In its latest submission, Solmate asserted that a series of actions promoted by RockawayX undermined the corporate market image and resulted in a significant discount on valuation. The company indicated that the dispute had initially been related to a proposed transaction, through which the other party had attempted to obtain some $200 million in benefits, and that the dispute had subsequently been extended to the board of directors and information disclosure level.
Corporate expansion of legal action
The company disclosed that the latest SEC document referred to whether the relevant investor constituted a Sec. 13(d) concerted actor under the United States Securities Act and deserved further examination. In the paper, Solmate also combed the sequence of multiple incidents and questioned the fact that RockawayX-related parties had sought to change the company ' s board of directors before the Unsolicited Acquisition Programme was introduced by Forward Industries.
Solmate also noted that Forward Industries had established investment links with RockawayX through OnRe. The relationship has also been brought into the context of the dispute by the company, which is used to show that the actions in question are not isolated from each other.
Merger failure at the heart of the controversy
The SEC document is accompanied by an indictment filed by Solmate in Delaware against RockawayX, RockawayX Holding and Fischer. According to the petition, Solomonate explored the acquisition of RockawayX at the end of 2025 and publicly disclosed a list of non-binding clauses in December of that year.
The application states that the financial material provided by RockawayX at that time described it as a rapidly growing and profitable digital asset business sufficient to support the higher acquisition valuation. However, Solomonate states that the follow-up due diligence exercise found that these profit expectations were heavily dependent on future income assumptions, unrealized investment valuations, conditional economic returns, etc., resulting in an overestimation of recurrent business performance.
The deal is in February.
It was these financial differences that, according to Solmate, eventually led to the breakdown of the proposed transaction in February 2026. The company further indicated that subsequent external actions exacerbated negative perceptions of the company in the market and slowed down shareholder value performance.
At present, the dispute between the parties has been extended from an uncompleted acquisition to multiple levels of corporate governance, potential convergence and adequacy of information disclosure. Case follow-up may continue to affect the functioning of the capital and market pricing of Solmate.
Additional information:The core allegations in this paper are derived from Solmate ' s submission to the SEC and its petition in the State of Delaware, and at this stage mainly reflect the company ' s unilateral statements.