{"cached_at":"2026-09-04T10:44:19.439512+00:00","cl_docket_id":"72214887","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","id":72214887,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nysd/","court_id":"nysd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/2655/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-01-30T17:11:43.113172-08:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T18:07:05.437598-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Edgardo Ramos","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2026-01-30","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-08-13","case_name_short":"","case_name":"IN RE RAMACO RESOURCES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION","case_name_full":"","slug":"in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation","docket_number":"1:26-cv-00846","docket_number_core":"2600846","docket_number_raw":"1:26-cv-00846","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"ER","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"657140","cause":"15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"850 Securities/Commodities","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2026-01-30T17:11:43.103927-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17229511/","id":17229511,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","docket_id":72214887,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-30T21:07:37.352822-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-30T21:07:37.352835-08:00","name":"Jeremy R. Sussman","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17229510/","id":17229510,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","docket_id":72214887,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-30T21:07:37.336995-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-30T21:07:37.337008-08:00","name":"Randall W. Atkins","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17229509/","id":17229509,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","docket_id":72214887,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-30T21:07:37.320633-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-30T21:07:37.320648-08:00","name":"Ramaco Resources, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17229508/","id":17229508,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11231305/","attorney_id":11231305,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","docket_id":72214887,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","docket_id":72214887,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-30T21:07:37.213156-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-30T21:07:37.213171-08:00","name":"Lynn Henning","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474415917/","id":474415917,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489916099/","id":489916099,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/55/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-08-13T18:07:05.516146-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T18:07:05.530711-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"55","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040157379","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-13T18:07:05.483102-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T18:07:05.491088-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-13","time_filed":"20:29:33","entry_number":55,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":206,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474415911/","id":474415911,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489916093/","id":489916093,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/56/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-08-13T18:07:04.765791-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T18:07:04.794345-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"56","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040157389","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Filing Transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-13T18:07:04.721057-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T18:07:04.736939-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-13","time_filed":"20:31:31","entry_number":56,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":208,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473697068/","id":473697068,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489171076/","id":489171076,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-07T14:06:58.412381-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-07T14:06:58.412406-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Pre-Motion Conference AND ~Util - Set Deadlines","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-07T14:06:58.395713-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-07T14:06:58.395736-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-07","time_filed":"16:42:31","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473495917/","id":473495917,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488963230/","id":488963230,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/54/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-08-06T10:10:52.974132-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-06T10:10:52.986779-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"54","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040114294","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-06T10:10:52.950226-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-06T10:10:52.958161-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-06","time_filed":"12:35:52","entry_number":54,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":201,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473040051/","id":473040051,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488494812/","id":488494812,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-03T10:09:07.778859-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-03T10:09:07.778873-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-03T10:09:07.767226-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-03T10:09:07.767240-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-03","time_filed":"12:12:32","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472913604/","id":472913604,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488361797/","id":488361797,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/52/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-07-31T18:11:16.406093-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-31T18:11:16.413945-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"52","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040084598","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-31T18:11:16.381114-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-31T18:11:16.387901-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-31","time_filed":"19:35:27","entry_number":52,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-31.001","pacer_sequence_number":197,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471861341/","id":471861341,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487276961/","id":487276961,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/50/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-07-23T07:16:08.128034-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:27.237186-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"50","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-23T07:16:08.083461-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:27.191843-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-14","time_filed":null,"entry_number":50,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471861339/","id":471861339,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487276959/","id":487276959,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-07-23T07:16:02.952942-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:22.345773-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Case Designated ECF","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-23T07:16:02.932551-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:22.306645-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-02","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-02.004","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471861338/","id":471861338,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487276958/","id":487276958,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-07-23T07:16:02.839284-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:22.188145-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Case Designation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-23T07:16:02.794639-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:22.138208-07:00","date_filed":"2026-02-02","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-02-02.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471678996/","id":471678996,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487089937/","id":487089937,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/51/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-07-21T20:10:19.164728-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T22:19:54.187199-07:00","sha1":"df70a52827e13340b9fb424f2eac0908b4312cb1","page_count":4,"file_size":216986,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.657140/gov.uscourts.nysd.657140.51.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.657140/gov.uscourts.nysd.657140.51.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"         Case 1:26-cv-00846-ER               Document 51           Filed 07/21/26        Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n                                                 July 21, 2026\n\nVIA ECF\nThe Honorable Edgardo Ramos\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nRE:     In re Ramaco Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation, 26-cv-00846 (ER)\n\nDear Judge Ramos:\n       Plaintiffs write in response to Defendants\u2019 July 13, 2026 letter (\u201cLtr.\u201d) (ECF No. 49)\nrequesting a pre-motion conference on their anticipated motion to dismiss the First Amended\nComplaint (ECF No. 41, \u201cAC\u201d).\n        Background. Ramaco is a small company in a dying coal industry. \u00b6 3, 38. When it\nacquired the Brook Mine in 2022, Defendants saw an opportunity to reinvent Ramaco as a\ndomestic producer of rare earth elements (REEs). \u00b6\u00b6 3, 38-39. During the Class Period, Defendants\nexploited the opacity of the market for scandium to misrepresent that mining REEs at the Brook\nMine was economically and technologically feasible. \u00b6\u00b6 60, 65. Defendants touted a purportedly\n\u201cindependent\u201d preliminary economic assessment (\u201cPEA\u201d) as confirmation of the feasibility of their\nplan to mine and sell REEs, including 65 tons of scandium annually at $3,750/kg. \u00b6\u00b6 58, 60-63,\n104. Defendants also misrepresented the status of mining activity and construction of a pilot plant\nat the Brook Mine. E.g., \u00b6\u00b6 99, 112.\n        The scandium prices and demand that Defendants trumpeted were fiction; the PEA did not\nsupport them, nor did it conclude that developing Brook Mine was feasible. \u00b6\u00b6 66-68. Further, no\nmining activity took place for months following a ceremonial ribbon cutting on July 11, 2025. \u00b6\n155. Investors learned the truth through a series of disclosures, including the Wolfpack Report,\nnumerous industry experts, drone footage showing the absence of any mining activity at the Brook\nMine, and Defendants\u2019 own concessions. \u00b6\u00b6 155, 176-188, 195. Notably, the SEC sent Defendants\na letter questioning the representation that the Brook Mine was \u201ctechnically and economically\nviable.\u201d \u00b6 227. In response to these disclosures, Ramaco\u2019s stock price fell precipitously. \u00b6 156.\n       Plaintiffs Sufficiently Allege Falsity. Market Pricing and Demand. Defendants falsely\nrepresented that their plan to sell 65 (later 180) tons of scandium annually at $3,750/kg (\u00b6\u00b6 61, 70-\n71, 152, 158, 171) was confirmed to be feasible, supported by marketing studies (\u00b6 123) and\nconversations with a \u201cmajor customer\u201d and other potential offtakers. \u00b6\u00b6 125-26, 173-74.\n       These statements were knowingly and objectively false when made. \u00b6\u00b6 61-67, 152-54. 1\nFifteen experts cited in the Wolfpack Report confirmed that Ramaco\u2019s scandium pricing and\n\n1\n Ironworkers Loc. 580--Joint Funds v. Linn Energy, LLC, 29 at 400 held that a company cannot be liable for choosing\namong permissible non-GAAP methodologies it accurately disclosed. But Plaintiffs here do not argue that Ramaco\npicked a permissible-but-suboptimal method among several equally valid options for estimating scandium price and\ndemand. They allege that Ramaco\u2019s stated inputs (e.g., $3,750 per kg of scandium) themselves were false.\n\n                                                www.lowey.com\n       44 South Broadway, Suite 1100, White Plains, NY 10601-4459 (p) 914-997-0500 (f) 914-997-0035\nOne Tower Bridge, 100 Front Street, Suite 520, West Conshohocken, PA 19428 (p) 215-399-4770 (f) 610-862-9777\n\f          Case 1:26-cv-00846-ER                Document 51            Filed 07/21/26         Page 2 of 4\n\n                                                                                             Hon. Edgardo Ramos\n                                                                                                    July 21, 2026\n                                                                                                           Page 2\n\ndemand assumptions were baseless. \u00b6\u00b6 151-54, 176-88. Defendant Atkins later conceded that\nDefendants\u2019 conversations with prospective customers had \u201cnot gotten to price specifics at this\npoint,\u201d (\u00b6\u00b6 173-74) contradicting Defendants\u2019 claims that the Brook Mine\u2019s viability was\nconfirmed. \u00b6\u00b6 60, 69-70, 87, 101. 2 Defendants ultimately abandoned a scandium-centric strategy\naltogether, conceding in February 2026 that reliance on scandium as the \u201cmain product driver\u201d\nposed a \u201cfundamental\u201d risk to the project\u2019s economics. \u00b6\u00b6 190-203. 3 None of this is fraud by\nhindsight, as the truthfulness of Defendant\u2019s disclosures hinged on the market conditions as they\nexisted at the time the lies were told, making this case distinguishable from Pehlivanian v. China\nGerui Adv. Materials Grp. Ltd., No. 14 CIV. 9443 (ER), 2016 WL 2859622, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. May\n16, 2016) (Ramos, J.), where the complaints allegations were \u201csheer speculation.\u201d\n        Brook Mine Feasibility. Ramaco falsely claimed that Fluor\u2019s PEA was \u201cindependent,\u201d PEA\ncomplied with SEC Regulation S-K Subpart 1300, and concluded that the Brook Mine project was\n\u201ccommercially and technologically feasible.\u201d \u00b6\u00b6 58, 60, 69, 81-82, 101-02, 104. The disclosure\nthat Fluor relied on \u201cproduct pricing from Ramaco\u201d did not cure the falsity. Ltr. at 2. Because\nSubpart 1300 required a \u201creasonable and justifiable price,\u201d 17 C.F.R. \u00a7 229.1303(b)(3)(iv), a\nreasonable investor would take from Defendants\u2019 statements that Fluor had independently verified\nthe pricing. \u00b6\u00b6 65-67, 75, 105. This was false, and barely a month after Ramaco\u2019s July 2025 rollout\nof the PEA, the SEC itself questioned the basis for Ramaco\u2019s statement that the Brook Mine project\nwas \u201ctechnically and economically viable.\u201d \u00b6\u00b6 227-28. 4\n       Mining Activity and Timeline. Ramaco misled investors about mining activity, affirming\nthat \u201cdevelopment of this mine is proceeding\u201d (\u00b6 96); Ramaco \u201cbegan full scale operations,\u201d\n\u201ccommenced mining in June,\u201d \u201cremain[s] on track for oxide production in 2027\u201d and \u201cthe [Brook\nMine] opening and the initial mining stage were brought in . . . ahead of the schedule\u201d) (\u00b6\u00b6 112,\n114-17); Defendant Atkins repeated these representations throughout September 2025, claiming\nthat Ramaco had \u201claunched our fall drilling program . . .with two rigs now operating.\u201d \u00b6 136.\n        These representations were false. Wolfpack\u2019s weekly drone footage of the site, beginning\nin mid-September 2025, showed no mining equipment or activity; the ground remained\nundisturbed, with the coal pile from the July 11 groundbreaking untouched. \u00b6 155. Neither could\nany mining activity be underway when there was no engineering report, nor a design vendor, until\nOctober. \u00b6\u00b6 113, 116, 118, 160, 166. See also City of Austin Police Ret. Sys. v. Kinross Gold Corp.,\n957 F. Supp. 2d 277, 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (statements about a mining operation\u2019s construction and\nproduction schedule are actionable where the company knew the schedule was unrealistic). 5\n\n\n\n2\n   \u201c[C]ourts have generally sustained pleadings where \u201cindependent factual allegations corroborated the factual\nallegation in the complaint drawn from short-sellers.\u201d zCap Equity Fund LLC v. LuxUrban Hotels Inc., 792 F. Supp.\n3d 407, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2025), reconsideration denied, 2025 WL 2962772 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2025).\n3\n  These aren\u2019t incomplete sets of information like the missing financial data at issue in In re China XD Plastics Co.\nSec. Litig., 14\u2013CV\u201305308 (GBD), 2016 WL 1241522, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2016), but Defendants\u2019 own\nadmissions, multiple uncontracted experts, the SEC\u2019s own view, and Ramaco\u2019s own shift away from scandium.\n4\n  Fluor never concluded the project was feasible \u2014 only that it could be feasible, a materially weaker conclusion that\nRamaco stripped of its qualifications before repeating it to the market as an unconditional fact. \u00b6\u00b6 66-67, 84.\n5\n  In re Facebook, Inc. IPO Sec. and Derivative Litig., 986 F. Supp. 2d 487, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (\u201cCourts in this Circuit\nhave held that a company\u2019s purported risk disclosures are misleading where the company warns only that a risk may\nimpact its business when that risk has already materialized.\u201d).\n\f        Case 1:26-cv-00846-ER          Document 51        Filed 07/21/26      Page 3 of 4\n\n                                                                              Hon. Edgardo Ramos\n                                                                                     July 21, 2026\n                                                                                            Page 3\n\n        The Challenged Statements Are Independently Actionable. Ramaco\u2019s statements are not\nforward-looking merely because they described expected results. Courts have rejected that\ncharacterization even for statements about meeting a development schedule. In re iDreamSky Tech.\nLtd. Sec. Litig., 236 F. Supp. 3d 824, 833 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (holding statements projecting a launch\ndate were actionable where defendants allegedly knew of delays affecting the launch). Nor does\nDefendants\u2019 strategic use of \u201cwe believe\u201d shield statements that omitted material facts and were\nnot based on any \u201cmeaningful ... inquiry.\u201d New England Carpenters Guaranteed Annuity &\nPension Funds v. DeCarlo, 122 F.4th 28, 41 (2d Cir. 2024). Further, \u201cmisrepresentations of existing\nfacts\u201d about Ramaco\u2019s most important\u2014and sole\u2014project are not puffery. Freudenberg v.\nE*Trade Fin. Corp., 712 F. Supp. 2d 171, 190\u201391 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).\n        Plaintiffs Sufficiently Allege Scienter. The Individual Defendants were personally\ninvolved in the Brook Mine project (\u00b6\u00b6 218-19) and thus \u201cknew facts or had access to information\nsuggesting that their public statements were not accurate.\u201d Bishins v. CleanSpark, Inc., 21 CV 511\n(LAP), 2023 WL 112558, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2023). For example, Defendant Sussman\npersonally endorsed the financial model\u2014including scandium pricing\u2014that Defendants later\nconceded was baseless. \u00b6\u00b6 85, 198. Even after the SEC questioned the basis of statements that the\nproject was \u201ctechnically and economically viable,\u201d Defendants repeated them. \u00b6\u00b6 134, 227.\nMoreover, Defendants Atkins and Woloschuk\u2014who was hired specifically to manage the\nproject\u2014told investors on August 1, 2025, that Ramaco would \u201cbegin pilot plant operations\u201d that\nfall, but Ramaco didn\u2019t have a necessary engineering report, or even hire a design vendor, until\nOctober. \u00b6\u00b6 113, 116, 118, 160, 166. In addition, Defendants had a motive to mislead investors in\norder to supercharge Ramaco\u2019s Class Period capital-raising, which jumped from $100 million\nduring previous 8 years to over $600 million in less than 4 months. \u00b6\u00b6 9, 221. Defendants\u2019\nmisstatements had a \u201cunique connection\u201d to capital-raising for the Brook Mine specifically,\nsupporting scienter. See ECA, Loc. 134 IBEW Joint Pension Tr. of Chicago v. JP Morgan Chase\nCo., 553 F.3d 187, 201 (2d Cir. 2009) (motive to raise capital can establish scienter if directly\nconnected to corporate transaction); see also Meyer v. Concordia Int\u2019l Corp., No. 16 CIV. 6467\n(RMB), 2017 WL 4083603, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2017) (motive to inflate stock effect\ntransaction sufficiently alleged). A strong inference of Defendants\u2019 scienter is bolstered by insider\nsales and Defendant Atkins\u2019s prior misconduct enriching himself at investors\u2019 expense. \u00b6\u00b6 222-26.\n        Plaintiffs Sufficiently Allege Loss Causation. The AC provides \u201cnotice of what the\nrelevant economic loss might be and what the causal connection might be between that loss and\nthe misrepresentation.\u201d Bishins, 2023 WL 112558, at *12. The Wolfpack Report and other expert\nanalyses did not \u201csimply publish[] already-known information,\u201d but contained \u201canalysis of how\nand why [Ramaco\u2019s] underlying business was weaker than most people realized.\u201d In re Signet\nJewelers Ltd. Sec. Litig., No. 16 Civ. 6728 (CM) (RWL), 2019 WL 3001084, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. July\n10, 2019). Courts regularly hold that \u201cthird party analyses of previously public information could\nbe sufficient to plead loss causation.\u201d Bishins, 2023 WL 112558, at *12 (collecting cases).\nDefendants concede that the Wolfpack Report included new information, Ltr. at 3, which revealed\nthe falsity of misstatements concerning scandium, mining activity, and the pilot plant, leading to a\n9.6% stock drop. \u00b6\u00b6 151-56. Defendants rely on In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 597 F.3d\n501, 512-13 (2d Cir. 2010), but that case \u201cconcerned a motion for summary judgment.\u201d Bishins,\n2023 WL 112558, at *12. Further, loss causation does not require \u201cadmissions of fraud.\u201d Cf. Ltr.\nat 3.\n\f        Case 1:26-cv-00846-ER         Document 51   Filed 07/21/26     Page 4 of 4\n\n                                                                       Hon. Edgardo Ramos\n                                                                              July 21, 2026\n                                                                                     Page 4\n\n                                                                     Respectfully submitted,\n\n                                                                      s/Andrea Farah\n                                                                       Andrea Farah\ncc: All counsel of record (via ECF)\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-07-23T07:22:05.924253-07:00","document_number":"51","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127040015962","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-21T20:10:19.141034-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:27.274806-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-21","time_filed":"21:08:58","entry_number":51,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":194,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470760848/","id":470760848,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486148182/","id":486148182,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-07-14T09:15:16.997918-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-14T09:15:17.008176-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-14T09:15:16.968309-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-14T09:15:16.968335-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-14","time_filed":"11:27:38","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470702843/","id":470702843,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486087597/","id":486087597,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/49/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-07-13T17:07:22.096862-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-09T00:03:03.649446-07:00","sha1":"ea02050e80162aba89b4a6375f2d66ed121fe630","page_count":4,"file_size":225248,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.657140/gov.uscourts.nysd.657140.49.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.657140/gov.uscourts.nysd.657140.49.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"                     Case 1:26-cv-00846-ER                Document 49           Filed 07/13/26         Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n                             S KADDEN , A RPS , S LATE , M EAGHER & F LOM LLP\n                                                        ONE MAN HATT AN W EST\n                                                                                                                       FIRM/AFFILIATE OFFICES\n                                                        NEW YORK, NY 10001                                                     -----------\n                                                                     ________                                                BOSTON\n                                                                                                                            CHICAGO\n                                                            TEL: (212) 735-3000                                             HOUSTON\n                                                            FAX: (212) 735-2000                                           LOS ANGELES\n                                                                                                                           PALO ALTO\n                                                               www.skadden.com                                          WASHINGTON, D.C.\n   DIRECT DIAL                                                                                                             WILMINGTON\n                                                                                                                               -----------\n(212) 735-3902\n                                                                                                                           ABU DHABI\n   DIRECT FAX\n                                                                                                                              BEIJING\n(917) 777-3902                                                                                                              BRUSSELS\n   EMAIL ADDRESS                                                                                                           FRANKFURT\nROBERT.FUMERTON@SKADDEN.COM                                                                                                HONG KONG\n                                                                                                                             LONDON\n                                                                 July 13, 2026                                                MUNICH\n                                                                                                                               PARIS\n       VIA ECF                                                                                                             S\u00c3O PAULO\n                                                                                                                              SEOUL\n       The Honorable Edgardo Ramos                                                                                         SINGAPORE\n                                                                                                                               TOKYO\n       United States District Court                                                                                          TORONTO\n       Southern District of New York\n       40 Foley Square\n       New York, NY 10007\n\n                             RE:      In re Ramaco Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation, 26-cv-00846 (ER)\n\n       Dear Judge Ramos:\n\n               On behalf of Defendants Ramaco Resources, Inc. (\u201cRamaco\u201d), Randall Atkins, Jeremy\n       Sussman, Michael Woloschuk, and Christopher Blanchard (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d), we\n       respectfully write pursuant to this Court\u2019s May 5, 2026 Order (ECF No. 40) and Your Honor\u2019s\n       Individual Rule 2(A)(ii) to request a pre-motion conference regarding Defendants\u2019 anticipated\n       motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 41, \u201cAC\u201d) (cited as \u201c\u00b6__\u201d).1\n                Background. Ramaco, a coal mining company, acquired the Brook Mine in Wyoming in\n       2022 and identified an opportunity to develop a domestic source of rare earth elements and other\n       critical minerals (\u201cCMs\u201d), including scandium and gallium, amid national focus on reducing\n       reliance on Chinese supply. (\u00b6\u00b63-7.) To evaluate this opportunity, Ramaco engaged Fluor\n       Corporation to prepare a Preliminary Economic Assessment (\u201cPEA\u201d) and Weir International to\n       prepare a Technical Report Summary (\u201cTRS\u201d). (\u00b6\u00b6 45, 51.) Ramaco announced that it believed the\n       PEA validated the project\u2019s feasibility, released the TRS, described pilot plant plans, and broke\n       ground on July 11, 2025, while warning that CM pricing \u201cmay fluctuate\u201d and there was \u201cno\n       assurance\u201d Brook Mine could be developed into a commercial-scale mine. (\u00b6\u00b660-64, 90-109.)\n               On October 23, 2025, Wolfpack Research\u2014a short seller positioned to profit from a\n       decline in Ramaco\u2019s stock\u2014called the Brook Mine a \u201choax,\u201d relying on anonymous \u201cexperts\u201d to\n       challenge Ramaco\u2019s scandium and gallium pricing and demand estimates. (\u00b6\u00b6151-54.) Ramaco\n       later reported it had mined enough material for pilot operations and would defer continuous mining\n       until full production; revised its pilot-plant timeline; and announced a proprietary processing\n       method for CMs, an updated PEA, a reduced emphasis on scandium, and a re-designed pilot plant.\n       (\u00b6\u00b6159, 190-195; 10/27/25 Press Release.) Relying on this short-seller, the AC asserts claims under\n\n       1\n                We reserve the right to raise additional arguments in full briefing. Defendants cite documents herein which were\n                incorporated by the AC or are public SEC filings of which the Court may take judicial notice. See In re Farfetch\n                Ltd. Sec. Litig., 802 F. Supp. 3d 652, 674-75 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (Ramos, J.).\n\f         Case 1:26-cv-00846-ER               Document 49           Filed 07/13/26         Page 2 of 4\n\n\nHon. Edgardo Ramos                                                                                         Page 2\nJuly 13, 2026\n\nSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the new processing\ntechnique shows earlier scandium estimates were unsupported. Plaintiffs\u2019 claims fail.\n        Failure to Allege Falsity.2 Courts apply \u201cclose scrutiny\u201d where, as here, a securities\ncomplaint relies on a short-seller report that \u201citself relies on \u2018confidential\u2019 or anonymous sources,\u201d\nLong Miao v. Fanhua, Inc., 442 F. Supp. 3d 774, 801 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), because short-sellers like\nWolfpack \u201chave an obvious motive to exaggerate the infirmities of the securities in which they\nspeculate,\u201d In re Longtop Fin. Techs. Ltd. Sec. Litig., 910 F. Supp. 2d 561, 577 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).\nPlaintiffs\u2019 complaint does not survive that scrutiny for several reasons.\n        Price and Demand Estimates and Project Feasibility. Plaintiffs fail to allege that statements\nabout price and demand estimates or the feasibility of the Brook Mine were false; they rely only\non cherry-picked purported experts who disagree with Ramaco\u2019s analyses (\u00b6\u00b684, 88, 151-55). The\nAC alleges no facts showing that Ramaco\u2019s estimates were unsupported when made or that\nRamaco did not rely on \u201cindustry sources\u201d or pricing negotiations with potential customers (7/1/25\nPress Release at 3; 10/28/25 Earnings Call at 5-6, 13); nor does it identify any internal documents\nor former employees to contradict those estimates. Comparing Ramaco\u2019s filings to \u201cless than a\ncomplete set of\u201d information cannot establish falsity. In re China XD Plastics Co. Sec. Litig., 2016\nWL 1241522, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2016). And contrary to Plaintiffs\u2019 allegations (\u00b681), Fluor\nexpressly \u201cconclude[d] that the Brook Mine Rare Earth Project is both technically and\neconomically viable.\u201d (PEA at 6.) Even if Ramaco\u2019s demand estimates for scandium ultimately\nproved wrong, hindsight cannot show falsity\u2014particularly where Plaintiffs themselves call the\nscandium market \u201copaque.\u201d (\u00b66.) See Ironworkers Loc. 580\u2014Joint Funds v. Linn Energy, LLC,\n29 F. Supp. 3d 400, 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Ramaco also expressly disclosed the risks Plaintiffs\ncomplain of\u2014that market conditions for scandium and gallium could prove unfavorable and that\nthe operational timeline could slip. (See, e.g., \u00b6109; 8/1/25 10-Q at 33-34.) Companies need not\nrecast speculative or unfavorable market conditions as already-realized facts, and Plaintiffs do not\nplead that these cautionary statements were false when made. See Pehlivanian v. China Gerui Adv.\nMaterials Grp. Ltd., 2016 WL 2859622, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2016) (Ramos, J.).3 Moreover,\nthe statements describing the PEA as \u201cindependent\u201d (see, e.g., \u00b6\u00b658, 65, 78, 80, 103) cannot\nsupport a claim because Ramaco disclosed the allegedly concealed fact: that the PEA relied on\n\u201ckey input data from Ramaco, including . . . product pricing\u201d (7/10/25 8K at 12).4\n       Mining Activity and Timeline. Plaintiffs plead no facts showing that mining had not\ncommenced as represented. (\u00b6\u00b664, 68, 99, 114.) Their sole support is selective short-seller drone\nfootage taken months after the groundbreaking, which cannot establish the absence of activity\nanywhere across the roughly 16,000-acre Brook Mine. (\u00b6\u00b629, 155.) And Ramaco\u2019s acquisition of\n\n2\n    Individual Defendants also cannot be held liable under Section 10(b) for statements that they did not make. See\n    Janus Cap. Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135, 142-43 (2011).\n3\n    Plaintiffs\u2019 comparable-company theory fails. (\u00b6\u00b673-74.) They do not plead why Ramaco\u2019s mining-energy\n    statements were false; Ramaco disclosed the competitor\u2019s mine was \u201cwell-established\u201d and \u201cmined for over 50\n    years,\u201d unlike the \u201cearly-stage development\u201d Brook Mine. (7/1/25 Atkins Letter at 11-12.)\n4\n    Plaintiffs challenge certain statements under Regulation S-K 1300 (\u00b6\u00b6101-08, 140-47), but their contrary reading\n    of the rule does not render Ramaco\u2019s good-faith compliance statement false, particularly absent any regulatory\n    finding. See In re DraftKings Inc. Sec. Litig., 650 F. Supp. 3d 120, 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). In any event, a\n    Regulation S-K violation alone does not plead a 10(b) violation. In re Playsafe, 2025 WL 1003322, at *26 n.15.\n\f        Case 1:26-cv-00846-ER           Document 49        Filed 07/13/26        Page 3 of 4\n\n\nHon. Edgardo Ramos                                                                             Page 3\nJuly 13, 2026\n\npermits while determining where to concentrate activity reflects a project underway, not one that\nnever began. (\u00b6\u00b698, 99, 132.) Ramaco also disclosed the risks Plaintiffs complain of regarding the\ntimeline for scaled mining operations. (See 7/10/25 8-K at 5.)\n       The Challenged Statements Are Independently Inactionable. Most challenged statements\nare protected forward-looking statements accompanied by cautionary language. (See, e.g., \u00b699\n(\u201cConstruction of this pilot scale processing facility will commence this Fall\u201d)); In re Aratana\nTherapeutics Inc. Sec. Litig., 315 F. Supp. 3d 737, 758 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Others are opinions not\nalleged to have been disbelieved. (See, e.g., \u00b663 (\u201c[w]e believe that\u201d the PEA confirms the Brook\nMine project\u2019s viability (emphasis added))); Farfetch, 802 F. Supp. 3d at 680. And others are, at\nworst, \u201cnon-actionable puffery\u201d. (See, e.g., \u00b6115 (\u201cRamaco remain[s] on track for commercial\noxide production in 2027\u201d)); Farfetch, 802 F. Supp. 3d at 678.\n        Failure to Allege Scienter. Plaintiffs also fail to allege motive or recklessness. They rely\non capital raises (\u00b69), but such generic motives are inadequate. Farfetch, 802 F. Supp. 3d at 682-\n83. The more compelling inference is that, as Ramaco disclosed, it needed capital to expand into\nCMs. See id. at 681. (See \u00b696; 7/24/25 Prospectus Supp. at 1.) The AC lacks the usual scienter\nhallmarks: confidential witness allegations or insider trading by Defendants. In re Plug Power,\nInc. Sec. Litig., 2022 WL 4631892, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 29, 2022) (Ramos, J.). The remaining\nallegations\u2014stock sales by non-defendants (\u00b6222), Atkins\u2019 unrelated, pre-class period conduct\n(\u00b6\u00b6223-26), and an SEC comment letter (\u00b6\u00b6227-28)\u2014do not bear on any Defendant\u2019s state of mind.\nSee Alaska Laborer Emp\u2019rs Ret. Fund, v. Scholastic Corp., 2010 WL 3910211, at *7 (S.D.N.Y.\nSep. 30, 2010); In re Elan Corp. Sec. Litig., 543 F. Supp. 2d 187, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); In re Plug\nPower, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2023 WL 5577276, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2023) (Ramos, J.).\n        The AC instead pleads fraud-by-hindsight, inferring from later reports and a changed\nstrategy that Defendants knew their statements were false. (See, e.g., \u00b6\u00b684, 127); In re Express\nScripts Holding Co. Sec. Litig., 2017 WL 3278930, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2017) (Ramos, J.).\nThe allegations that Defendants must have known contradictory information (\u00b6\u00b6216-20) fail\nbecause they do not \u201cspecifically identify the reports or statements containing this information.\u201d\nFries v. N. Oil & Gas, Inc., 285 F. Supp. 3d 706, 721 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (Ramos, J.).\n        Absence of Loss Causation. Plaintiffs also fail to plead loss causation, which warrants\ndismissal of the vast majority of claims. Plaintiffs primarily rely on the Wolfpack report as a\ncorrective disclosure (\u00b6\u00b6151-56), but that report is merely a \u201cnegative characterization of\npreviously disclosed facts\u201d\u2014published scandium market data, SEC filings, and Ramaco\u2019s own\ndisclosed assumptions\u2014and thus is insufficient. In re Miniso Grp. Holding Ltd. Sec. Litig., 2024\nWL 759246, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2024) (Ramos, J.). The report\u2019s only arguably new\nmaterial\u2014drone footage\u2014bears solely on the mining-activity statements and, for the reasons\nabove, revealed no falsity. The alleged partial corrective disclosures fare no better. Plaintiffs cite\nto expert commentary published by AlphaSense, but those experts merely synthesized public data\n(\u00b6\u00b6176-89), and what\u2019s worse, Plaintiffs selectively omit the AlphaSense expert who described\nRamaco\u2019s pricing assumptions as \u201creasonable\u201d (\u00b6\u00b6176-89; 11/13/25 Expert Insights Report at 3).\nMoreover, Ramaco\u2019s announcement of business changes were not admissions of fraud. (\u00b6\u00b6157-75,\n190-203); In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 597 F.3d 501, 512-13 (2d Cir. 2010).\n\n       For at least these reasons, the AC should be dismissed in its entirety.\n\f        Case 1:26-cv-00846-ER         Document 49    Filed 07/13/26   Page 4 of 4\n\n\nHon. Edgardo Ramos                                                                  Page 4\nJuly 13, 2026\n\n                                          Respectfully submitted,\n\n                                          /s/ Robert A. Fumerton\n\n                                          Robert A. Fumerton\n\ncc: All counsel of record (via ECF)\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-07-23T07:23:41.210068-07:00","document_number":"49","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039964523","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-13T17:07:22.060543-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:27.045928-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-13","time_filed":"18:33:35","entry_number":49,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":190,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/469594548/","id":469594548,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484938519/","id":484938519,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/48/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-07-02T11:10:21.563150-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.990390-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"48","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039908941","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation and Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-02T11:10:21.522536-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.953380-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-02","time_filed":"13:37:09","entry_number":48,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":188,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/469434962/","id":469434962,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484773217/","id":484773217,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/47/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-07-01T11:09:12.954223-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.904264-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"47","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039898680","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Proposed Stipulation and Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-01T11:09:12.924551-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.857469-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-01","time_filed":"12:55:35","entry_number":47,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-01.004","pacer_sequence_number":186,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/469408267/","id":469408267,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484745772/","id":484745772,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/44/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-07-01T09:08:40.519785-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.666462-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"44","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039896479","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-01T09:08:40.493597-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.607580-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-01","time_filed":"10:35:21","entry_number":44,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":174,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/469408255/","id":469408255,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484745760/","id":484745760,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/45/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-07-01T09:08:38.779766-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.742939-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"45","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039896519","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-01T09:08:38.750244-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.723123-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-01","time_filed":"10:37:50","entry_number":45,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-01.002","pacer_sequence_number":178,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/469408244/","id":469408244,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484745749/","id":484745749,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/46/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-07-01T09:08:37.248495-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.805869-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"46","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039896558","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-01T09:08:37.220358-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.770898-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-01","time_filed":"10:40:29","entry_number":46,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-01.003","pacer_sequence_number":182,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/468462439/","id":468462439,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483758790/","id":483758790,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/43/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-06-23T13:10:33.295724-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.547160-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"43","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039846348","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Summons Issued","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-23T13:10:33.243512-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.497383-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-23","time_filed":"15:15:14","entry_number":43,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":172,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/468363261/","id":468363261,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483655946/","id":483655946,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/41/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-06-22T19:09:56.225560-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.351191-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"41","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039841615","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-22T19:09:56.202056-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.319259-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-22","time_filed":"21:45:56","entry_number":41,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":163,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/468363259/","id":468363259,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72214887/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483655939/","id":483655939,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72214887/42/in-re-ramaco-resources-inc-securities-litigation/","date_created":"2026-06-22T19:09:55.625615-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.457485-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"42","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127039841621","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Request for Issuance of Summons","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-22T19:09:55.578144-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-23T07:21:26.432192-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-22","time_filed":"21:47:57","entry_number":42,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-22.002","pacer_sequence_number":169,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=72214887&page_size=40"}