It is apparent that it is attempting to further establish its position within health and wellness in particular. Meta Materials technology platform enables leading global brands to deliver breakthrough products to their customers in consumer electronics, 5G communications, health and wellness, aerospace, automotive, and clean energy. Ostensibly that cash will be directed toward materials development alone since its newly purchased oil assets are being sold.īased on those assumptions, is MMAT stock worth establishing a position in? A Closer Look at TRCH Stock As a result of the combination, it has $160 million in cash with nearly zero debt. The focal point moving forward for potential investors is whether Meta Materials makes sense as an investment. Torchlight CEO John Brda will remain with the new business combination while its oil & gas assets are disposed of.ħ High-Quality Stocks to Buy That Are Trading Below Fair Value Meta Materials shareholders are expected to own 75% of the combined company, while Torchlight shareholders get 25%. Nevertheless, it seems that the terms of the deal were enough to entice shareholders to agree to the merger. Yet the acquirer profile looked to be a larger oil E&P company. TRCH stock had long been considered an acquisition target. The synergies leading to the business combination are somewhat unclear. Torchlight Energy Resources was an oil & gas exploration firm that operated in Texas. Meta Materials is a company that develops functional materials and nanocomposites. (Updates to add 11th paragraph noting a corrected affidavit was filed on Friday afternoon.Source: Minerva Studio / I have never sold ANY MMAT” - the ticker of a MMTLP related stock - “and BTW, it is no one’s business if I did, including Forbes and you!” “Picking and choosing things to create a narrative does not work.” Earlier in the conversation, Brda asked, “Why are you trying to split hairs on this? Any reasonable person can see what side of the house you are on. “You are inferring I was pumping, which is 100% False,” Brda told Forbes, referring to a scheme called pumping and dumping. Based on Brda’s own telling of events, there’s reason to suspect that the filing error was actually an attempt to confuse the issue. Was it an oversight? A sloppy one, but perhaps. In the revised section, Brda gives the correct date for when he received Next Bridge shares and removes his claim that he has never sold any Next Bridge stock. On Friday afternoon, the new amended documents were filed with the court. In a LinkedIn message to Forbes, Brda admitted that “MMTLP did not exist in June of 21” and Basile, in a later email, conceded that “if the filing has an error, it will be corrected before the hearing,” which is slated for June 22. “John never sold a Next Bridge share.” That might be splitting hairs. “The statement is correct,” Basile said in an email to Forbes. However you describe it, though, Brda sold shares that he claims in the filing he didn’t have and at about the same time he was telling people he wasn’t selling. By this interpretation, it’s just a matter of calling MMTLP by its future name. Some might say Brda or Basile wanted to make things easier for the court by skipping the complex MMTLP/Next Bridge legal saga.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |