Mullen Automotive Inc (MULN)

[double_m]

Its not so much about the lenders as it is about the less than adequate RS ratio at a time when we all knew Mullen was in that phase where it needed huge amounts of cash to continue operations. The path to DAQ compliance and continued funding was anticipated and well laid out, with lenders' proven upside making this a more attractive business partner/venture. Did DM and the lenders have an 'unofficial agreement' for long-term/multiple rounds of funding? Who knows, but obviously, Mullen isn't the first EV (related) company to take this journey. This path has been taken numerous times before thus leaving a very recognizable pattern for toxic lenders to pick up and capitalize on.

Look at the ratios and opening prices after each RS. How can anyone justify the ratio at a time when EVERYONE knew that Mullen was struggling to stay listed and funding was ONLY achievable thru what would amount to dilution? Unless that justification amounted to something illegal. Remember the interview where Charles Payne asked the same question and DM conveniently had mic issues?

1-for-100 RS executed 21Dec23 (opening price $8.00)
1-for-9 RS executed 11Aug23 (opening price $1.017)
1-for-25 RS executed 4May23 (opening price $1.55).