Scott, Iโm here because Iโm a long-term Meta Materials investor who held shares when the company entered bankruptcy. My investment remains unresolved, and I have a direct financial interest in the estateโs outcome.
My research included a paid Fintel subscription and the companyโs business prospects. What attracted me was Metaโs advanced technologies, intellectual property, and talented staff. Oil and gas were not the basis of my investment although I was aware of the reg-sho data.
Metaโs technology and counterfeiting-related litigation raise different issues from the oil-and-gas matters you keep referencing. If you want to bid on litigation assets involving that technology, that distinction should be fundamental to the discussion.
Nobody has paid me to express my views. My integrity is not for sale, and supporting a position you dislike does not establish otherwise.
You entered this situation by purchasing shares ($10 worth?) AFTER the bankruptcy filing. WHYโ
What brought you here, and what interests are you seeking to advance?
You also wrote, โwe took $11.8 million from the bankruptcyโ and called it a โwin.โ Who is โweโ? What did you mean by โtook,โ and who benefited? How does that statement fit with your desire to participate in the estateโs adversary litigation?
Those are reasonable questions about your own words and stated intentions. โBootlicker,โ โBarbara Walters,โ and โTemu JunkSavvyโ provide no answers. Any substantive objections you have can be presented to the court with evidence.
My reason for being here is straightforward: I invested in Meta Materials, suffered losses, and want its assets protected and its claims fairly evaluated. Your personal remarks do nothing to address those interests.