Meta Materials Inc. Class Action Lawsuit - MMAT; TRCH
- Company Name
- Meta Materials Inc.
- Stock Symbol
- MMAT; TRCH
- Class Period
- September 21, 2020 to December 14, 2021
- Motion Deadline
- March 4, 2022
- Eastern District of New York
The Meta Materials class action lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of Meta Materials Inc. f/k/a Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc. (NASDAQ: MMAT; TRCH) securities between September 21, 2020 and December 14, 2021, inclusive (the “Class Period”) and charges Meta Materials and certain of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Meta Materials class action lawsuit was commenced on January 3, 2022 in the Eastern District of New York and is captioned Maltagliati v. Meta Materials Inc. f/k/a Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc., No. 21-cv-07203.
If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Meta Materials class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. Lead plaintiff motions for the Meta Materials class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than March 4, 2022.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Meta Materials purports to be a developer of high-performance functional materials and nanocomposites. Before the business combination with Metamaterial Inc., which closed June 28, 2021, Meta Materials was known as “Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc.”
The Meta Materials class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) the business combination would result in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) investigation and subpoena in the matter captioned In the Matter of Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc.; (ii) Meta Materials has materially overstated its business connections and dealings; (iii) Meta Materials has materially overstated its ability to produce and commercialize its products; (iv) Meta Materials has materially overstated its products’ novelty and capabilities; (v) Meta Materials’ products did not have the potential to be disruptive because, among other things, Meta Materials priced its products too high; and (vi) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On November 15, 2021, Meta Materials announced the SEC subpoena, stating that: “In September 2021, the Company received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Enforcement, in a matter captioned In the Matter of Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc. The subpoena requests that the Company produces certain documents and information related to, among other things, the merger involving Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc. and Metamaterial Inc.” On this news, the price of Meta Materials stock fell by nearly 4%.
Then, on December 14, 2021, market researcher Kerrisdale Capital released a report alleging, among other things, that “Meta has habitually made outlandish and misleading claims about the feasibility, development, and commercial potential of various technologies only to repeatedly move the goalposts or retrospectively alter its claims, often just quietly dropping entire projects they had previously touted as pivotal.” The report further stated that Meta Materials’ “three current ‘businesses’ have generated just about zero product revenue over the last ten years despite continuously making grandiose product development claims,” concluding that “[w]e expect this trend to continue given that the company has never actually commercialized anything.” On this news, the price of Meta Materials stock fell by an additional 5.8%, further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Meta Materials securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Meta Materials class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Meta Materials class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Meta Materials class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Meta Materials class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors that year, more than double the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs’ firm.