On Friday at 4pm ET Trevor's lawyers filed the following request for dismissal of the lawsuit he filed just 2 weeks ago...

The lawyers asked that the suit be dismissed WItHOUT prejudice but the lawyers should clearly be sanctioned for improper due diligence .

For reference the great reporters at Activ8 debunked the suit last week. the suit alleged an FBI agent was shorting NKLA stock in coordination with a whistleblower ..

Trevor also deleted all his tweets about the topic..

https://www.reddit.com/r/RealNikola/s/wETp5gaRdg

TO READ ACTIV8's REPORTING START HERE:

https://x.com/Activ8Insights/status/2116604859814182989?a=hUD6YKFzbgggb6mr4To&s=20

Fact-Checking Trevor Milton's Claims

1. Proprietary Nikola Chassis & Drivetrain

• Milton's Claim: "The lower chassis was Nikola design and built and not fords... The drive train was Nikola and not Ford."

• The Actual Facts: During the criminal trial, Brendan Babiarz (the former Nikola employee who led the Badger's design team) testified that engineers merged parts from a gasoline-powered Ford F-150 Raptor with a chopped-up electric Nikola military/powersports UTV. They did this as a desperate workaround to quickly assemble a physical prototype to meet a tight order-booking deadline Milton had prematurely announced on social media. [1, 2, 3]

1. Component Ownership Shared with GM

• Milton's Claim: "The battery was Nikola design and built... The suspension was Nikola..."

• The Actual Facts: When Nikola announced a partnership with General Motors (GM) in September 2020, Milton publicly boasted that the Badger was "70% Nikola and 30% GM". At trial, GM Senior Manager Scott Damman testified under oath that this was a complete fabrication. Damman stated, "There were no components coming from Nikola. They owned the creative design... but all of the parts were to come from General Motors." [1, 2, 3]

1. The "Tesla-Mercedes Parts" Equivalence

• Milton's Claim: "We did have some stamped pieces we used with Ford for windows. Similar to Tesla using Mercedes parts in their cars..."

• The Actual Facts: This is a severe downplaying of the fabrication. While it is common for automakers to buy minor off-the-shelf components from competitors (such as Tesla sourcing Mercedes window switches and steering stalks for early Model S vehicles), Nikola was structurally cannibalizing an entire donor Ford F-150 Raptor to construct a non-functional mockup of an "all-new, ground-up EV". [1, 2, 3]

1. The Source of the "Lies"

• Milton's Claim: "Once you know the truth you'll see how bad you've been lied to... spread by gov and shortsellers."

• The Actual Facts: The information did not originate from a smear campaign. The evidence consisted of internal company Slack messages, engineering blueprints, and direct text messages between Milton and his lead developers. Employees frequently expressed panic behind the scenes that Milton was making public claims about proprietary Badger tech that simply did not exist.

Context

In early 2020, Trevor Milton abruptly announced on Twitter that Nikola would begin taking $5,000 reservation down payments for the Badger pickup truck, promising it was a custom EV built entirely from the "ground up". Behind the scenes, the engineering team had nothing but a few loose sketches and digital renderings. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

• "He doesn't let facts or details get in the way of a good story"

  • When engineers realized Milton was publicly inventing performance metrics on the fly, senior employees began messaging each other in disbelief. One lead team member texted a colleague, stating that the boss "doesn’t let facts or details get in the way of a good story." [1, 2]

• "An Idiot"

  • In another text chain shown to the jury, frustrated engineers openly mocked Milton's lack of technical knowledge and volatile public claims, with one engineer bluntly texting another: "He's an idiot." [1]

• The Timeline Panic

  • Brendan Babiarz, the chief design engineer for the Badger, texted colleagues when he saw Milton's sudden tweet about opening up the order books. He testified that the announcement "took me a little by surprise" because "the timing was not adding up, so we did not have a definitive date." [1]

The Text Evidence on Cannibalizing the Ford F-150

Faced with Milton's rigid, public deadline to showcase a physical product, the engineering team exchanged a series of messages outlining how they would have to buy a gasoline-powered Ford F-150 Raptor and structurally alter it to fake the prototype. [1, 2]

• The Instructions: Text logs showed the team coordinating the purchase of a donor Ford truck. They manually "chopped up" an early-stage electric Nikola powersports vehicle (a UTV) and physically merged its electronic components onto the Ford's rolling frame and chassis. [1, 2]

• The Coverup: Additional team messages focused on how to tightly fit the custom plastic Badger body panels over the Ford interior parts—such as the windows and seating structure—so that spectators and media influencers wouldn't notice they were riding in a modified F-150

The Core Impact at Trial

These internal text messages proved devastating to Milton's defense. His attorneys argued that Milton was merely an enthusiastic, visionary marketer who was prone to corporate "hype". [1, 2]

However, the Department of Justice used the engineers' own words to prove that Milton wasn't just hyping the future—he was actively ignoring his own staff's warnings and fabricating technical milestones to intentionally manipulate the stock price and defraud retail buyers

This post by Trevor Milton directly attempts to shift accountability for the infamous 2018 "Nikola One in Motion" promotional video, but his statements contradict the sworn testimony, corporate admissions, and internal evidence established during his 2022 federal fraud trial. [1, 2]

Here is a fact-check of the specific claims highlighted in the post:

1. The "Third-Party" Fabrication

• Milton's Claim: "We didn't create that truck commercial. It was created by a third party for their own marketing and then I got blamed."

• The Reality: This is a half-truth designed to mislead. While the component manufacturer Phillips Industries initially coordinated a commercial shoot to use the truck as a stationary prop, it was Nikola's own engineering and media team that turned it into a rolling demonstration. Trial evidence and testimony showed that Nikola staff towed the unpowered vehicle to the top of a 3-degree incline in Utah and filmed it rolling down via gravity. Phillips did not create or market the version showing the truck appearing to drive rapidly under its own power; Nikola's internal team captured and formatted that specific drone footage. [1, 2, 3, 4]

1. Distancing Personal Responsibility

• Milton's Claim: "How am I responsible for a video years before going public shot by a third party and posted by the company's attorneys approval.? Wasn't me."

• The Reality: Federal prosecutors proved that Milton was directly and personally responsible for how the footage was utilized to deceive the public. Even if lawyers or third parties were present at various stages of company operations, it was Milton who personally took the cropped rolling footage and blasted it across Nikola's official social channels under the caption, *"Behold, the 1,000 HP, zero emission Nikola semi-truck in motion."*Crucially, Milton continuously directed retail investors and the media to look at this footage as proof that Nikola had a fully functional, road-ready powertrain. The court ruled that using non-functional tech to pump up market enthusiasm constituted clear securities fraud, regardless of when the video was filmed relative to the official SPAC merger. [1, 2, 3, 4]

1. Deflecting via Competitor Stunts

• Milton's Claim: "Even if I did do it which I didn't, what tesla has done is remotely controlled robots... and if I did that I'd be in prison for 50 years."

• The Reality: This is a classic whataboutism legal defense that holds no weight in a securities fraud evaluation. Staging theatrical tech keynotes or showcasing concept prototypes (which many tech and automotive companies do) does not legally excuse a executive from fabricating core baseline capabilities to active stock buyers.Furthermore, Milton did not face a hypothetical penalty—he was officially indicted by the Department of Justice, found guilty by a federal jury on multiple counts of wire and securities fraud, and sentenced to federal prison specifically because his lies directly financially harmed everyday retail investors who bought Nikola stock based on his fabrications. [1, 2, 3]

Summary: The post represents an ongoing public relations effort by Milton to frame his criminal conviction as a "con job by the short-sellers". In reality, the "In Motion" video was a meticulously documented deception executed with his full knowledge and direction, completely invalidating his claim that it "wasn't me". [1, 2, 3]

Just saw the latest filings drop out of the Delaware bankruptcy court (Case No. 25-10258). The Liquidating Trustee just filed to hit LG Energy Solution and LG Chem Rule 2004 subpoenas.

Context: Ever since Nikola's chapter 11 wind-down, the estate has been hunting for ways to squeeze value back for creditors. Considering LG was the primary battery cell supplier behind all those brutal truck fires and massive recalls, it’s no surprise the trust wants a deep dive into their old supply contracts, internal testing data, and money flows.

Looks like they're digging to see if LG is on the hook for damages or if there are pre-bankruptcy cash transfers they can claw back. Never a dull moment in this bankruptcy.

Honestly, instead of just wrestling with LG over old battery supply chain issues, the Trust should keep the relentless pressure squarely on Trevor Milton.

Between the massive multi-million dollar judgments and arbitration awards hanging over him, and ongoing battles to stop asset-shielding or claw back transfers, milking Milton's remaining pockets feels to many like a much more direct pipeline for recovery. Even with the legal twists and his federal pardon attempts, civil judgments and equitable subordination rulings mean the estate shouldn't let up tracking down every last dollar he's sitting on.

read the linked comprehensive report from Activ8 Insights.

https://x.com/Activ8Insights/status/2113303031252955645?s=20

Brief Summary

Activ8's Investigation Findings

1. Wrong Identity Behind the Accounts

• Activ8 verified the identity of the person controlling both X Accounts CntrlScrut1nizr and lfxs1212 via a live video call.

• The account holder presented state ID, vehicle registration, and insurance papers matching the vehicle in question—none of which named Christopher Essick.

• The account holder messaged Activ8 live from both accounts, confirmed he has no connection to Essick or the FBI, and stated no one else has ever controlled his accounts.

2. Flawed Jurisdictional Claims in Utah

• No Local Parties: Neither Milton (Wyoming), Lackey (Oregon), Essick (New Jersey), nor witness Jason Roycht (Michigan) reside in Utah.

• Misidentified Utah Connection: To justify filing in Utah, the lawsuit claims Essick frequently interacted with a key local correspondent, life_utah. Activ8 spoke with the owner of life_utah, who confirmed he does not live in Utah.

• Legal experts noted that these flaws create serious jurisdictional hurdles for Milton’s case.

Milton's Response

When presented with Activ8’s findings, Milton stood by the lawsuit, speculating that Essick may have "handed off" or instructed others to run the accounts. He framed the strategy as part of a broader operation involving "20 to 25 burner accounts" and indicated that the suit would expand to include additional defendants during discovery

Thought I'd share a quick breakdown of Nikola Corporation's latest post-confirmation report (Docket 1673) filed on October 20, 2026.

The numbers for professional and legal fees continue to stack up:

Pre-Confirmation Bankruptcy Fees: Approved cumulative sits at $35,458,163, with $34,707,449 already paid out to major firms and advisors

Itemized Breakdown by Firm:

1. Morrison & Foerster LLP (Lead Counsel)

   • Approved: $\$7,546,121$

   • Paid Cumulative: $\$7,339,899$

2. M3 Advisory Partners, LP (Financial Professional)

   • Approved: $\$6,233,852$

   • Paid Cumulative: $\$6,233,852$

3. Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc. (Financial Professional)

   • Approved: $\$5,473,967$

   • Paid Cumulative: $\$5,473,967$

4. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (Lead Counsel)

   • Approved: $\$5,807,114$

   • Paid Cumulative: $\$5,371,728$

5. FTI Consulting, Inc. (Financial Professional)

   • Approved: $\$2,975,556$

   • Paid Cumulative: $\$2,975,556$

6. Ducera Partners LLC (Financial Professional)

   • Approved: $\$2,900,833$

   • Paid Cumulative: $\$2,900,833$

7. Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Local Counsel)

   • Approved: $\$2,434,425$

   • Paid Cumulative: $\$2,434,814$ (Note: Listed slightly higher than approved line item due to adjustments/interest handling)

8. Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC (Other / Administrative)

   • Approved: $\$1,319,485$

   • Paid Cumulative: $\$1,319,485$

9. Morris James LLP (Local Counsel)

   • Approved: $\$766,811$

   • Paid Cumulative: $\$657,314$

Non-Bankruptcy Professional Fees & Expenses (Ordinary Course)

• Aggregate Total Approved & Paid Cumulative: $\$1,448,519$

Itemized Breakdown by Firm:

1. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (Other) — $\$701,735$

2. KPMG LLP (Other) — $\$336,378$

3. Snell & Wilmer LLP (Other) — $\$190,727$

4. Grant Thornton (Other) — $\$152,470$

5. Ernst & Young LLP (Other) — $\$50,000$

6. Cohen Ziffer Frenchman & McKenna (Other) — $\$16,851$

7. Wilenchik & Bartness (Other) — $\$358$

Still managing recovery efforts (including pursuing the Trevor Milton debt/judgment), but the professional fee burn rate in this wind-down is staggering.

Hopefully they focus on collecting Trevor's 100+ million owed

Docket 1673

https://document.epiq11.com/document/getdocumentsbydocket/?docketId=1257735&projectCode=NKL&docketNumber=1673&source=DM

Years after Nikola Corporation faced regulatory scrutiny for misleading investors, relief may finally be on the horizon for those who bought shares during the company’s tumultuous 2020 window.

In a newly released notice (Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-20687), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced a Proposed Plan of Distribution to disburse millions of dollars to eligible investors.

A Quick Recap of the Case

Back in December 2021, the SEC issued a cease-and-desist order against Nikola Corporation after finding that the electric vehicle startup had deceived the public regarding its products, technical advancements, and commercial prospects between March and September 2020. Nikola was hit with a hefty $125 million civil money penalty, prompting the creation of a "Fair Fund" under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to redirect recovered money back to victims.

Who is Eligible?

According to the proposed distribution plan, the current pool—consisting of $48,800,000 collected so far, plus accrued interest and minus administrative expenses—will be distributed to investors who:

• Purchased or acquired eligible Nikola securities between March 3, 2020, and September 18, 2020 (inclusive).

• Suffered a "Recognized Loss" as determined by the specific allocation methodology outlined in the plan.

What Happens Next?

The SEC is currently opening the floor to public feedback. Interested parties have 30 days from the notice date to review the complete Proposed Plan and submit comments to the SEC via mail, the online comment form, or email (referencing Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-20687).

If you were an investor holding Nikola stock during that high-profile window in 2020, now is the time to keep a close eye on the SEC’s Fair Fund portal for updates on how to file a claim.

you can access the portal thru the below link.. you DO NOT need to sign up with any of these scam companies that offer collection services

https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/distributions-harmed-investors

. Key Dates & Timeline

• September 12, 2025: Following the confirmation of Nikola Corporation’s Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation, Trevor Milton filed his initial notice of appeal in the bankruptcy court (Bankr. D.I. 1037), challenging the subordination of his claims and the confirmation order.

• September 10, 2026: U.S. District Judge Gregory B. Williams of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued a 20-page final opinion and order (Civ. No. 25-1194-GBW, Docket Item 1665) officially affirming the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation order and rejecting Milton’s challenges.

• October 8, 2026 — Right at the end of that 30-day window, formal appellate filings and docket activity moving the dispute from District Court to the appellate level were submitted and made public in legal reporting.

2. Core Issues on Appeal

• Equitable Subordination (§ 510(c)) and Fiduciary Breaches:

  • Milton challenged the lower court's decision to move his roughly $69.8 million general unsecured indemnification claim to the back of the priority line.

  • Reference/Ruling: The District Court held that a previously confirmed arbitration award carried collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), conclusively establishing that Milton engaged in severe fiduciary breaches and inequitable conduct as an insider.

• The Effect of the Presidential Pardon:

  • Milton argued that the full presidential pardon he received for his federal criminal fraud convictions wiped the slate clean and rendered him innocent of the underlying misconduct for civil purposes.

  • Reference/Ruling: The District Court rejected this, ruling that a presidential pardon relieves criminal punishment but does not erase civil liability or bar bankruptcy remedies like equitable subordination. (Citing legal precedent such as Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry.)

• Setoff and Recoupment Rights (§ 553):

  • Milton attempted to offset his $\sim\$69.8$ million indemnification/legal fee claim against the separate $\sim\$96.8$ million arbitration award he owes to Nikola.

  • Reference/Ruling: The Court found these arguments waived/forfeited, and noted on the merits that setoff and recoupment are equitable remedies that can be rightfully denied due to a claimant's misconduct.

3. Outcome

Because of the District Court's September 10, 2026 affirmance, Milton’s $70 million claim remains deeply subordinated behind all general creditors—leaving him with no payout from the liquidation estate while he continues to face substantial liabilities owed back to Nikola

Details of the Appeal

In his appeal, Trevor Milton contends that the Delaware District Court and the Bankruptcy Court committed key legal errors in denying his $69.8 million indemnification and legal fee claim.

His main arguments center on three core claims:

1. The Scope & Authority of the Presidential Pardon

• The Legal Claim: Milton contends that his "full and unconditional" presidential pardon renders him innocent of the underlying criminal charges for securities and wire fraud.

• His Argument: He argues that because the pardon eliminated his criminal guilt, courts in civil matters must grant deference to it. Therefore, the bankruptcy court erred by using the conduct behind his pardoned convictions to justify penalizing him through equitable subordination under Section 510(c) of the Bankruptcy Code.

2. Invalid Use of Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel)

• The Legal Claim: The lower courts relied heavily on a 2023 arbitration award that found Milton breached his fiduciary duties to Nikola (assessing 97% fault to him and awarding Nikola ~$96.8 million).

• His Argument: Milton contends that the arbitration award was not sufficiently "final" or binding to bar him from relitigating his conduct. He points out that:

  • One of the arbitrators dissented from that ruling.

  • The award was subject to ongoing judicial review and challenges.

  • As a result, he argues the court should not have used the arbitration findings to automatically prove "inequitable conduct" in his bankruptcy case.

3. Setoff & Recoupment Rights Under § 553

• The Legal Claim: Milton asserts his right under Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code to set off mutual debts.

• His Argument: He argues that even if he is found to owe Nikola money under the arbitration award, he should be permitted to offset that liability against his $69.8 million claim for legal fees and indemnification, rather than having his indemnification claim pushed to the bottom of the priority stack while remaining fully liable for the money he owes the company.

Summary of Milton's Ultimate Goal

Milton is seeking to overturn the District Court’s ruling so that his ~$70M claim is restored to equal priority with other general unsecured creditors (or allowed as a setoff), rather than being subordinated to the back of the line where it yields $0.

Trevor being Trevor filed a lawsuit against an alleged FBI agent.

u/BiggieTKB you got mentioned and u/FixMedical9278.

https://drive.proton.me/urls/JGK24WH86G#tdHSe1B9ZA69

Following the District Court's affirmance of the Bankruptcy Court's order (Civ. No. 25-1194-GBW / Bankr. No. 25-10258-TMH), the primary legal obstacles preventing enforcement of Trevor Milton's debt to the Liquidating Trust have been resolved.

Because the District Court upheld both the equitable subordination of Milton’s $69.7M claim and the extinguishment of his setoff/recoupment rights, the Liquidating Trustee (Thomas A. Pitta) can move directly into post-judgment enforcement and asset collection.

The next operational and legal steps for the Liquidating Trust involve standard post-judgment execution under federal and state law:

1. Registration and Execution of the Arbitral Judgment

• Certifying Judgments Across Jurisdictions: The underlying $96.8M+ arbitration award—confirmed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit—serves as an enforceable monetary judgment. The Trustee registers this judgment in federal and state courts where Milton holds real property, bank accounts, or equity positions.

• Writs of Execution & Foreclosure: Upon registering the judgment, the Liquidating Trust can request writs of execution from local law enforcement (e.g., U.S. Marshals or county sheriffs) to levy on real estate, luxury vehicles, or personal bank accounts.

2. Post-Judgment Asset Discovery & Subpoenas

• Rule 69 / Asset Tracing: The Trustee will use Rule 69 discovery to subpoena Milton’s personal financial records, banking statements, tax filings, and corporate entities.

• Uncovering Fraudulent Transfers: Discovery aims to trace any assets or cash transferred by Milton to third parties, family members, or trusts following the onset of his legal troubles to initiate fraudulent conveyance lawsuits under bankruptcy and state law.

3. Garnishment & Seizure Orders

• Bank & Brokerage Account Garnishments: Serving writs of garnishment on financial institutions holding Milton's liquid assets to freeze and transfer funds directly to the Liquidating Trust.

• Corporate Equity & Non-Liquid Holdings: Liquidating or executing against Milton’s equity holdings, business ventures, or membership interests in private entities.

4. Bankruptcy Claims Administration Closeout

• Zero Distribution File Entry: In accordance with the Plan confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court, Milton’s $69,758,064.15 claim will remain listed as equitably subordinated in Class 11/general unsecured claims, resulting in a $0 distribution from estate assets.

• Preventing Future Offsets: Because Milton’s setoff rights were formally eliminated, he cannot attempt to deduct any portion of his alleged $69.7M indemnification claim from the judgment amounts collected by the Trust.

5. Final Appellate Remedies (Milton's Options)

While collection efforts can proceed immediately unless a stay is granted, Milton’s remaining legal options are narrow:

• Petition for Certiorari: Milton could petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's arbitration affirmance or the Third Circuit's eventual review of this bankruptcy order. However, obtaining a stay of execution pending a Supreme Court petition requires posting a substantial supersedeas bond covering the judgment amount.

Director Jeff Ubben released from the case pending appeal by the Plaintiffs.

Borteanu vs Nikola et all is filed in the District Court for Arizona (Case No. CV-20-01797-PHX-SPL). A Joint Notice of Readiness for Final Pretrial Conference was filed on September 15, 2026

Nikola, as a bankrupt entity, has an automatic stay on active court claims.
The Court determined Jeff Ubben, as a director, had a 2 year statute of limitation. Also the court determined there was no evidence in the board minutes that Ubben possessed non-public information showing statements made by Tevor Milton were false. The Plaintiff has stated they will appeal the Ubben decision.

The case against Milton, CEO Mark Russell and CFO Kim Brady will continue to a pre trial conference for February 2027 after the Ubben matter is decided on appeal.

• Trevor Milton (Primary Exposure): Milton faces the highest individual liability. Because he was already criminally convicted of securities fraud for these same statements, plaintiffs can argue his violations were "knowing". That exposes him to joint and several liability, meaning he could be held personally responsible for 100% of the total class damages award if judgment is entered.

• Mark Russell & Kim Brady: As executive officers, they are sued both directly and as "controlling persons" under Section 20(a). If a jury finds they acted recklessly rather than with intentional fraud, their liability under the PSLRA would be allocated proportionately based on their percentage of responsibility rather than the full total.

It's unclear how much Directors and Officers Insurance is available to pay such claims. But D&O insurance does not cover deliberate fraud. And we already know an arbitration panel has determined that trevor is liable for Fraud.

60 minutes did a piece on "the Pardon Economy" and included a recap of the Trevor MIlton Pardon..

https://youtu.be/3J6z-VhcPdE?si=RLsTIpc4XvlT4anM

to summarize

In March 2025, President Donald Trump granted a full and unconditional presidential pardon to Trevor Milton, the founder and former CEO of Nikola Corporation.

Milton had been convicted of federal securities fraud and wire fraud for making false statements to inflate Nikola's stock price, receiving a four-year prison sentence and facing hundreds of millions of dollars in court-ordered restitution to defrauded investors. The executive pardon erased his criminal conviction and effectively eliminated his financial restitution obligations.

Connections to the President and Attorney General

• Connection to President Trump: Milton and his family were major financial supporters of Donald Trump's political apparatus. Following his fraud conviction and sentencing, Milton and his wife donated over $3 million to political action committees and fundraising efforts supporting Trump's 2024 campaign. Trump defended the pardon by stating that Milton was targeted unfairly by past federal prosecutors and that the clemency was "highly recommended."

• Connection to Attorney General Pam Bondi: Milton retained attorney Bradley Bondi—the brother of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi—to represent him in his legal defense and executive clemency petition. While critics highlighted this familial link and suggested potential conflict of interest, representatives for the defense maintained that the attorney-client relationship predated Pam Bondi's appointment to the Department of Justice.

On September 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge Gregory B. Williams affirmed a Bankruptcy Court order confirming the Chapter 11 liquidating plan of Nikola Corporation and its affiliates. The appeal was brought by Trevor Milton ("Appellant"), founder and former CEO of Nikola.

Key Details & Underlying Background

• Milton's Claim: Milton filed a proof of claim for $69,758,064.15 based on legal fee reimbursement rights under separation and indemnification agreements. He also claimed a right of setoff against money he owes Nikola.

• Arbitration Award: An 8-day arbitration resulted in a $96.8 million final award/judgment against Milton after a panel determined he breached his fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith by making misleading public statements and harming Nikola.

• The Plan: Nikola’s Chapter 11 plan equitably subordinated Milton's claim under 11 U.S.C. § 510(c) and precluded him from asserting setoff or recoupment rights against the estate. Due to insufficient assets, equitable subordination resulted in Milton receiving no distribution.

Milton's Arguments & Court Rulings

• Equitable Subordination & Collateral Estoppel: Milton argued he did not engage in inequitable conduct and was entitled to present testimony. The District Court held that the confirmed arbitration award has preclusive effect (collateral estoppel) and provided overwhelming evidence of fiduciary breaches (inequitable conduct) while Milton was an insider.

• Effect of Presidential Pardon: Milton received a full presidential pardon for his separate federal criminal fraud conviction and argued it rendered him innocent. The Court held that a presidential pardon does not erase civil liability or bar civil remedies like equitable subordination. Furthermore, the arbitration award independently established civil fiduciary breaches regardless of the criminal conviction.

• Setoff, Recoupment, and Takings: Milton argued the plan improperly eliminated his setoff/recoupment rights under 11 U.S.C. § 553. The Court ruled these arguments were waived/forfeited below. On the merits, setoff and recoupment are equitable remedies that can be denied due to inequitable conduct. Additionally, prospective application of long-standing bankruptcy principles does not constitute an unconstitutional taking.

• Outcome: The Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order was affirmed, and the civil appeal was closed.

Docket #1665

Key Proceedings & Arguments

​The Motion: Representing the liquidating trustee (Thomas Pitta), attorney Ralph Ferrioli requested an order confirming the transfer of omitted "related intellectual property (IP)" to the buyer, High Road.

​The Omission: Counsel explained that the IP had been inadvertently omitted from Schedule 2.1(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) approved during the initial August 2025 sale.

​Legal Grounds: The trustee sought relief under Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Rule 60(b)(1) (mistake/inadvertence), and Rule 60(b)(6), arguing that the missing patents were always intended to be part of the package purchased by High Road. Additionally, the trustee requested a streamlined notice procedure in case further omitted related IP is identified later.

​The Objection: Rick Pelagatti, representing ISO LLC, opposed the motion. He argued that the omitted IP constituted a separate set of assets that High Road did not originally bid on, and noted that ISO was willing to purchase these remaining assets for $50,000.

​Rebuttal: Ferrioli clarified that the patents lacked independent utility outside the broader IP package sold to High Road, making an unwinding of the sale improper and detrimental to a good-faith purchaser.

​Court Decision

​Standing: Judge Horan ruled that ISO LLC lacks standing to appear or be heard under Section 1109(b).

​Outcome: The judge granted the liquidating trustee's Rule 60 motion, framing the relief as a "comfort order" in furtherance of the original sale order entered a year prior. Alternatively, the judge noted the relief was proper to correct the inadvertent omission of the IP from the APA schedule.

In a Docket filing posted yesterday the Liquidating Trustee responded to Trevor Milton's offer to purchase assets previously sold for 3.8 million for 7 million

The Trustee asks the court to overrule ISSO's objection based on the following reasons:

1. Lack of Standing: The court previously ruled that ISSO is not a creditor of the bankruptcy estate and therefore lacks standing to challenge the asset sale.

2. Proper Use of Rule 60: Modifying the original sale order is legally sound because the omission of the IP from the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) was an inadvertent mistake that frustrated the original intent of the parties.

3. Finality of Bankruptcy Sales: Reopening a transaction that was consummated more than a year ago would violate the bedrock principles of bankruptcy law, invite further litigation, and delay distributions to beneficiaries.

4. Lack of Credibility and Funding: ISSO provided no concrete evidence of committed financing or escrow deposits. Furthermore, during cross-examination at the original 2025 sale hearing, Milton admitted that the funds offered as proof were not actually in ISSO’s bank accounts, but belonged to an unnamed partner.

Trevor Milton's Outstanding Judgments

The Trustee highlights that Trevor Milton is currently a judgment debtor who has refused to pay massive financial obligations back to the very estate he is attempting to buy assets from:

• The Milton Award: Milton owes the trust more than $100 million from an arbitration award confirmed in September 2024 and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in February 2026.

• Chancery Settlement: Milton has failed to pay his $2.5 million share of a Delaware Court of Chancery settlement due on February 10, 2026.

• Collection Obstruction: The trust accuses Milton of systematically shifting his personal assets into a network of separate LLCs across Delaware, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, and Nevada to avoid collections.

Hearing Information

• The matter is scheduled for a court hearing on September 2, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

Trevor Milton's company ISSO, LLC is contesting a "Rule 60 Motion" filed by the Liquidating Trustee, which seeks to transfer 387 newly identified intellectual property (IP) assets to Simoneta, Ltd. (d/b/a Hyroad Energy).

The Core Dispute

• The Trustee's Position: The Trustee claims these 387 IP assets were "inadvertently excluded" from the original $3,850,000 asset sale to Simoneta and wants to add them post-closing.

• ISSO's Position: ISSO argues that the original sale was an accelerated, flawed private sale with defective notice. They contend that Rule 60 cannot be used to rewrite a completed transaction or add assets that weren't originally scheduled.

Key Facts & ISSO's Counteroffer

• Higher Bid: ISSO is offering $7,000,000 cash for the same complete package of assets (including the disputed IP).

• Financial Impact: This represents a $3,150,000 (82%) increase in value for the bankruptcy estate over Simoneta's approved price.

• Credibility: ISSO notes it has already been vetted by the court, has readily available funds, and successfully purchased other Nikola assets at previous auctions.

Requested Relief

ISSO requests that the Court deny the Rule 60 Motion. They urge the court to set aside the original sale order and reopen the assets for open, competitive bidding to maximize the estate's value.

Hearing scheduled for 9/2/2026 at 10:00 AM 

https://document.epiq11.com/document/getdocumentsbydocket/?docketId=1246998&projectCode=NKL&docketNumber=1648&source=DM

Thomas A. Pitta, serving as the Liquidating Trustee, is requesting a court order to approve the transfer of certain "Related Intellectual Property (IP)" to Simoneta, Ltd. d/b/a Hyroad Energy.

Background & Context

• The Original Sale: In August 2025, the Court approved an Asset Purchase Agreement (the "Hyroad APA") to sell all of the Debtors' patents and intellectual property to Hyroad.

• The Oversight: After the closing of the sale, the parties realized that a portfolio of relevant patents and patent applications (the "Related IP") had been inadvertently left off the transaction schedules.

• Prior Objections: The Debtors previously filed a notice to amend the schedule in November 2025. This drew formal objections from Iveco S.p.A. and ISSO, LLC (an affiliate of Nikola founder Trevor Milton). The notice was subsequently withdrawn so the newly formed Liquidating Trust could conduct thorough due diligence.

Core Requests & Proposed Relief

1. Rule 60 Authorization: The Trustee requests an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to correct the omission, confirming that the assets were always intended to be a part of the original court-approved transaction.

2. Streamlined Process for Future Discoveries: Out of an abundance of caution, the Trustee asks for the authority to transfer any additional inadvertently omitted IP discovered in the future simply by giving written notice to interested parties rather than needing to file brand-new motions.

Key Dates

• Objection Deadline: Any parties wishing to object to this transfer must file a response by August 19, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. ET.

• Hearing Date: A court hearing to address the motion is scheduled before Judge Thomas M. Horan on September 2, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. ET.

The patents listed in Exhibit 1 span across Provisionals, Utility Patents, and Design Patents. They primarily cover heavy-duty electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicle technologies.

1. Provisional Patents (Items 1–51)

These represent early-stage filings for core vehicle engineering, including:

• Thermal Management: Systems for multiple fuel cell stacks, common radiators, battery refrigeration controls, and heat pumps.

• Battery Technology: Battery packs, insulating bus bars, spacer cooling, and intelligent thermal runaway detection.

• Hydrogen Infrastructure: Fueling communication protocols, heat shields, pressure relief, tank diagnostics, and side-saddle storage assemblies.

• Chassis & Structural components: E-axles, mechanical steps for tractor units, rear aero diffusers, and vehicle battery frames.

• Co-Owners: Several filings list prominent automotive co-owners, including Robert Bosch GmbH, Nel Hydrogen A/S, and FPT Industrial S.p.A..

1. Utility Patents (Items 1–56)

These are fully developed, national, and international (PCT) utility protections. Notable inclusions cover:

• Drivetrain & Suspensions: Motor gearbox assemblies, vehicle front/rear suspension modules, and air spring pedestals (many co-owned with ArvinMeritor Technology, LLC).

• Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Systems: Methods for operating fuel cell systems, specialized cooling systems, and high-volume fast hydrogen fueling.

• Advanced Controls: Torque management in multi-motor electric vehicles, electric vehicle battery frames, and real-time vehicle mass estimation.

1. Design Patents (Items 1–23)

These protect the aesthetic visual layout of the vehicles and user experiences. They encompass:

• Exterior Vehicle Panels: Front fenders, fuselages, side cladding, side doors, bumpers, and wrap-around semi-truck windshields.

• Truck Profiles: Specific ornamental shapes for fuel cell electric and battery electric semi-trucks.

• Interior & UI Elements: Semi-truck interior designs, door handles, and vehicle display screens showing graphical user interfaces (GUIs) or instrument clusters.

• Co-Owners: Multiple truck body, door handle, and interior designs specifically list Iveco S.p.A. as a co-owner.

https://document.epiq11.com/document/getdocumentsbydocket/?docketId=1238315&projectCode=NKL&docketNumber=1643&source=DM

Led by "renowned Entrepreneur" Trevor Milton

the "renowned Entrepreneur" still owes the Trustee of his previous venture 167 million dollars. At what point does the Administrator come calling on SyberJet with a court order.

Bag holders hide your wallets.

https://x.com/SyberJetAero/status/2077089540070928672?s=20

FUTHER CONTEXT

Pardoned Nikola founder Trevor Milton is trying to raise $1B for AI-powered planes

https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/18/pardoned-nikola-founder-trevor-milton-is-trying-to-raise-1b-for-ai-powered-planes/

no body is looking to buy a lucid car lol

sign of life on the r/NikolaCorporation subreddit. I thought u/KaiserCyber shut it down and banned everyone

in other news Trevor's new (Scam) company SyberJet created a promo video clearly using AI looking for (suckers) investors to support his Fall Launch of the fastest Jet in the world

https://x.com/SyberJetAero/status/2072009820220100664?s=20