
If left to maturity: about $10.09M.
Managed by Greg McCabe Jr.
Paid first.

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

#1 of 9 $MMTLP Since nobody is taliking about what this S1-A really is, I will. This thread breaks it down, reliant on NBH's own S-1 filings.

The company is going out of it's way to convince you that Greg Sr. and Greg Jr. have no economic interest in Panther Bridge and that it has outside investors. Those saying that “they secretly own it” can't prove it, I don't make that claim. The real criticism, as I lay out in this thread, is that a CEO’s son-managed vehicle was handed a first-priority cleanup with debt, preferred, and prospect-linked economics totalling $9.759,013.15 with a daily bleed of $2,958.90, that if left to maturity becomes $10.09 million for a dry hole in the dirt. All from a company that says it is starving for capital.

🧵👇

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

8.

And this is what makes the use of proceeds so revealing. The Panther well tied to this structure was declared a dry hole in November 2025, yet the first use of the new $15/share raise is still to clean up the Panther Bridge financing and preferred stock before the filing talks about drilling, exploration, working capital, or general corporate purposes. That is not a minor line item. That is a priority statement.

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

This nonsense about some form of a market based resolution that bails out people who held or bought an empty stub after a 900% run is ridiculous. I heard today that a tender offer could be in play. Sure.

The reality is the use of the term “market-based resolution” is a deliberately fuzzy label. Just like with this TO mention, the moment these peoole name an actual mechanism, the holes show up.

What they are really describing has to be one of four things.

1. Private bilateral purchases. That means some buyer contacts holders directly and offers to buy NBH shares off-market. That does not require a TO. But the obvious questions are:

Who is the buyer, why would they buy this trash paper at $15 when there are legal obligations forcing them to do it and the company states in the S1-A that $15/share price is disassociated from company financials?

-> An issuer-facilitated liquidity window. That would mean NBH or the transfer agent somehow creates a temporary process for buyers and sellers to match. There is no mechanism for this on OTC and FINRA has already rejected this because it isn't possible. Even if this was possible, NBH’s S-1 solidly reaffirms the stance that he stock is not publicly traded, not DTC-eligible, and there is no established trading market with no expectation one will develop. That means this would not be a real “market”-based" anything in the normal sense. What it would be a ios a manually arranged transfer process by the issuer who is committed to maintaining an illiquid private security. The SEC would have a stock manipulation case against McCabe in federal court the next day.

-> A private placement followed by secondary purchases. This is closer to what the current S-1 actually is: NBH is offering up to 40,000,000 new common shares directly to selected accredited investors, with no minimum offering amount, a stupid and unrealistic price of $15/share that the company states is not realistic relative to their assets, and with proceed going to NBH to repay debt, repurchase the Panther Bridge Series A preferred, fund drilling and exploration, and cover general corporate purposes. That is a financing for NBH. It is not, on its face, a legacy MMTLP cleanup mechanism.

-> A company-sponsored transfer program dressed up as a “resolution.” The S-1 says Roth is only a placement agent for the new issuance, and NBH will enter into subscription agreements directly with institutional investors for the new stock. It also says NBH does not intend to register any shares for sale by existing holders. That is a huge tell. The live S1-A document clearly states it is selling new shares into the company, not creating a resale market for the old trapped holders.

There is no need to speculate about a tender offer, doing so makes the "market based" theory weaker, not stronger. The bottom line is there is only one obvious question -> Who exactly would tie up a half billion in a nearly bankrupt non-trading shell with a taint as dirty as Next Bridge stock?

Seriously, why would a legit investor buy a stock with no market and no DTC eligibility? If a issuer led "market based resolution" could happen, how are transfers settled in size? What price discovery mechanism exists to initate trades? What forces any alleged trapped short to participate when there is no current lending pool for NBH?

Read the current S-1A, it's a corporate survival raise that specifically dismisses any form of a shareholder-resolution. A “Market-based solution” is not a solution. It is a euphemism. Unless anyone can identify buyers, the legal compulsion for them to buy, the settlement path, and the pricing mechanism, they are not describing a real market event. They are describing hope wrapped in "make me sound smart" bullshit jargon.

Nobody thinks that a 40M share raise to "selected accredited investors", with no minimum, no market, no DTC, and proceeds for NBH’s debts and operations. leads to any form of a short-resolution. It is a financing document for a distressed illiquid issuer. McCabe has had the ability to take real action for three years, he has proven his doesn't give a shit.

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

$MMTLP The S-1 Specifically states the proceeds will be used to pay debt. Common shareholders have no rights. There is nothing in the filing that is positive for the $mmtlp crew. They are blowing smoke up your ass. Again.

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

Brda convinced the board to pay a certain former related party $12M to complete the 2022 drilling obligations and ditch the asset sale in July. The McCabe loan to MMAT included language that would ensure G-Mac controlled the future of NBH; his handpicked team to babysit it for a year, a pathway to "merge" his Hudspeth, MPC, Wildcat(s) LLCs (Orogrande, Hazel, Louisiana dry holes all into NBH with front-end/back-end and reversionary rights all to him, and more- deja vu all over again.

The story is Brda was the Preferred A Series rep and instead of protecting MMTLP Shareholder value in the O&G assets he helpe strip them from shareholder four months before the spin off. All of this quietly disclosed in that ridiculous FWP filing.

NBH common shareholders hold tier three paper. Worthless no matter what happens.

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

There were less than the total allocation of $MMTLP shares not more. NBH announced that there were about 53,000 shares less than were issued by MMAT at the merger and those were canceled with the exchanged shares.

NBH didn't ask for MMTLP shares to be returned, they were exchanging 1:1 however many shares there were outstanding. If there were naked shorts, the total on this net sheet would have reflected them.

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

@Tiggersdad2 @TheRobbCarter @thatgirltrader 1 of 2 - The broker reconciliation was provided to AST on 12/13/22...

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

@Cucarachashells @505_call FOIAs have proven nothing. There is no proof of regulatory misconduct. You can't even debate or disprove the substance of what I post, instead you bring up a go fund me my kid set up when I almost died that I have fully embraced. Pathetic.

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

One day you wake up and finally realize: nobody makes money trading stocks short “in the dark.” The truth is the DTCC holds all the paper. Brokers owe them the shares AND the money. (https://t.co/SWRGUBttCy)

Every night they reconcile trades via the NSCC’s Continuous Net Settlement (CNS) syst
em. Positions get netted, funds confirmed settled — and your broker dodges a forced buy-in. (https://t.co/IqnSSiJQQB)

The last thing a short seller wants? Mountains of Fails-to-Deliver (FTDs). When those pile up, buy-side brokers get forced to buy the stock on the lit market to close them out. (https://t.co/22h8Ts5m1p)

Forced buy-ins — especially the ones retail bag holders scream about 24/7 — can trigger a vicious short squeeze when volume spikes, the float is thin, or trading is light. Issuers love pretending they’re “in the dark” too… but they aren’t. They partner with transfer agents and pay the DTCC for real liquidity intel. Most get the official End-of-Day Security Position Report (SPR) by broker showing aggregate long and short positions. IR rep usually sees it around midnight. (https://t.co/BBAEa22lJS)

The market has eyes everywhere. The plumbing never sleeps. Most traders keep gambling after the wreck, chasing the back side of the move or holding bags because they never learned how this shit actually works. The smart ones finally accept reality, study the mechanics, and start grinding to take their edge back.

This is just the beginning. More on how the system really operates coming soon. Know the plumbing. ✌️TZ

[TraderZero @_TraderZero_]

@Tiggersdad2 Pure unadulterated greed. There is no other reason a person converts assets they can't afford to lose into a penny stock being hyped on social media. These people aren't traders and they aren't investors.