3 hours ago
8
Fermi Inc. disclosed that it received a subpoena dated July 30, 2026, from the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, demanding documents tied to Project Matador and records associated with former management.
Just four days later, on August 3, the SEC filed its own document request covering the same territory. Fermi disclosed these developments via an SEC filing around August 14, 2026. The filing didn’t specify the full scope of either the court subpoena or the SEC request.
Project Matador and the $746 million question
Project Matador is the company’s plan to construct one of the largest private energy campuses in the country, targeting up to 17 GW of power capacity across roughly 8,400 acres of land leased from Texas Tech University. The energy mix would combine natural gas and nuclear power, all dedicated to feeding the electricity demands of AI data centers.
Fermi went public in October 2025, raising approximately $746 million in its IPO. About 6 GW of capacity has already been permitted, and Fermi recently secured a binding lease with TensorWave, an AI cloud provider, reportedly valued at $6.5 billion. The project has been accepted into an NRC environmental review pilot program.
A cascade of corporate trouble
The company’s founding CEO was ousted, triggering governance disputes. Tenant funding was terminated, raising questions about the company’s revenue projections.
Shareholders filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that Fermi made misleading statements about tenant interest in Project Matador, as well as a canceled $150 million funding deal. The SEC’s document request, focused on Project Matador and former management, suggests regulators may be examining whether the company’s public disclosures matched its internal reality.
The TensorWave lease is potentially worth $6.5 billion, but executing on a deal of that magnitude requires operational stability and investor confidence. The 6 GW of already-permitted capacity and the Texas Tech land lease represent tangible assets, while the company simultaneously responds to subpoenas, defends against class-action litigation, and sorts out governance disputes left over from the CEO ouster.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
English (US) ·