Okay I figured it out
@magsonthemoon .
TL;DR: The warrants were originally issued by a Luxembourg company, but expired under its Delaware successor, a different legal entity. The warrants had already been substituted during that transition, and the NYSE filed under both the original and successor issuer identities at expiration. That’s a significant distinction when evaluating why (a)(3) was selected.
——
More detailed explanation because the T1 Energy example is a lot more complicated than people are making it out to be:
T1’s warrants were originally issued under FREYR Battery, a Luxembourg company. In December 2023, FREYR reorganized into a Delaware corporation, with its existing warrants transferred to the new corporate structure. In other words, those warrants had already undergone a genuine substitution.
When the warrants expired in July 2026, the NYSE submitted TWO Form 25 filings: one under the original FREYR entity on July 9 and another under T1 Energy on July 10. Both selected (a)(3).
So the NYSE’s use of (a)(3) already connected the warrants’ unusual corporate history and the transition between issuer identities. The earlier substitution had already been documented in a separate 2024 filing, so we can’t establish that this explains the 2026 selection.
But it does mean T1 isn’t a clean example of ordinary warrants issued and expired under an unchanged corporate structure. Anyone citing it as proof that the NYSE routinely uses (a)(3) for worthless warrant expirations is overlooking some important context.