Bureaucracy Times filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking SEC records on FINRA’s unexplained December 2022 MMTLP trading halt. The SEC acknowledged the request within 24 hours, and promptly denied expedited processing the same day.
On September 1, 2026, Bureaucracy Times submitted a formal Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The request sought records related to FINRA’s December 9, 2022 trading halt on MMTLP, a halt that locked approximately 65,000 retail investors into a private company with no public market and for which no specific triggering event has ever been publicly identified.
The SEC acknowledged the request on September 2. By September 3, an SEC attorney advisor had issued an adverse determination: expedited processing denied.
Seventy-two hours. Request. Acknowledge. Deny.
What We Asked For
The FOIA request (assigned tracking number 26-02765-FOIA) covers a six-category scope of records for the period June 1, 2022 through the date the request is processed:
- SEC-FINRA communications regarding the MMTLP halt, including emails, letters, memoranda, meeting notes, instant messages, and internal reports relating to the U3 Extraordinary Event Halt imposed under FINRA Rule 6440.
- SEC review records reflecting whether the Commission concurred in, was notified of, questioned, or evaluated FINRA’s halt authority before or after it was exercised.
- Records identifying the “extraordinary event” cited in FINRA’s Uniform Practice Advisory #35-22 (December 9, 2022) as the basis for the halt — a triggering circumstance FINRA has never publicly named.
- Records related to the threshold list error. FINRA’s acknowledgment that MMTLP was erroneously listed on the OTC Threshold Securities List for approximately 41 days due to a systems coding error, and any SEC review of potential Regulation SHO or FINRA Rule 4320 obligations that error may have triggered.
- Congressional correspondence communications between the SEC and FINRA, or between the SEC and any member of Congress or congressional staff, regarding the MMTLP halt and the subsequent distribution of Next Bridge Hydrocarbons common stock to former MMTLP shareholders.
- SEC oversight of FINRA’s public communications including FINRA’s FAQ and Supplemental FAQ on the MMTLP halt, to the extent the SEC reviewed, commented on, or was consulted in connection with those publications.
The full FOIA request is embedded below.
The SEC’s Response: Acknowledged, and Queued
The SEC’s Office of FOIA Services acknowledged the request on September 2, 2026. The acknowledgement confirmed the tracking number and disclosed three reasons the agency would not meet FOIA’s standard 20-day statutory response window, which would invoke the permitted 10-day extension:
- The need to collect records from an organization geographically separated from the FOIA office
- The potential volume of responsive records
- The need for consultation with other SEC offices with a substantial interest in the subject matter
In plain terms: this request is complicated, there may be a lot of records, and multiple parts of the SEC need to weigh in. The agency placed the request in its standard processing queue.
Requesters who do not receive a response within 30 business days may seek dispute resolution through an SEC FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS).
The Denial: No “Compelling Need” Demonstrated
Also on September 3, Attorney Advisor Matthew Hurd issued the SEC’s interim response, a formal adverse determination on the expedited processing request.
Under the SEC’s FOIA regulation, 17 C.F.R. § 200.80(d)(7), expedited processing is available when a requester demonstrates a “compelling need” as defined in one of two ways:
- A failure to obtain the records on an expedited basis could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to an individual’s life or physical safety, or
- The requester is primarily engaged in disseminating information, and there is an urgency to inform the public of actual or alleged Federal government activity
Bureaucracy Times requested expedited processing under the second prong, as a news publication covering federal regulatory accountability, with an active public interest in the unresolved basis for a regulatory action that permanently affected tens of thousands of investors.
The request cited active congressional inquiry, ongoing litigation, and the absence of any public explanation for the triggering “extraordinary event.”
Hurd’s determination was brief and unequivocal: “In my view, a compelling need has not been demonstrated. Therefore, we are processing your request under our normal guidelines.”
No further explanation was provided. The SEC offered no analysis of the urgency standard as applied to the facts of the request; no finding that the subject matter lacked public significance, no ruling that the congressional and litigation context was insufficient, and no guidance on what a successful expedited request would have looked like.
Just: no.
One Thing the SEC Did Grant
The adverse determination was not a total loss. The SEC placed Bureaucracy Times in the “media use” fee category, confirming that search and review services are provided at no charge. As the SEC’s letter notes, records are typically released electronically and copy costs are not assessed, rendering the fee waiver request moot.
It’s a small acknowledgment, but a meaningful one: the SEC’s own FOIA office confirmed that this is legitimate journalism on a matter of public concern.
What Comes Next
Bureaucracy Times has 90 calendar days from September 3, 2026 to appeal the expedited processing denial to the SEC’s General Counsel under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6) and 17 C.F.R. § 200.80(f)(1). We are evaluating that option.
On the underlying records request, the SEC disclosed in the same letter that it is “consulting with other SEC staff” regarding the request, and that it will notify us of its findings upon completion. That consultation, combined with the three-part rationale for the extended processing timeline, suggests that responsive records, if they exist, are not sitting in a single office. They span organizational boundaries.
Which is exactly what you’d expect for a regulatory action that no single office has ever publicly explained.
We will report what we receive and what we don’t.
This article is Part 2 of Bureaucracy Times’ ongoing coverage of the MMTLP trading halt. Part 1 examines the halt itself and the questions that remain unanswered three years later.
Questions about this FOIA request or the MMTLP coverage? Contact robert@hannotek.com.
Bureaucracy Times 