Reference Library Search - Nasdaq Listing Center

Home
Listing - US
- Listing Information
  
  Continued Listing Guide
  Initial Listing Guide
  Listing Exchange Traded Products
  Listing of Additional Shares Guide
  Listing on Nasdaq
  Preview Applications and Forms
  Required Notifications
  Symbol Reservation Requests
  
  Reference Library
  
  Library Quick Start Guide
  FAQs - Listings
  Listing Council Decisions
  Staff Interpretation Letters
  Search Library
  
  Investor Information
  
  FINRA Investor Complaint Center
  Issues Pending Suspension or Delisting
  Nasdaq.com
  Noncompliant Companies
  Penny Stock List
  
  Other Online Resources
  
  Contact Us
  Electronic Disclosure
  Governance News + Insights
  Listing Rules
  Nasdaq Trader
  Rules and Regulation
  Rulebook Advanced Search
Market Regulation - US
- Regulatory Information
  
  Investigations and Enforcement
  
  Reference Library
  
  Library Quick Start Guide
  FAQs - Market Regulation
  Search Library
  
  Other Online Resources
  
  Contact Us
  Nasdaq Trader
  Rule Manuals
  BSECC
  BX
  GEMX
  ISE
  MRX
  Nasdaq
  PHLX
  Rulebook Advanced Search
  
  .
  
  Disciplinary Actions
  Industry Regulators
  SEC
  FINRA
  CFTC
  NFA
Listing - Nordics
- Listing Resources
  
  Quick Start Guide
  Going Public - Listing on First North Growth Market
  Frequently Asked Questions
  Preview Applications and Forms
  Rules and Regulations
  Symbol Reservation Requests
  
  Contact Us

referencelibrarybanner

Reference Library - Advanced Search

Find

Library

FAQs - Listings and Market Regulation

To provide transparency regarding Listings, Market Regulation and Enforcement rules, policies and procedures, Nasdaq maintains an extensive library of frequently asked questions (FAQs).

For your convenience, our system facilitates searches across our different reference sources (i.e., FAQs, Staff Interpretation Letters, and Listing Council Decisions) by category and sub-category (e.g., initial listing, disciplinary process, equity regulation). Users can also use our advanced search feature to target their search by applying filters and entering keywords.

Listing Council Decisions

The Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council (Listing Council) is a standing independent advisory committee appointed by the Nasdaq Board of Directors to provide advice to the Board of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC on issues relating to listed companies, consistent with the Board's core responsibility of seeking independent, outside advice. The Listing Council also plays an appellate role in the Nasdaq adjudicatory process, as described below, to promote the consistent and fair application of listing rules and policies.

The Listing Council was established nearly 20 years ago and Nasdaq is the only exchange with a permanent advisory body of this type. The charter of the Listing Council outlines its role and responsibilities. Members of the Listing Council come from diverse constituencies including institutional investor advocates, company representatives, lawyers, accountants, securities industry professionals and academics.

The Listing Council discharges its appellate responsibilities in part by hearing and deciding appeals of delisting decisions. As discussed more fully in Rule Series 5800 and in the frequently asked questions for the Hearings and Appeals Process, a company may seek review of a Staff Delist Determination before an independent Hearings Panel, and may appeal the Hearings Panel decision to the Listing Council. The Listing Council also reviews all Panel decisions, regardless of whether they are appealed, and may decide on its own to reverse or modify a Panel decision as a result of that review. The Listing Council decision is the final action of Nasdaq, unless the Nasdaq Board calls the matter for review. The Listing Council's decision, or that of the Nasdaq Board, may be appealed to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

To provide transparency regarding our Listing Rules and policies, Nasdaq publishes anonymous summaries of Listing Council decisions. For your convenience, our system facilitates searches across our different reference sources (i.e., FAQs , Staff Interpretation Letters, and Listing Council Decisions) by category and sub-category (e.g., Regulatory Authority-Public Interest). Users can also use our advanced search feature to target their search by applying filters and entering keywords.

If you have any questions after reviewing this material, please contact Staff by telephone at +1 301 978 8008 or by email at appeals@nasdaq.com.

Staff Interpretation Letters

To provide transparency regarding our Listing Rules and policies, Nasdaq publishes anonymous summaries of rule interpretation letters. For your convenience, our system facilitates searches across our different reference sources (i.e., FAQs, Staff Interpretation Letters, and Listing Council Decisions) by category and sub-category. Users can also use our advanced search feature to target their search by applying filters and entering keywords.

If you have any questions after reviewing this material, please contact Listing Qualifications Staff by telephone at +1 301 978 8008 or by email at StaffInterpretations@nasdaq.com.

FAQs - Listings

FAQs - Market Regulation

Listing Council Decisions

Staff Interpretation Letters

Timeframe

Category

Sub-Category

** To make multiple selections, select the first criterion and then press and hold the Ctrl Key **

1- 50 of 57 Search Results for:	Ordering of Search Results When searching across multiple libraries: FAQs will appear in alphabetical order by category and sub-category Listing Council Decisions will appear in reverse chronological order by year. Staff Interpretations will appear in reverse chronological order by year When searching using keywords: Results are returned in order of term frequency (i.e., the number of times the keywords appear in the material).
Libraries: Listing Council Decisions
Filters: All Years; Continued Listing; Filing,Filing - Stock Options


Search	Clear

Expand All

Printer Friendly View

Mailto Link

Page: 1 of 2

Listing Council Decision 2021-02

Identification Number 1789

Filing Delinquency

Rule 5250(c)(1): A Company shall timely file all required periodic financial reports with the Commission through the EDGAR System or with the Other Regulatory Authority. A Company that does not file through the EDGAR System shall supply to Nasdaq two (2) copies of all reports required to be filed with the Other Regulatory Authority or email an electronic version of the report to Nasdaq at continuedlisting@nasdaq.com. All required reports must be filed with Nasdaq on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or Other Regulatory Authority. Annual reports filed with Nasdaq shall contain audited financial statements.

Rule 5820(d)(4): In the case of a Company that fails to file a periodic report (e.g., Form 10-K, 10-Q, 20-F, 40-F, or N-CSR), the Listing Council may grant an exception for a period not to exceed 360 days from the due date of the first such late periodic report. The Company can regain compliance with the requirement by filing that periodic report and any other delinquent reports with due dates falling before the end of the exception period. In determining whether to grant an exception, and the length of any such exception, the Listing Council will consider the Company's specific circumstances, including the likelihood that the filing can be made within the exception period, the Company's past compliance history, the reasons for the late filing, corporate events that may occur within the exception period, the Company's general financial status, and the Company's disclosures to the market. This review will be based on information provided by a variety of sources, which may include the Company, its audit committee, its outside auditors, the staff of the SEC and any other regulatory body.

Issue: At issue is whether a company regains compliance with the Listing Rules when it files its delinquent periodic financial report with the SEC, but the report filed is materially incomplete.

Determination: Affirm the decision to suspend and delist the Company.

The Listing Council agrees with the Hearings Panel, and with Staff, that the delinquent Form 20-F that the Company filed with the SEC was materially incomplete and thus inadequate to cause the Company to regain compliance with Listing Rule 5250(c)(1). The audit work was incomplete as to subsidiaries which accounted for an overwhelming portion of the Company’s income and assets and which constitute the core of its business operations. As such, the Form 20-F, as filed, provided little meaningful information to investors about the financial status of the Company. The mere fact that the Company itself disclosed the limitations of the audit work in the Form did not suffice to cure the Form’s inadequacy. If the Council was to decide otherwise, then it would effectively enable a listed company to cure any periodic filing deficiency by simply filing a perfunctory disclosure which states that required information will be produced at a later date. Such a result would be clearly inconsistent with the purpose of Listing Rule 5250(c)(1), which is to ensure that listed companies provide timely and complete information about their financial conditions to investors.

Insofar as the Company required additional time to complete its audit and to file an amendment to its Form 20-F to regain compliance with the Listing Rules, then the Listing Council had no choice but to affirm the Hearings Panel’s decision to delist the Company’s securities. Listing Rule 5815(c)(1)(F) provides that the extent of the Hearings’ Panel’s discretion to grant a company an exception to Rule 5250(c) is 360 calendar days following the due date of a company’s first delinquent periodic report, and that a company may regain compliance with the Listing Rule only by filing its delinquent reports before the end of the exception period. In this instance, the Company already received from the Panel the full 360 day exception period within which to regain compliance. Pursuant to Listing Rule 5280(d)(4), the scope of the Listing Council’s discretion to grant an exception to the Company is co-extensive with that which was available to the Panel under Rule 5815(c)(1)(F). As such, the Listing Council had no discretion to grant a further exception to the Company to regain compliance.

Publication Date*: 4/21/2021

Identification Number: 1789

Listing Council Decision 2021-01

Identification Number 1781

Filing Delinquency

Issue: At issue is whether the Listing Council has discretion to allow a company to remain listed notwithstanding that it has been and remains delinquent in filing its periodic financial reports for more than a year.

Determination: Affirm the decision to suspend and delist the Company.

In light of the facts and circumstances of this matter, which include the fact that the Company has been delinquent in filing its periodic financial reports with the SEC for more than a year, in violation of Rule 5250(c), and that it has failed to regain compliance with the Rule notwithstanding its receipt from the Staff and the Hearing Panel of multiple extensions of time within which to do so, the Listing Council finds that it lacks discretion under Rule 5820(d)(4) to grant any further compliance extensions, and that delisting of the Company’s securities is required.

Delisting does not bar the Company from applying to relist on Nasdaq, or another U.S. exchange. In this regard, should the Company resolve the issues that give rise to this matter it may reapply to list on Nasdaq.

Publication Date*: 2/1/2021

Identification Number: 1781

Listing Council Decision 2020-1

Identification Number 1728

Filing Delinquency

Issues: Was the Hearings Panel correct to delist the Company under Rule 5250(c) due to its failure to timely file its periodic financial reports?

Determination: Affirm the decision to suspend and delist the Company.

As of the date of the Panel’s decision, the Company was indisputably delinquent in filing its periodic financial reports, in violation of Rule 5250(c)(1). The Listing Council noted that even if it was sympathetic to the Company’s plight and wished to credit the Company with its success in filing the delinquent reports after the Panel reached its delisting decision, the Listing Council simply lacked authority under the Listing Rules to do so. The Listing Council concurred with Staff that Rule 5820(d)(4) – which authorizes the Listing Council to grant an exception to Rule 5250(c) for up to 360 calendar days from the due date of the earliest delinquent filing – precluded the Council from reinstating trading of the Company’s securities on Nasdaq. October 9, 2019 – the date on which the Company filed its delinquent Annual Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 –indisputably exceeded 360 days from the initial due date of the first of the Company’s delinquent filings. As such, the Listing Council stated that it had no choice in this instance but to affirm the Panel’s decision and delist the Company’s securities.

Publication Date*: 1/30/2020

Identification Number: 1728

Listing Council Decision 2018-4

Identification Number 1664

Rule 5250(c)(1). Obligation to File Periodic Financial Reports

A Company shall timely file all required periodic financial reports with the Commission through the EDGAR System or with the Other Regulatory Authority. A Company that does not file through the EDGAR System shall supply to Nasdaq two (2) copies of all reports required to be filed with the Other Regulatory Authority or email an electronic version of the report to Nasdaq at continuedlisting@nasdaq.com. All required reports must be filed with Nasdaq on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or Other Regulatory Authority. Annual reports filed with Nasdaq shall contain audited financial statements.

Issue: At issue is whether the Listing Council has discretion to allow a company to remain listed notwithstanding that it has been and remains delinquent in filing its periodic financial reports.

Determination: Affirm the decision to suspend and delist the Company.

The Listing Council finds that delisting the Company is appropriate due to the Company's non-compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c). Although the Company regained partial compliance during the pendency of the appeal, it remains delinquent as its most recent Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Even if the Company had regained compliance fully with Rule 5250(c), the Listing Council would have still concluded, consistent with its discretion under Rule 5101, that the continued listing of its securities on Nasdaq would be inadvisable. While the Company has made significant strides to date to reform its corporate culture, these strides are insufficient to overcome the Listing Council's concerns about whether the Company – whose Board of Directors and executive management team were almost entirely re-constituted only a few months ago – has regained its proper footing.

Publication Date*: 11/29/2018

Identification Number: 1664

Listing Council Decision 2017-5

Identification Number 1473

Filing Delinquency

Rule 5250(c)(1): A Company shall timely file all required periodic financial reports with the Commission through the EDGAR System or with the Other Regulatory Authority. A Company that does not file through the EDGAR System shall supply to Nasdaq two (2) copies of all reports required to be filed with the Other Regulatory Authority or email an electronic version of the report to Nasdaq at continuedlisting@nasdaq.com. All required reports must be filed with Nasdaq on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or Other Regulatory Authority. Annual reports filed with Nasdaq shall contain audited financial statements.

Issue: May the Company remain listed notwithstanding is the fact that: (1) it was, until August 31, 2017, delinquent in filing its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2016, in violation of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c); and (2) it was, until August 25, 2017, delinquent in filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, in violation of Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c)?

Determination: Overrule the Hearing Panel decision to suspend and delist the Company.

The Hearing Panel in this case had previously granted the Company extensions to regain compliance with the Rule – until July 30, 2017 to file its delinquent Form 10-K and until August 31, 2017 to file its delinquent Form 10-Qs – but it revoked those extensions when the Company failed to provide the Panel, as directed, with a specific update from its auditor as to the anticipated schedule for completion of the audit. Although the Council agreed with the Panel that the Company should have been more forthcoming and specific about the status of the audit work, the Council concluded that the Company's update was not so inadequate as to warrant the Panel revoking its extensions. To the extent that the Panel was concerned that Company's status report was too vague, it could have and should have requested clarification from the Company and/or its auditor before it took the drastic step that it did. In sum, the Council concluded that the Panel acted too hastily and should have given the Company a chance to complete its work to regain compliance with the Rule.

Publication Date*: 12/6/2017

Identification Number: 1473

Listing Council Decision 2017-1

Identification Number 1367

Filing Delinquency

Rule 5250(c)(1): A Company shall timely file all required periodic financial reports with the Commission through the EDGAR System or with the Other Regulatory Authority. A Company that does not file through the EDGAR System shall supply to Nasdaq two (2) copies of all reports required to be filed with the Other Regulatory Authority or email an electronic version of the report to Nasdaq at continuedlisting@nasdaq.com. All required reports must be filed with Nasdaq on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or Other Regulatory Authority. Annual reports filed with Nasdaq shall contain audited financial statements.

Issue: At issue is whether the company should remain listed notwithstanding that it has been and remains delinquent in filing its annual report and quarterly filings notwithstanding its receipt of several prior periods of exemption from Rule 5250(c).

Determination: Affirm the decision to suspend and delist the Company.

In light of the facts and circumstances of this matter, which include the fact that the Company has been delinquent in filing its periodic financial reports with the SEC for a prolonged period of time, in violation of Rule 5250(c), and that it has failed to regain compliance with the Rule notwithstanding its receipt from the Hearing Panel of multiple extensions of time within which to do so, the Listing Council finds that the Company’s vague projections as to when it will regain compliance with the Rule lack credibility, that its request for a further extension is unwarranted, and that delisting of the Company’s securities is appropriate, pursuant to Rule 5820(d)(4).

Publication Date*: 5/3/2017

Identification Number: 1367

Listing Council Decision 2016-1

Identification Number 1288

Public Interest Concern, Filing Delinquency, and Failure to Pay Fees

Rule 5101: Staff has raised public interest concerns over the degree of control the Company has over subsidiary.

Rule 5250(f): A Company is required to pay all applicable fees as described in the Rule 5900 Series.

Issue: At issue is whether the company should remain listed notwithstanding that it is delinquent in filing its annual report, failed to publicly disclose material information timely, and public interest concerns raised by Nasdaq's Staff.

Determination: Affirm the decision to suspend and delist the Company.

In light of the facts and circumstances of this matter, including but not limited to, the conduct of the Company and its board of directors with respect to the Company's independent auditor, the Company's independent counsel, and Nasdaq in the delisting proceeding, particularly including: the events giving rise to the resignation of the Company's independent auditor, which concluded that it could no longer accept the representations of the Company's Chairman and CEO, and determined that it could not continue as the Company's auditor unless he was separated from the Company; the independent auditor's finding that the Company does not appear to have an effective board with the ability to discharge its responsibilities; and evidence from the Company's independent counsel that the Company made misrepresentations to Nasdaq in its effort to remain listed; the the Listing Council finds that delisting the Company is appropriate, pursuant to Rules 5101, 5250(c)(1), and 5250(f).

Rule 5101 provides Nasdaq with broad discretionary authority over the listing of securities on Nasdaq in order to maintain the quality of and public confidence in the market, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest. The importance of timely filing of financial statements, as required by Rule 5250(c)(1), cannot be understated. Moreover, the Listing Council notes that the Company failed to pay its annual listing fees, as required by Rule 5250(f). Taken together, the Listing Council concludes that the Company does not fully understand the obligations of a public company. Based on the facts and circumstances of this matter and for the reasons stated above, the Listing Council determined to delist the Company's shares from Nasdaq. Delisting does not bar the Company from applying to relist on Nasdaq, or another U.S. exchange. In this regard, should the Company resolve the issues that give rise to this matter it may reapply to list on Nasdaq.

Publication Date*: 11/28/2016

Identification Number: 1288

Listing Council Decision 2014-2

Identification Number 1133

Disclosure, Filing Delinquency, and Public Interest Concern

Rule 5101: Nasdaq has broad discretionary authority over the initial and continued listing of securities in Nasdaq in order to maintain the quality of and public confidence in its market, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest.

Rule 5250(b)(1): Except in unusual circumstances, a Nasdaq-listed Company shall make prompt disclosure to the public through any Regulation FD compliant method (or combination of methods) of disclosure of any material information that would reasonably be expected to affect the value of its securities or influence investors’ decisions.

Issue: At issue in this matter is whether the Company should remain listed, yet suspended from trading, notwithstanding that it is delinquent in filing its annual report, failed to publicly disclose material information timely, and public interest concerns have been raised based on the Company’s bankruptcy.

Determination: Affirm the decision to suspend and delist the Company.

In light of the facts and circumstances of this matter, including the Company’s failure to file its Form 10-K by its stated deadline, the Listing Council finds that delisting for failure to file its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 is a valid basis under Rule 5250(c)(1) for delisting the Company.

The Listing Council conducts a de novo review of matters before it and, accordingly, it may consider issues not raised in the matter before the Panel or relied on by the Panel as a basis for its decision. One such issue, which was raised by Staff yet not noted as a basis for delisting in the Panel decision, is Staff’s determination that delisting the Company was warranted given it had violated Rule 5250(b)(1). Rule 5250(b)(1) states, in part, that a “Nasdaq-listed Company shall make prompt disclosure to the public through any Regulation FD compliant method (or combination of methods) of disclosure of any material information that would reasonably be expected to affect the value of its securities or influence investors’ decisions.” Staff argues that the Company violated Rule 5250(b)(1) when it failed to disclose the loss of control of a subsidiary. The record shows that, as of November 22, 2013, the Company knew that the former CEO possessed the subsidiary’s chops and had advised the Company that he would not return them. Furthermore, the Company was aware on November 27, 2013 that the former CEO had threatened the validity of the VIE structure of the Company. By the Company’s own admission, it realized on November 27, 2013 that there was a potentially serious challenge to the structure of the enterprise, yet waited until December 11, 2013 to disclose the issue. Staff believes, and the Listing Council agrees, that the Company had an obligation to disclose these issues pursuant to Rule 5250(b)(1) far sooner than when the Company ultimately disclosed the issues in December 2013. To argue that an investor would not find these developments material information that would reasonably be expected to affect the value of its securities or influence investors’ decisions, is nonsensical.

Rule 5101 provides Nasdaq with broad discretionary authority over the listing of securities on Nasdaq in order to maintain the quality of and public confidence in the market, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest. The importance of timely filing of financial statements, as required by Rule 5250(c)(1), cannot be understated. Moreover, the Listing Council notes that the Company was slow, or failed altogether, to disclose material information that would reasonably be expected to affect the value of its securities or influence investors’ decisions, as required by Rule 5250(b)(1). Taken together, the Listing Council concludes that the Company does not fully understand the obligations of a public company. Based on the facts and circumstances of this matter and for the reasons stated above, the Listing Council has determined to delist the Company’s shares from Nasdaq. Delisting does not bar the Company from applying to relist on Nasdaq, or another U.S. exchange. In this regard, should the Company resolve the issues that give rise to this matter it may reapply to list on Nasdaq.

Publication Date*: 11/19/2014

Identification Number: 1133

Listing Council Decision 2011-3

Identification Number 602

Rule 5250(c)(1): A company shall timely file all required periodic financial reports with the Commission through the EDGAR System or with the Other Regulatory Authority. A company that does not file through the EDGAR System shall supply to NASDAQ two (2) copies of all reports required to be filed with the Other Regulatory Authority or email an electronic version of the report to NASDAQ at continuedlisting@nasdaqomx.com. All required reports must be filed with NASDAQ on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or Other Regulatory Authority. Annual reports filed with NASDAQ shall contain audited financial statements.

Rule 5101: NASDAQ is entrusted with the authority to preserve and strengthen the quality of and public confidence in its market. NASDAQ stands for integrity and ethical business practices in order to enhance investor confidence, thereby contributing to the financial health of the economy and supporting the capital formation process. NASDAQ Companies, from new public Companies to Companies of international stature, are publicly recognized as sharing these important objectives. NASDAQ, therefore, in addition to applying the enumerated criteria set forth in the Listing Rule 5000 Series, has broad discretionary authority over the initial and continued listing of securities in NASDAQ in order to maintain the quality of and public confidence in its market, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest. NASDAQ may use such discretion to deny initial listing, apply additional or more stringent criteria for the initial or continued listing of particular securities, or suspend or delist particular securities based on any event, condition, or circumstance that exists or occurs that makes initial or continued listing of the securities on NASDAQ inadvisable or unwarranted in the opinion of NASDAQ, even though the securities meet all enumerated criteria for initial or continued listing on NASDAQ. In all circumstances where the Listing Qualifications Department (as defined in Listing Rule 5805) exercises its authority under Listing Rule 5101, the Listing Qualifications Department shall issue a Staff Delisting Determination under Listing Rule 5810(c)(1), and in all circumstances where an Adjudicatory Body (as defined in Listing Rule 5805) exercises such authority, the use of the authority shall be described in the written decision of the Adjudicatory Body.

Issue: The company was delisted by a Hearings Panel for public interest concerns, noting that the events that have occurred since the company’s independent public audit firm raised serious concerns do not instill confidence that the company is fully equipped for the rigors of the regulatory environment within which exchange-listed companies must operate. The Hearings Panel stated that the implementation of a remedial cash control plan had been, at best, poorly executed, with only $15 million of a purported $170 million transferred into the control of the Audit Committee. The Hearings Panel also cited concerns surrounding management’s leadership, noting the Acting CFO’s obstruction of the plan’s implementation by refusing to pay the advisors charged with its implementation and the CEO’s willingness to rehire her after her resignation. The Hearings Panel concluded that the CEO and the Acting CFO are equally responsible for the obstruction of the investigation and failure to implement the cash control plan. The Hearings Panel also found that the Board special investigative committee’s willingness to replace its counsel due to pressures apparently resulting from management’s distaste for the cash control plan and investigation, suggests an insufficiently empowered special committee. The Hearings Panel also described its serious concerns regarding the company’s disclosures regarding the recent events and the company’s inability to respond to the Hearings Panel’s questions regarding concerns that the company’s major equipment supplier is a related party, which, in its opinion, showed that the company is unprepared to meet the governance standards required by listed companies. Last, the Hearings Panel noted that the audit issues facing the company implicate substantial accounting, operational, and control failures that are likely to require significant time to resolve.

Determination: Affirmed. After a review of the record in this matter, the Listing Council affirms the Hearings Panel Decision. The facts and circumstances of this matter show a company faced with very serious allegations of potential illegal acts, severe failure of management to act aggressively to address those allegations, and an insufficiently strong Board to effectively control and remediate management’s failures timely. The independent investigation has been managed poorly at best, and clearly intentionally interfered with by management. The Listing Council takes very seriously the concerns of the audit firm surrounding the company’s inability to confirm bank account balances, accounts payable balances, sales amounts, sales terms and outstanding balances, and undisclosed related party transactions, all of which ultimately led the audit firm to conclude that an illegal act has or may have occurred. Coupled with the company’s failure to aggressively address these concerns and implement the audit firm’s recommendations, the Listing Council finds no reason to allow the company to remain listed. The Listing Council agrees with the Hearings Panel’s conclusion that the record shows the company is unprepared to meet the governance standards required by listed companies and that it is not fully equipped for the rigors of the regulatory environment within which exchange-listed companies must operate.

Pursuant to Listing Rule 5101, NASDAQ has “broad discretionary authority” over the listing of securities on the Global Market “in order to maintain the quality of and public confidence in the market, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest.” This authority stems directly from NASDAQ’s delegated responsibilities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Listing Council disagrees with the company’s assertion that allowing the company to remain listed, albeit suspended from trading, will balance the need to protect prospective investors and the integrity of NASDAQ with the need for fair treatment of the company and its shareholders. To the contrary, allowing the company to remain listed in light of the facts developed in this matter would signal to both current and prospective shareholders a level of comfort with the company that is simply not present. Sending such a signal would in no way serve to protect investors nor maintain the public confidence in the market.

Accordingly, the Listing Council affirms the Panel decision to delist the company’s securities based on the exercise of the broad discretionary authority of Listing Rule 5101.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 602

Listing Council Decision 2011-2

Identification Number 603

Rule 5101: NASDAQ is entrusted with the authority to preserve and strengthen the quality of and public confidence in its market. NASDAQ stands for integrity and ethical business practices in order to enhance investor confidence, thereby contributing to the financial health of the economy and supporting the capital formation process. NASDAQ Companies, from new public Companies to Companies of international stature, are publicly recognized as sharing these important objectives. NASDAQ, therefore, in addition to applying the enumerated criteria set forth in the Listing Rule 5000 Series, has broad discretionary authority over the initial and continued listing of securities in NASDAQ in order to maintain the quality of and public confidence in its market, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest. NASDAQ may use such discretion to deny initial listing, apply additional or more stringent criteria for the initial or continued listing of particular securities, or suspend or delist particular securities based on any event, condition, or circumstance that exists or occurs that makes initial or continued listing of the securities on NASDAQ inadvisable or unwarranted in the opinion of NASDAQ, even though the securities meet all enumerated criteria for initial or continued listing on NASDAQ. In all circumstances where the Listing Qualifications Department (as defined in Listing Rule 5805) exercises its authority under Listing Rule 5101, the Listing Qualifications Department shall issue a Staff Delisting Determination under Listing Rule 5810 (c)(1), and in all circumstances where an Adjudicatory Body (as defined in Listing Rule 5805) exercises such authority, the use of the authority shall be described in the written decision of the Adjudicatory Body.

Issue: The company was delisted by a Hearings Panel for public interest concerns based on: the resignations of the company’s auditors, Chief Financial Officer, and an independent Board member and the reasons stated for those resignations; the serious questions raised by the reports of forensic accountants that go to core issues regarding the integrity of the company’s finances and operations; the lack of audited financials on file for 2010, uncertainty as to the reliability of prior years financials, and the multiple obstacles to prompt compliance with filing obligations; and, finally, the pattern of the company’s responses to requests from accountants and NASDAQ as this matter has unfolded.

Determination: Affirmed. After a review of the record in this matter, the Listing Council affirms the Panel Decision. As noted by the Panel, NASDAQ Listing Rule 5101 grants NASDAQ broad discretion to delist the securities of a company in order to maintain the quality of and public confidence in the market, prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors and the public interest. The bases noted by the Panel in its decision to delist the company fit squarely within the ambit of the rule. The serious allegations made against the company and its current management, supported by concerns noted by both its independent public auditor and independent investigator, together with the resignations of independent directors all support a determination to delist the company from NASDAQ. Furthermore, the Listing Council shares Staff’s concern regarding the feasibility of the company’s proposed timeline for compliance. The Listing Council notes that investigations concerning such serious allegations do not lend themselves to quick conclusion nor are the issues often identified easily resolved. Moreover, the Listing Council notes that the company has missed prior milestones it set for itself and has shown little demonstrable progress toward quick resolution of its deficiencies. Concerning to the Listing Council is that much of the delay in investigating and resolving the issues in this matter has been caused by the company, and not due to issues beyond the company’s control. As a self-regulatory organization, NASDAQ is charged with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Listing Council believes that allowing the company to remain listed on NASDAQ, whether halted or not, would be misleading to the investing public and signal a level of comfort with the company that is simply not present.

Accordingly, the Listing Council affirms the Panel decision to delist the company’s securities based on the exercise of the broad discretionary authority of Listing Rule 5101.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 603

Listing Council Decision 2010-1

Identification Number 606

Issue: The company was not able to file its delinquent periodic SEC reports due to an internal investigation of company practices relating to revenue recognition. The Panel granted the company an extension to file its delinquent reports, which was the full extent of the Panel’s discretionary authority. At the expiration of the extension, the company had not regained compliance. As a consequence, the Panel issued a decision to suspend the company’s securities. The company appealed the Panel decision to the Listing Council.

Determination: Affirmed. The Panel was willing to grant the company an extension of time because the company had demonstrated good faith efforts to regain compliance, and the Panel was not faced with any information particular to the company that would suggest that continued listing for a brief period would harm the investing public. In its July 20, 2009 decision, the Panel noted its concerns regarding the seriousness of the company’s revenue recognition issues, the large amount of revenues to be moved to subsequent periods and the fact that the company had no current audited financial statements on file for a significant time period. Notwithstanding, however, the Panel determined to allow the company to remain listed while it worked to file its delinquent reports and regain compliance with NASDAQ’s listing standards. In determining to grant the company an extension, the Panel noted that the company and its Audit Committee responded appropriately to indications of revenue recognition problems by undertaking a broad review of transactions dating back to 2004. Further, the Panel considered the company’s representation that it had identified the problems that caused the revenue recognition issues; that the responsible individuals are no longer with the company; that those currently responsible are trained and knowledgeable about revenue recognition issues; and that current management is fully committed to a wide range of remedial measures to preclude a recurrence of the problem. Importantly, the company informed the Panel that it expected to complete its revenue restatement and regain compliance with the filing requirement by September 30, 2009, and by no later than October 31, 2009.

In affirming the Panel decisions, the Council finds that granting the company the full extent of time available under the Listing Rules was reasonable and appropriate given the facts and circumstances presented by the record at the time the decision was issued. Pursuant to Listing Rule 5815(c)(1)(F), the Panel may grant a company delinquent in filing its periodic reports an extension of up to 360 days from the due date of the first such late periodic report. The company did not regain compliance with the Listing Rules by the expiration of the Panel extension, and as such, the Panel’s decision to suspend and delist the company’s securities was also reasonable and appropriate at the time of issuance.

The Listing Council notes that the company, as of the date of the Listing Council’s deliberations, had not regained compliance with the Listing Rules. The Listing Council has no authority under the Listing Rules to grant the company a further extension of time to regain compliance, if it were so inclined. Based on the foregoing, the Listing Council affirms the decisions of the Panel in this matter.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 606

Listing Council Decision 2009-1

Identification Number 607

Rule 5250(c)(1): A company shall timely file all required periodic financial reports with the Commission through the EDGAR System or with the Other Regulatory Authority. A company that does not file through the EDGAR System shall supply to NASDAQ two (2) copies of all reports required to be filed with the Other Regulatory Authority or email an electronic version of the report to NASDAQ at continuedlisting@nasdaq.com. All required reports must be filed with NASDAQ on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or Other Regulatory Authority. Annual reports filed with NASDAQ shall contain audited financial statements.

Issue: The company was not able to file its delinquent periodic SEC reports due to an internal investigation of company practices relating to stock option grants to officers and directors, and related matters. The Panel granted the company an extension to file its delinquent reports, which was the full extent of the Panel’s discretionary authority. The company appealed the Panel decision to the Listing Council, and by separate letter, the company requested that the Listing Council call for review the Panel decision with a stay of delisting. The Listing Council notified the company that it had called for review the Panel decision and issued a stay of delisting pending further Council action.

Determination: Affirmed. The decision of the Panel was appropriate at the time it was rendered. The Listing Council also exercised its discretionary authority to grant the company an additional extension of time to demonstrate compliance with the filing requirement, but not to the full extent of the Listing Council’s discretion.

In reaching its determination, the Listing Council applied a facts and circumstances analysis, and found that based on its analysis, this company should be given additional time to become compliant with NASDAQ’s filing requirement. The Listing Council considered many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

The company reacted quickly and took appropriate steps once the potential problem was identified. After the board of directors was informed of evidence indicating backdating issues, the board of directors appointed the Special Committee, which began an independent investigation, with the help of outside consultants, to determine the depth and breadth of the problem.
The company cooperated with regulatory authorities and timely notified the investing public of its independent investigation and the need for a restatement of its financial statements.
The company has agreed to adopt the remedial measures recommended by the Special Committee.

While the Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information, when faced with similar cases historically, the Listing Council balanced its analysis with the extraordinary circumstances in which many companies found themselves. The Listing Council, however, believes that stock options backdating is not a novel issue at this point in time. As such, companies should have long ago taken appropriate action to determine whether their stock option grant practices are problematic, and to extent issues are found, restate any affected financial statements and remediate the issues, both expeditiously. Accordingly, the Listing Council is willing to grant a short extension of time pursuant to Listing Rule 5820(d)(4) to demonstrate compliance with NASDAQ’s filing requirement; however, the Listing Council is unwilling to grant the company the full extent of time available to it under NASDAQ’s rules.

The Listing Council also takes notice of the fact that the company has become deficient under Listing Rule 5620 because it did not solicit proxies for or hold its annual meeting by December 31, 2008. As such, the Listing Council finds that such failure to solicit proxies for and hold an annual meeting constitutes a new and separate deficiency. In order to assure that the company has an adequate opportunity to address this deficiency, the Listing Council remands this deficiency back to the Panel for further review and action if the company regains compliance with the filing requirement. Staff shall instruct the company to respond to the Panel with respect to this deficiency.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 607

Listing Council Decision 2008-5

Identification Number 608

Rule 4450(a)(3): A company must have a minimum of $10,000,000 of stockholders’ equity for continued listing on The NASDAQ Global Market.

Issue: The company was properly delisted because at the time of the Panel decision, the company reported stockholders’ equity of $2,792,000. The company argued that it should be allowed to transfer to The NASDAQ Capital Market, which has a stockholders’ equity maintenance requirement of $2,500,000. The Panel denied the company’s request based on concerns regarding the company’s ability to maintain compliance with the Capital Market continued listing standards. The Panel determined to delist the company’s shares from The NASDAQ Global Market for failing to maintain stockholders’ equity of at least $10,000,000.

Determination: After a review of the record in this matter, the Listing Council affirms the Panel’s decision to delist the company’s securities. The company noted that it was pursuing multiple avenues by which it would be able to increase its stockholders’ equity; however, none of the avenues were definitive in nature or sufficient to allow the Listing Council to conclude that the company would be able regain compliance with the Global Market continued listing standards, or maintain compliance with the Capital Market continued listing standards going forward.

Rule 4310(c)(14): The issuer shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of all reports and other documents filed or required to be filed with the Commission. This requirement is considered fulfilled for purposes of this paragraph if the issuer files the report or document with the Commission through the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system. An issuer that is not required to file reports with the Commission shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of reports required to be filed with the appropriate regulatory authority. All required reports shall be filed with NASDAQ on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or appropriate regulatory authority. Annual reports filed with NASDAQ shall contain audited financial statements.

Issue: The company was not able to file its delinquent periodic SEC reports because it had encountered a number of corporate issues that had strained resources and diverted attention from filing. The Panel determined to delist the company’s securities.

Determination: The company was properly delisted because at the time of the Panel decision the company was not current in all required public filings. The Listing Council notes that the company was current in filing its periodic reports at the time of the issuance of the Listing Council decision and the company believed it had remedied the issues that caused the company to become delinquent. The Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information regarding the company. Investors in securities listed on NASDAQ are entitled to assume that issuers of those securities will promptly and accurately comply with their reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 608

Listing Council Decision 2008-1

Identification Number 624

Rule 4310(c)(14): The issuer shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of all reports and other documents filed or required to be filed with the Commission. This requirement is considered fulfilled for purposes of this paragraph if the issuer files the report or document with the Commission through the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system. An issuer that is not required to file reports with the Commission shall file with NASDAQ three(3) copies of reports required to be filed with the appropriate regulatory authority. All required reports shall be filed with NASDAQ on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or appropriate regulatory authority. Annual reports filed with NASDAQ shall contain audited financial statements.

Issue: The company was not able to file its delinquent periodic SEC reports due to the need for additional time for the company to complete an on-going investigation into financial irregularities at a company subsidiary. Based on a Panel decision, the company was scheduled to be suspended, pending delisting, by the Panel, because the Panel was at the limit of its discretionary authority. The Listing Council exercised its discretionary authority to call the Panel’s decision for review and stay any future Panel determinations to suspend the company’s securities from trading, pending further action by the Listing Council.

In reaching its determination, the Listing Council applied a facts and circumstances analysis, and found that based on its analysis, that this company should be given additional time to become compliant with NASDAQ’s filing requirement.

The Listing Council considered many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

The company reacted quickly and took appropriate steps once the potential problem was identified, including initiating an independent investigation, hiring outside consultants to assist with the forensic analysis and to assist with bolstering the company’s internal controls, and terminating five employees who were determined to be the architects and implementers of the wrongdoing.
There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by the company or any of its senior management.
The company promptly notified the investing public of its inability to file its delinquent filings.
The company has cooperated with regulators and federal authorities.
The company has implemented the remedial measures recommended by its consultants.

Based on the foregoing, the Listing Council affirms the decision of the Panel to suspend the company’s securities, and grants the company an exception of 60 days to file its delinquent periodic reports and restatements.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 624

Listing Council Decision 2007-15

Identification Number 625

Issue: The company was not able to file its delinquent periodic SEC reports due to the need for additional time for company management to complete the assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006 in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Based on a Panel decision, the company was scheduled to be suspended, pending delisting, by the Panel, because the Panel was at the limit of its discretionary authority. The Listing Council exercised its discretionary authority to call the Panel’s decision for review and stay any future Panel determinations to suspend the company’s securities from trading, pending further action by the Listing Council.

Determination: The decision of the Panel was appropriate at the time it was rendered. The Listing Council also uses its discretionary authority to grant the company an additional 60 day extension of time to demonstrate compliance with all Global Market continued listing requirements In reaching its determination, the Listing Council applied a facts and circumstances analysis, and found that based on its analysis, that this company should be given additional time to become compliant with NASDAQ’s filing requirement.

The Listing Council considered many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

The company reacted quickly and took appropriate steps once the problem was identified.

There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by the company or any of its senior management.

The company promptly notified the investing public of its inability to file its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, and kept the investing public informed of its financial results.

The company has taken remedial action to bolster its internal control processes and to prevent the reoccurrence of events that led to the filing delinquencies.

The company has filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006.

The Listing Council also considered that the company was not in any other distress, appeared positioned to promptly file its remaining delinquent reports and, based upon historical financial information, appeared to have the financial strength to continue to meet the maintenance standards of the Global Market. The Listing Council understands that the accounting analysis was, in part, slowed by issues at its former audit firm, who at the termination of the relationship did not have a disagreement on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure. The Listing Council was also particularly cognizant, and considered, that the Panel had exhausted its ability to provide the company with an additional extension of time, and would have provided the company more time if available under the rules. While the Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information, the Listing Council balances its analysis with the facts and circumstances of each case before it. The Listing Council is sympathetic to the company in that the issues surrounding its filing delinquencies arise from technical accounting issues not related to its operations and that the delays in meeting the Panel’s deadline were, in part, beyond the company’s control. Notwithstanding the unforeseen delays, the Listing Council notes that the company has filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, and anticipates filing the delinquent 2007 Forms 10-Q by mid-January. Based upon the record, the Listing Council recognized that the company has been pro-active in trying to regain its status as a goodcorporate citizen, and believed that such diligence should be rewarded with an extension of time to demonstrate compliance.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 625

Listing Council Decision 2007-14

Identification Number 626

Rule 4350(e): Each issuer listing common stock or voting preferred stock, and their equivalents, shall hold an annual meeting of shareholders no later than one year after the end of the issuer's fiscal year-end.

Rule 4350(g): Each issuer shall solicit proxies and provide proxy statements for all meetings of shareholders and shall provide copies of such proxy solicitation to NASDAQ.

Issue: The company was not able to file its delinquent periodic SEC reports due to an internal investigation of company practices relating to stock option grants to officers and directors, and related matters. Based on a Panel decision, the company was scheduled to be suspended, pending delisting, by the Panel, because the Panel was at the limit of its discretionary authority. The company appealed the Panel’s decision, and the Listing Council exercised its discretionary authority to call the Panel’s decision for review and stay any future Panel determinations to suspend the company’s securities from trading, pending further action by the Listing Council. Determination: The decision of the Panel was appropriate at the time it was rendered. The Listing Council also uses its discretionary authority to grant the company an additional 60 day extension of time to demonstrate compliance with all Global Market continued listing requirements and remands the Listing Rule 4350(e) and 4350(g) deficiencies to the Panel. In reaching its determination, the Listing Council applied a facts and circumstances analysis, and found that based on its analysis, that this company should be given additional time to become compliant with NASDAQ’s filing requirement.

The Listing Council considered many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

· The company reacted quickly and initiated an inquiry into stock options issues of its own accord. After the board of directors was informed of evidence indicating backdating issues, the board of directors appointed an independent committee, which began an investigation, with the help of outside consultants, to determine the depth and breadth of the problem.

· The company timely notified the investing public of its independent investigation.

· The company adopted remedial measures and internal controls recommended by the committee.

· The company has been proactive in keeping investors informed by providing unaudited quarterly financial information.

· There was no evidence of intent to defraud by senior management at the company.

While the Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information, the Listing Council balanced its analysis with the extraordinary circumstances in which many companies find themselves. The Listing Council is sympathetic to the company in that it is not the only company that is currently ensnared in the thorny issues surrounding the potential restatement of financial statements as a result of the accounting for stock option grants. The Listing Council has considered the extraordinary circumstances that many companies find themselves in and will undertake a facts and circumstances analysis in each case to determine if additional remedies are appropriate. Based upon the record, the Listing Council recognized that the company has been pro-active in trying to regain its status as a good corporate citizen, and believed that such diligence should be rewarded with an extension of time to demonstrate compliance. As such, pursuant Listing Rule 4802(b), the Listing Council finds that it is appropriate in this instance to exercise its discretionary authority and provide the company with a short extension of time to demonstrate compliance with Listing Rule 4310(c)(14). Based on the foregoing, the Listing Council affirms the decision of the Panel to suspend the company’s securities, and grants the company an exception of 60 days to file its delinquent periodic reports and restatements.

The Listing Council also takes notice of the fact that the company has become deficient under Rules 4350(e) and 4350(g) because it did not solicit proxies for or hold its annual meeting by no later than one year after the end of the company’s fiscal year-end. As such, the Listing Council finds that such failure to solicit proxies for and hold an annual meeting constitutes new and separate deficiencies. In order to assure that the company has an adequate opportunity to address these deficiencies, the Listing Council remands these deficiencies back to the Panel for further review and action if the company regains compliance with the filing requirement. Staff shall instruct the company to respond to the Panel with respect to these deficiencies.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 626

Listing Council Decision 2007-13

Identification Number 627

Issue: The company was not able to file its delinquent periodic SEC reports due to the need for further analysis to support recognition of revenue from maintenance and support services provided as part of multiple element arrangements with respect to a business line. Based on a Panel decision, the company was scheduled to be suspended, pending delisting, by the Panel, because the Panel was at the limit of its discretionary authority. The Listing Council exercised its discretionary authority to call the Panel’s decision for review and stay any future Panel determinations to suspend the company’s securities from trading, pending further action by the Listing Council.

Determination: The decision of the Panel was appropriate at the time it was rendered. The Listing Council also uses its discretionary authority to grant the company an additional 60 day extension of time to demonstrate compliance with all Global Select Market continued listing requirements. In reaching its determination, the Listing Council applied a facts and circumstances analysis, and found that based on its analysis, that this company should be given additional time to become compliant with NASDAQ’s filing requirement.

The Listing Council considered many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

The company reacted quickly and took appropriate steps once the potential problem was identified, including hiring an outside consultant to assist with the accounting analysis.
There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by the company or any of its senior management.
The company promptly notified the investing public of its inability to file its Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006. Also, the company informed the investing public of its financial results as computed under non-US GAAP.
The company has adopted a number of remedial measures, including measures designed to enhance expertise in US GAAP within the company and to address weaknesses in internal controls.

The Listing Council also considered that the company was not in any other distress and that, but for the accounting issue, the company was ready to remedy its filing delinquency and, based upon historical financial information, appeared to have the financial strength to continue to meet the maintenance standards of the Global Select Market. The Listing Council understands that the accounting analysis has been slowed by the magnitude of the problem and the company’s dependence on outside factors to complete the process. The Listing Council was also particularly cognizant, and considered, that the Panel had exhausted its ability to provide the company with an additional extension of time, and would have provided the company more time if available under the rules. While the Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information, the Listing Council balanced its analysis with the extraordinary circumstances in which many companies find themselves. The Listing Council is sympathetic to the company in that it is not the only company that is currently ensnared in the thorny issues surrounding its historical accounting policies. In making its determination, the Listing Council also considered the extraordinary circumstances that many companies find themselves in and will undertake a facts and circumstances analysis in each case to determine if additional remedies are appropriate. Based upon the record, the Listing Council recognized that the company has been pro-active in trying to regain its status as a good corporate citizen, and believed that such diligence should be rewarded with an extension of time to demonstrate compliance.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 627

Listing Council Decision 2007-12

Identification Number 628

Issue: The company was not able to file its delinquent periodic SEC reports due to due to an internal investigation of company practices relating to stock option grants to officers and directors, and related matters. Based on a Panel decision, the company was scheduled to be suspended, pending delisting, by the Panel, because the Panel was at the limit of its discretionary authority. The Listing Council exercised its discretionary authority to call the Panel’s decision for review and stay any future Panel determinations to suspend the company’s securities from trading, pending further action by the Listing Council.

Determination: The decision of the Panel was appropriate at the time it was rendered. The Listing Council also uses its discretionary authority to grant the company an additional 60 day extension of time to demonstrate compliance with all Global Market continued listing requirements. In reaching its determination, the Listing Council applied a facts and circumstances analysis, and found that based on its analysis, that this company should be given additional time to become compliant with NASDAQ’s filing requirement.

The Listing Council considered many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

The company reacted quickly and took appropriate steps once the potential problem was identified. Once the potential stock option problem was identified, management of the company began an internal review. After the Board was informed of evidence indicating backdating issues, the Board retained outside counsel, which began an independent investigation to determine the depth and breadth of the problem.
The company co-operated with regulatory authorities and timely notified the investing public of its independent investigation.
Upon the conclusion of the independent investigation, the company promptly notified the investing public of its need to restate its financial statements and cautioned investors not to rely on previously filed financial information.
The company has either adopted, or committed to adopt, a range of remedial measures recommended by the independent investigation committee, including reformation of tainted stock option agreements and changes to procedures for options grants.
The company has been proactive in keeping investors informed by providing unaudited financial information.

Based upon the record, the Listing Council recognized that the company has been pro-active in trying to regain its status as a good corporate citizen, and believed that such diligence should be rewarded with an extension of time to demonstrate compliance. As such, pursuant Listing Rule 4802(b), the Listing Council finds that it is appropriate in this instance to exercise its discretionary authority and provide the company with a short extension of time to demonstrate compliance with Listing Rule 4310(c)(14). Based on the foregoing, the Listing Council affirms the decision of the Panel to suspend the company’s securities, and grants the company an exception of 60 days to file its delinquent periodic reports and restatements.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 628

Listing Council Decision 2007-11

Identification Number 629

Rule 4350(g): Each issuer shall solicit proxies and provide proxy statements for all meetings of shareholders and shall provide copies of such proxy solicitation to NASDAQ.

The Listing Council considered many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

The company reacted quickly and took appropriate steps once the potential problem was identified. After the board of directors was informed of evidence indicating backdating issues, the board of directors appointed a committee of independent directors, which began an investigation, with the help of outside consultants, to determine the depth and breadth of the problem.
The company co-operated with regulatory authorities and timely notified the investing public of its independent investigation.
Upon the conclusion of the independent investigation, the company promptly notified the investing public of its need to restate its financial statements and cautioned investors not to rely on previously filed financial information.
The company has either adopted, or committed to adopt, a range of remedial measures recommended by the independent committee, including changes to procedures for options grants.
The company has been proactive in keeping investors informed by providing unaudited quarterly and year end financial information.
Certain officers involved in the backdating have resigned from the company.

Based upon the record before it, the Listing Council finds no reason not to conclude that the company has been pro-active in trying to regain its status as a good corporate citizen, thereby warranting an extension of time to demonstrate compliance. As such, pursuant to Rule 4802(b), the Listing Council finds that it is appropriate in this instance to exercise its discretionary authority and provide the company with a short extension of time to demonstrate compliance with Listing Rule 4310(c)(14). Based on the foregoing, the Listing Council affirms the decision of the Panel to suspend the company’s securities, and grants the company an exception of 60 days to file its delinquent periodic reports and restatements. The Listing Council also takes notice of the fact that the company has become deficient under Rules 4350(e) and 4350(g) because it has not yet solicited proxies for or held its annual meeting. The Listing Council finds that such failure to solicit proxies for and hold an annual meeting constitutes new and separate deficiencies. In order to assure that the company has an adequate opportunity to address these deficiencies, the Listing Council remands these deficiencies back to the Panel for further review and action if the company regains compliance with the filing requirement. Staff shall instruct the company to respond to the Panel with regard to this deficiency.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 629

Listing Council Decision 2007-9

Identification Number 631

Rule 4350(g): Each issuer shall solicit proxies and provide proxy statements for all meetings of shareholders and shall

provide copies of such proxy solicitation to NASDAQ.

Issue: The company was not able to file its delinquent periodic SEC reports due to an independent investigation of company practices relating to stock option grants to officers and directors, and related matters. Based on a Panel decision, the company was scheduled to be suspended, pending delisting, by the Panel, because the Panel was at the limit of its discretionary authority. The Listing Council exercised its discretionary authority to call the Panel’s decision for review and stay any future Panel determinations to suspend the company’s securities from trading, pending further action by the Listing Council.

The Listing Council considered many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

The company reacted quickly and took appropriate steps once the potential problem was identified. Once the potential stock option problem was identified, management of the company began an internal review. After the Board was informed of evidence indicating backdating issues, the Audit Committee began an independent investigation, with the help of outside consultants, to determine the depth and breadth of the problem.
The company co-operated with regulatory authorities and timely notified the investing public of its independent investigation.
Upon the conclusion of the independent investigation, the company promptly notified the investing public of its need to restate its
financial statement and cautioned investors not to rely on previously filed financial information.
The company expanded the number of directors from six to eight and then appointed two new independent directors.
The company has either adopted, or committed to adopt, all other remedial measures recommended by the Audit Committee.
The company continues to issue on a timely basis all required Forms 8-K and 12b-25 and has been proactive in keeping investors informed by providing unaudited quarterly and year end financial information.

As such, pursuant Listing Rule 4802(b), the Listing Council finds that it is appropriate in this instance to exercise its discretionary authority and provide the company with a short extension of time to demonstrate compliance with Listing Rule 4310(c)(14). Based on the foregoing, the Listing Council affirms the decision of the Panel to suspend the company’s securities, and grants the company an exception of 60 days to file its delinquent periodic reports and restatements. The Listing Council also takes notice of the fact that the company has become deficient under Rules 4350(e) and 4350(g) because it did not solicit proxies for or hold its annual meeting by no later than one year after the end of the company’s fiscal year-end. As such, the Listing Council finds that such failure to solicit proxies for and hold an annual meeting constitutes new and separate deficiencies. In order to assure that the company has an adequate opportunity to address these deficiencies, the Listing Council remands these deficiencies back to the Panel for further review and action if the company regains compliance with the filing requirement. Staff shall instruct the company to respond to the Panel with respect to these deficiencies.

(Note: The NASDAQ board of directorsors called the Listing Council decision for review and issued a stay of delisting; however, the board of directorsors withdrew its call for review and stay, subsequently noting that the company had been non-compliant with NASDAQ Rule 4310(c)(14) for a period of one year from the final due date of its annual report on Form 10-K.).

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 631

Listing Council Decision 2007-8

Identification Number 632

Rule 4310(c)(14): The issuer shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of all reports and other documents filed or required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). This requirement is considered fulfilled for purposes of this paragraph if the issuer files the report or document with the Commission through the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system. An issuer that is not required to file reports with the Commission shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of reports required to be filed with the appropriate regulatory authority. All required reports shall be filed with NASDAQ on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or appropriate regulatory authority. Annual reports filed with NASDAQ shall contain audited financial statements.

Issue: The company was not able to file its delinquent periodic SEC reports due to an internal investigation of company practices relating to stock option grants. Being at the limit of its discretionary authority, the Panel determined to suspend, pending delisting, the company’s securities for failure to file its delinquent periodic reports. Subsequently, the Listing Council exercised its discretionary authority to call for review an earlier decision of the Panel in this matter and stay the suspension.

Determination: The decision of the Panel was appropriate at the time it was rendered. The Listing Council also used its discretionary authority to grant the company an additional 60 day extension of time to demonstrate compliance with all Global Market continued listing requirements In reaching its determination, the Listing Council applied a facts and circumstances analysis, and found that based on its analysis, that this company should be given additional time to become compliant with NASDAQ’s filing requirement.

The Listing Council considered many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

The company reacted quickly and took appropriate steps once the potential stock option problem was identified. The management of the company began an internal review. After the Board was informed of evidence indicating backdating issues, the Audit Committee and later a Special Committee, began an independent investigation, with the help of outside consultants, to determine the depth and breadth of the problem.
The company co-operated with regulatory authorities and timely notified the investing public of its independent investigation.
After the investigation was concluded, the company took steps to remove the culpable individuals; to that end, the company’s former CEO, CFO and Treasurer were all asked to resign from their respective positions.
The company added two new independent board members to provide additional expertise.
The company adopted all other remedial measures recommended by the Special Committee.
Upon the conclusion of the independent investigation, the company promptly notified the investing public of its need to restate its financial statement and cautioned investors not to rely on previously filed financial information.

While the Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information, the Listing Council balanced its analysis with the extraordinary circumstances in which many companies find themselves. The Listing Council is sympathetic to the company in that it is not the only company that is currently ensnared in the thorny issues surrounding the potential restatement of financial statements as a result of the accounting for stock option grants. In making its determination, the Listing Council also considered the extraordinary circumstances that many companies find themselves in and will undertake a facts and circumstances analysis in each case to determine if additional remedies are appropriate. Based upon the record, the Listing Council recognized that the company has been pro-active in trying to regain its status as a good corporate citizen, and believed that such diligence should be rewarded with an extension of time to demonstrate compliance. As such, pursuant Listing Rule 4802(b), the Listing Council finds that it is appropriate in this instance to exercise its discretionary authority and provide the company with a short extension of time to demonstrate compliance with Listing Rule 4310(c)(14).

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 632

Listing Council Decision 2007-7

Identification Number 633

Issue: The company was not able to file its delinquent periodic SEC reports due to an internal investigation of company practices relating to stock option grants to officers and directors, and related matters. Being at the limit of its discretionary authority, the Panel determined to suspend, pending delisting, the company’s securities for failure to file its delinquent periodic reports. Subsequently, the Listing Council exercised its discretionary authority to call the decision for review and stay the suspension.

Determination: The decision of the Panel was appropriate at the time it was rendered. The Listing Council also used its discretionary authority to grant the company an additional 60 day extension of time to demonstrate compliance with all Global Market continued listing requirements. In reaching its determination, the Listing Council applied a facts and circumstances analysis, and found that based on its analysis, that this company should be given additional time to become compliant with NASDAQ’s filing requirement.

The Listing Council considered many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

The company reacted quickly and took appropriate steps once the potential stock option problem was identified. The management of the company began an internal review. After the Board was informed of evidence indicating backdating issues, the Audit Committee and later a Special Committee, began an independent investigation, with the help of outside consultants, to determine the depth and breadth of the problem.
The company co-operated with regulatory authorities and timely notified the investing public of its independent investigation.
Upon the conclusion of the independent investigation, the company promptly notified the investing public of its need to restate its financial statement and cautioned investors not to rely on previously filed financial information.
After the investigation was concluded, the company took steps to remove the culpable individuals; to that end, the company’s former CFO and Chief Accounting Officer were asked to resign from their respective positions, and have been replaced.
The company added two new independent board members to provide additional expertise and reconstituted its compensation committee.
The company has either adopted, or committed to adopt, all other remedial measures recommended by the Special Committee.
The company has been proactive in keeping investors informed by providing unaudited quarterly and year end financial information and holding investor calls covering earnings.

The Listing Council also considered that the company was not in any other distress and that, but for the options issue, the company was ready to remedy its filing delinquency and, based upon historical financial information, appeared to have the financial strength to continue to meet the maintenance standards of the Global Market. The Listing Council understands that the restatement process has been slowed by the magnitude of the problem and the company’s dependence on outside factors to complete the process. The Listing Council was also particularly cognizant, and considered, that the Panel had exhausted its ability to provide the company with an additional extension of time, and would have provided the company more time if available under the rules. While the Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information, the Listing Council balanced its analysis with the extraordinary circumstances in which many companies find themselves. The Listing Council is sympathetic to the company in that it is not the only company that is currently ensnared in the thorny issues surrounding the potential restatement of financial statements as a result of the accounting for stock option grants. The Listing Council has considered the extraordinary circumstances that many companies find themselves in and will undertake a facts and circumstances analysis in each case to determine if additional remedies are appropriate.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 633

Listing Council Decision 2007-4

Identification Number 636

Rule 4310(c)(2)(B): For continued inclusion on The NASDAQ Capital Market, the issuer shall maintain:

(i) stockholders’ equity of $2,500,000; (ii) market value of listed securities of $35,000,000; or (iii) net income from continuing operations of $500,000 in the most recently completed fiscal year or in two of the last three most recently completed fiscal years.

Issue: At the time of the Panel’s decision, the company did not meet the minimum stockholders’ equity requirement or its alternatives. The company argued that it would demonstrate in excess of $2,500,000 in stockholders’ equity when it filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006. When the Form 10-K was filed late, without an auditors opinion, and reported a stockholders’ (deficit) of ($3,985,558), the Panel suspended, pending delisting, the company’s securities.

Determination: The company was properly suspended, pending delisting, because at the time of the Panel’s decision the company was not able to demonstrate compliance with the minimum stockholders’ equity requirement or its alternatives. At the time of the Listing Council’s deliberations, the company had been deficient with the stockholders’ equity requirement for more than nine months, there was nothing in the public record which demonstrated compliance, and there was no evidence that the company had regained compliance on a pro-forma basis.

Furthermore, the company’s plan to increase its stockholders’ equity was not sufficiently definitive at the time of the Panel decision. The company did not provide any definitive documentation regarding potential increases of equity that could be accomplished in the short-term that would enable the company to demonstrate compliance or to maintain compliance with the stockholders’ equity requirement over the long term. Accordingly, after a review of the record in this matter, the Listing Council affirmed the Panel’s decision to delist the company’s securities for failure to demonstrate compliance with the minimum stockholders’ equity requirement or its alternatives, as set forth in Rule 4310(c)(2)(B) for continued listing on the Capital Market.

* * *

with the Commission or appropriate regulatory authority. Annual reports filed with NASDAQ shall contain audited financial statements.

Issue: As a separate and additional ground for affirming the Panel’s decision, the Listing Council noted that the company had not followed through on its plans to file its delinquent September 30, 2006 Form 10-Q “within five business days after filing its Form 10-K”, and was still delinquent in its periodic reporting obligation.

Determination: As an additional ground for affirming the delisting, the Listing Council found that the company had not demonstrated

compliance with the filing requirement and thus, was not in compliance with Listing Rule 4310(c)(14).

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 636

Listing Council Decision 2007-3

Identification Number 637

Issue: The company was not able to file its delinquent periodic SEC reports due to its own stock option backdating investigation and the investigation of its former parent company.* Based on a Panel decision, the company was scheduled to be suspended, pending delisting, by the Panel, because the Panel was at the limit of its discretionary authority. The Listing Council exercised its discretionary authority by calling for review the Panel’s decision, and by also determining to stay any future Panel determinations to suspend the company’s securities from trading, pending further action by the Listing Council.

Determination: The company was suspended, pending delisting, by the Listing Council because the company was not current in all required public filings. Furthermore, in its submission to the Listing Council, the company noted that it was dependent on its former parent to complete its financial restatements. Given that the former parent company could not demonstrate compliance within 60 days, the company would also not be able to demonstrate compliance within the limits of the Listing Council’s discretion of 60 days. The Listing Council has considered the extraordinary circumstances that many companies find themselves in and has undertaken a facts and circumstances analysis in this case to determine if additional remedies are appropriate.

The Listing Council considered many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

The company took appropriate steps once the potential stock option problem had been identified. The company informed its Audit Committee, who, in turn, directed management to conduct a review of the company’s stock option issuance practices since the date of the company’s initial public offering. The company’s investigation was concluded in a month’s time.
Upon the conclusion of the company’s internal investigation, even though no material exceptions were identified, the company adopted remedial measures that strengthened the stock options granting process to avoid a re-occurrence of this problem.
Once the preliminary results of the former parent’s Special Committee were discussed with the company’s Board, the company promptly notified the investing public of its need to restate its financial statement and cautioned investors not to rely on previously filed financial information.
Once the preliminary results of the former parent’s Special Committee were discussed with the company’s Board, the company removed those Board members implicated in the investigation.

The Listing Council was also particularly cognizant, and considered, that the Panel had exhausted its ability to provide the company with an additional extension of time, and would have provided the company more time if available under the rules. Accordingly, the Listing Council finds that the Panel’s determination to delist the company’s securities for failure to comply with the filing requirement, but staying the suspension pending further action by the Listing Council, was appropriate at the time of the decision. However, after a review of the record in this matter, the Listing Council notes that the company is wholly dependent on receiving information from its former parent company before it can move forward and finalize its restatements. When asked by the Listing Council for a definitive date when the company could demonstrate compliance, the company noted that it was unable to provide a specific date when it could file its delinquent periodic reports so as to demonstrate compliance with Listing Rule 4310(c)(14). While the Listing Council is extremely sympathetic to the company’s plight, the Listing Council sees no reason to exercise its discretionary authority to provide additional time for compliance. The Listing Council finds that the company’s plan of compliance is not sufficiently definitive and the company has not provided adequate assurances that the delinquent periodic reports could be filed within the next 60 days, the limit of the Listing Council’s discretion. Based on the foregoing, the Listing Council has determined to suspend, pending delisting, the company’s securities from The NASDAQ Stock Market because the company does not comply with the filing requirement of Listing Rule 4310(c)(14).

* Prior to its initial public offering, the company was a wholly owned subsidiary of its former parent company.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 637

Listing Council Decision 2007-2

Identification Number 638

Issue: The company was not able to file its delinquent periodic SEC reports due to its own stock option backdating investigation and the investigation of its parent company. Based on a Panel decision, the company was scheduled to be suspended, pending delisting, by the Panel, because the Panel was at the limit of its discretionary authority. The Listing Council exercised its discretionary authority by calling for review the Panel’s decision, and by also determining to stay any future Panel determinations to suspend the company’s securities from trading, pending further action by the Listing Council.

Determination: The company was suspended, pending delisting, by the Listing Council because the company was not current in all required public filings. Furthermore, in its submission to the Listing Council, the company noted that it was dependent on the completion of financial restatements by its parent company. Given that the parent company could not demonstrate compliance within 60 days, the company would also not be able to demonstrate compliance within the limits of the Listing Council’s discretion of 60 days. The Listing Council has considered the extraordinary circumstances that many companies find themselves in and has undertaken a facts and circumstances analysis in this case to determine if additional remedies are appropriate.

The Listing Council considered many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

The company took appropriate steps once the potential stock option problem was identified when its Audit Committee, engaged an outside law firm, who in turn engaged independent forensic accountants to assist in conducting an internal investigation of the company’s option grant practices.
The company promptly self-reported to the appropriate regulatory authorities when it contacted the SEC Division of Enforcement
The company has frozen all stock option exercises until its restated financial statements are filed.
Once the internal investigation was completed, the company adopted remedial measures that strengthened the stock options granting process to avoid a re-occurrence of this problem.
Once the preliminary results of the parent’s Special Committee were discussed with the Board, the company removed those Board members implicated in the investigation.
Once the preliminary results of the parent’s Special Committee were discussed with the company’s Board, the company promptly notified the investing public of its need to restate its financial statements and cautioned investors not to rely on previously filed financial information.

to exercise its discretion, to provide additional time for compliance, in this particular instance. The Listing Council finds that the company’s plan of compliance is not sufficiently definitive and the company has not provided adequate assurances that the delinquent periodic reports could be filed within the next 60 days, the limit of the Listing Council’s discretion. Based on the foregoing, the Listing Council has determined to suspend, pending delisting, the company’s securities from The NASDAQ Stock Market because the company does not comply with the filing requirement of Listing Rule 4310(c)(14).

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 638

Listing Council Decision 2007-1

Identification Number 639

Issue: The company was not able to file its delinquent periodic SEC reports due to a stock option backdating investigation. Based on a Panel’s decision, the company was scheduled to be suspended, pending delisting, by the Panel, because the Panel was at the limit of its discretionary authority. The Listing Council exercised its discretionary authority by calling for review the Panel’s decision, and by also determining to stay any future Panel determinations to suspend the company’s securities from trading, pending further action by the Listing Council.

Determination: The company was suspended, pending delisting, by the Listing Council because the company was not current in all required public filings. Furthermore, in its submission to the Listing Council, the company noted that it could not demonstrate compliance within 60 days, which was outside the limits of the Listing Council’s discretion. The Listing Council has considered the extraordinary circumstances that many companies find themselves in and has undertaken a

facts and circumstances analysis in this case to determine if additional remedies are appropriate.

The Listing Council recognizes that the company:

Reacted quickly and took appropriate steps once the potential stock option problem was identified. The company moved quickly to inform its Audit Committee, who, in turn, immediately began an internal investigation, with the help of outside consultants, to determine the depth and breadth of the problem.
Promptly notified regulatory authorities and the investing public of its internal investigation and the investigation of the SEC and the Department of Justice.
Removed and replaced its Chairman of the Board, CFO, and Senior General Counsel, once the preliminary results of the Special Committee were discussed with the Board.
Adopted remedial measures recommended by the Special Committee such as freezing all stock option exercises until restated financial statements are filed.
Promptly notified the investing public of its need to restate its financial statements and cautioned investors not to rely on previously filed financial information.
Recently engaged five new, independent, outside directors.

Accordingly, the Listing Council finds that the Panel’s determination to delist the company’s securities for failure to comply with the filing requirement, but staying the suspension pending further action by the Listing Council, was appropriate at the time of the decision. However, after a review of the record in this matter, the Listing Council notes that Listing Rule 4802(b) only allows the Listing Council the discretion to grant exceptions for a period not to exceed 60 days from the date of the Listing Council Decision or 180 days from the date of the Panel Decision with respect to the deficiency for which the exception is granted. However, the company, in its supplemental submission to the Council, stated that it did not expect to be able to complete its “new” investigation until the second quarter of 2007, which also contemplates that the company would not be able to demonstrate compliance with Listing Rule 4310(c)(14) until some unknown time thereafter.

Consequently, the Listing Council finds that even if it determined to exercise the full extent of its discretion on behalf of the company, by the company’s own admission, such time would still not be enough to demonstrate compliance with Listing Rule 4310(c)(14). As such, the Listing Council sees no reason to exercise its discretion in this particular instance. The Listing Council finds that the company’s plan of compliance is not sufficiently definitive and does not appear to be able to be executed in the near term. Based on the foregoing, the Listing Council has determined to suspend, pending delisting, the company’s securities from The NASDAQ Stock Market because the company does not comply with the filing requirement of Listing Rule 4310(c)(14).

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 639

Listing Council Decision 2006-10

Identification Number 641

Issue: The company stated that its filing of the Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 would be delayed to allow for the completion of an ongoing internal investigation, by a Special Committee of its board of directors, of company practices related to stock option grants to officers and directors, and related matters. The Panel delisted the company’s securities based on a filing delinquency.

Determination: The Listing Council has considered that the Panel discretion under Listing Rule 4802(b) is limited to 90 days from the date of the Panel’s original decision, not to exceed 180 days from the date of the staff’s determination, and that such limit of discretion, did not allow this Panel the ability to provide the company with additional relief. Accordingly, the Listing Council finds that the Panel’s determination to delist the company’s securities from The NASDAQ Stock Market, for failure to comply with the filing requirement of Rule 4310(c)(14), was appropriate at the time of the decision. However, after a review of the record in this matter, the Listing Council has determined to exercise its discretionary authority, under Rule 4802(b)*, to: (i) remove the suspension of trading, and (ii) grant the company a 60 day exception period to demonstrate compliance with all of the Global Market continued listing requirements. In reaching its determination, the Listing Council applied a facts and circumstances analysis, and found that based on its analysis, that this company should be given additional time to become compliant with NASDAQ’s filing requirement.

The Listing Council considered many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

The company reacted quickly and took appropriate steps once the potential stock option problem was identified. The company informed its Audit Committee, who, in turn, immediately began an internal investigation, with the help of outside consultants, to determine the depth and breadth of the problem.
The company promptly notified regulatory authorities and the investing public of its internal investigation. Once the preliminary results of the Special Committee were discussed with the Board, the company removed and replaced its Chairman of the Board and CFO.
After the investigation was concluded, the company adopted all remedial measures recommended by the Audit Committee. Upon the conclusion of the internal investigation, the company promptly notified the investing public of its need to restate its financial statement and cautioned investors not to rely on previously filed financial information.

The Listing Council was also particularly cognizant, and considered, that the Panel had exhausted its ability to provide the company with an additional extension of time, and would have provided the company more time if available under the rules. While the Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information, the Listing Council balanced its analysis with the extraordinary circumstances in which many companies find themselves. The Listing Council is sympathetic to the company in that it is not the only company that is currently ensnared in the thorny issues surrounding the potential restatement of financial statements as a result of the accounting for stock option grants. The Listing Council has considered the extraordinary circumstances that many companies find themselves in and will undertake a facts and circumstances analysis in each case to determine if additional remedies are appropriate. Based upon the record, the Listing Council recognized that the company has been pro-active in trying to regain its status as a good corporate citizen, and believed that such diligence should be rewarded with an extension of time to demonstrate compliance. As such, pursuant Listing Rule 4802(b), the Listing Council finds that it is appropriate in this instance to exercise its discretionary authority and provide the company with a short extension of time to demonstrate compliance with Listing Rule 4310(c)(14).

* Listing Rule 4802(b) allows the Listing Council to grant exceptions for a period not to exceed 60 days from the date of the Listing Council Decision or 180 days from the date of the Panel Decision with respect to the deficiency for which the exception is granted, in each case where it deems appropriate. If Staff determines that there are no public interest concerns that would preclude the company from rejoining the Global Market, the Listing Council finds that the company should be immediately re-instated to trading and shall be provided with a 60 day extension, to become current in its periodic reporting obligation pursuant to Listing Rule 4310(c)(14). If by the end of the exception period, the company has not complied with Listing Rule 4310(c)(14), the company’s securities will be resuspended at the opening of business the following day, and a Form 25, notification of removal from listing, will then be filed with the SEC as required by SEC Rule 19d-1. If, at any time during the exception period, the company becomes deficient in a continued listing requirement of the Global Market, other than the filing requirement, the company will not be given an opportunity to be heard, its securities will be re-suspended, and a Form 25 will be filed with the SEC.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 641

Listing Council Decision 2006-9

Identification Number 642

Rule 4310(c)(14): The issuer shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of all reports and other documents filed or required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”). This requirement is considered fulfilled for purposes of this paragraph if the issuer files the report or document with the Commission through the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system. An issuer that is not required to file reports with the Commission shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of reports required to be filed with the appropriate regulatory authority. All required reports shall be filed with NASDAQ on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or appropriate regulatory authority. Annual reports filed with NASDAQ shall contain audited financial statements.

Issue: The company was unable to timely file its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, because management required additional time to complete its assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Panel delisted the company’s securities based on a filing delinquency.

Determination: The company was properly delisted because at the time of the Panel’s decision the company was not current in all required public filings. As of the date of the Listing Council’s consideration of this matter, the company had filed its delinquent 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005; however, the company had not filed its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006. The Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information regarding the company. The Listing Council finds that investors in securities listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market are entitled to assume that issuers of those securities will promptly and accurately comply with their reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In this case, however, even though as of the date of the Listing Council’s deliberations, the company had filed its delinquent Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, it has still not filed its delinquent Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006. As such, investors did not have access to accurate financial information regarding the company from October 1, 2005 until July 7, 2006, or a period of approximately nine months, and still do not have complete accurate financial information. At the time of the Panel’s decision, the company was not current in all required public filings. Furthermore, in the absence of accurate and reliable financial statements, Staff is unable to determine if the company is in compliance with all of the National Market continued listing requirements.

The Listing Council also denies the company’s request for a 60-day exception to re-list its securities upon becoming current with its periodic reporting obligation. While the Listing Council has the requisite discretionary authority under Listing Rule 4802(b) to entertain such request, the Listing Council finds that it was not appropriate in this instance, given that: (i) the company is a recent repeat offender of the filing requirement. The company’s late filings were the third and fourth consecutive late filings for the company in the past year; (ii) the company has not provided current accurate financial information, and it is unclear to the Listing Council whether the company currently meets either the initial or continued listing requirements for the National Market, (iii) the company’s current filing delinquencies are directly related to many of the issues resulting in its prior delinquency and appearance before a Panel in November 2005, and (iv) the Listing Council’s concurrence with the Panel’s assessment that “multiple deadlines set by the company itself were unmet.” In fact, the Listing Council noted that the company filed its December 31, 2005 Form 10-K on July 7, 2006, one month after the June 5, 2006 extension date it had assured the Panel it could file by, and one week after the June 30, 2006 date it promised in its submission to the Listing Council. The Listing Council notes that Listing Rule 4802(f)* provides, in part, that a security that has been delisted shall be required, prior to reinclusion, to comply with the requirements for initial inclusion. As such, because the Panel appropriately delisted the company’s securities from the National Market, the initial listing requirements provide the correct standard for a review of the company’s listing qualifications. The Listing Council finds that the company will need to file a new listing application together with all applicable initial fees with the Listing Qualifications Department, and the review of such application should be handled in the same manner as any new application to trade.

* Listing Rule 4802(f) replaced former Listing Rule 4430(e). See SR-NASD-2004-125, which was effective August 26, 2005.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 642

Listing Council Decision 2006-8

Identification Number 643

Issue: The company was unable to timely file its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005, due to accounting issues identified after the company moved its corporate headquarters and changed auditors. Thereafter, the company failed to timely file Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended December 31, 2005 and March 31, 2006. Additionally, the company determined that its previously filed financial statements from September 2002 forward should not be relied upon. The Panel delisted the company’s securities based on a filing delinquency.

Determination: The company was properly delisted because at the time of the Panel’s decision the company was not current in all required public filings. As of the date of the Listing Council’s consideration of this matter, the company had still not filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005, Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended December 31, 2005 and March 31, 2006, or any prior period restatements. The Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information regarding the company. The Listing Council finds that investors in securities listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market are entitled to assume that issuers of those securities will promptly and accurately comply with their reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In this case, however, investors have not had access to accurate financial information regarding the company from July 1, 2005 through the present, a period of over 12 months. At the time of the Panel’s decision, the company was not current in all required public filings. Furthermore, in the absence of accurate and reliable financial statements, Staff is unable to determine if the company is in compliance with all of the National Market continued listing requirements.

The company also requested that the Listing Council grant the company an expedited re-listing on upon becoming current with its periodic reporting obligation. The Listing Council denies this request and believes that the exception is not appropriate in this instance. The Listing Council notes that the independent Investigation began in December 2005; however, it was not until mid-May 2006, a period of over five months, before the Panel was provided with any indication that the company was also dealing with signs of earnings management, possible CEO involvement, or tone at the top issues. The Listing Council views the Panel’s behavior as sympathetic to the company’s situation; particularly, after the company’s previous independent auditors advised the company’s management and the Audit Committee of a material weakness related to insufficient personnel resources and the technical accounting expertise within the company's accounting function, and thereafter when concerns regarding the accuracy of the work of the company’s independent

consultant further delayed the company meeting its deadlines. While the Listing Council finds that the Panel was generous, it does not find fault with the Panel’s judgment, in affording the company the multiple extensions and opportunities to achieve the company-proffered and, subsequently missed, designated milestones. The Panel appeared to provide the company with every opportunity to cure its “accounting issues”; however, the results of the Audit Committee Investigation clearly indicated there were other than accounting issues that plagued the company. The Listing Council also recognizes that it was not until late May 2006, five months after the company attended a Panel Hearing and disclosed the ongoing Investigation, before the company was finally delisted. The Listing Council notes that Listing Rule 4802(f)* provides, in part, that a security that has been delisted shall be required, prior to reinclusion, to comply with the requirements for initial inclusion. As such, because the Panel appropriately delisted the company’s securities from the National Market, the initial listing requirements provide the correct standard for a review of the company’s listing qualifications. The Listing Council finds that the company will need to file a new listing application together with all applicable initial fees with the Listing Qualifications Department, and the review of such application should be handled in the same manner as any new application to trade.

* Listing Rule 4802(f) replaced former Listing Rule 4430(e). See SR-NASD-2004-125, which was effective August 26, 2005.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 643

Listing Council Decision 2006-7

Identification Number 644

Issue: The company was unable to timely file its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, due to the resignation of their auditors. Additionally, the company’s new auditors questioned the company’s accounting for tax expense and deferred tax assets for 2003 and 2004. At the time of the Panel’s decision, the company had still not filed its Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended September 30, 2005 and March 31, 2006 or Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. The Panel delisted the company’s securities based on a filing delinquency.

compliance with all of the Capital Market continued listing requirements. The Listing Council denies the company’s request for a 60-day exception to re-list its securities on the Capital Market upon becoming

current with its periodic reporting obligations. The Listing Council finds that it is not appropriate in this instance, given that the company was a recent repeat offender of the filing requirement, had not provided accurate financial information for over eleven months, and it was unclear to the Listing Council whether the company met either the initial or continued listing requirements for the Capital Market. The Listing Council also denies the company’s request that it be allowed to re-list under the continued listing requirements on the Capital Market upon becoming current with its periodic reporting obligations. The Listing Council notes that Listing Rule 4802(f)* provides, in part, that a security that has been delisted shall be required, prior to re-inclusion, to comply with the requirements for initial inclusion. As such, because the Panel appropriately delisted the company’s securities from the Capital Market, the initial listing requirements provide the correct standard for a review of the company’s listing qualifications. The Listing Council finds that the company will need to file a new listing application together with all applicable initial fees with Listing Qualifications, and the review of such application should be handled in the same manner as any new application to trade on The NASDAQ Stock Market.

*Rule 4802(f) replaced former Listing Rule 4430(e). See SR-NASD-2004-125, which became effective on August 26, 2005.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 644

Listing Council Decision 2006-6

Identification Number 645

Issue: The company was unable to timely file its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, due to an audit committee investigation into inventory invoices that had not been properly accounted for on the company’s December 31, 2004 year-end financial statements. The Panel delisted the company’s securities based on a filing delinquency. Subsequent to its delisting, but before the Listing Council’s deliberations, the company became current in its periodic reporting obligations.

Determination: The company was properly delisted because at the time of the Panel’s decision, the company was not current in all required public filings. The Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information regarding the company. The Listing Council finds that investors in securities listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market are entitled to assume that issuers of those securities will promptly and accurately comply with their reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In this case, however, even though as of the date of the Listing Council’s consideration of this matter, the company was current in its periodic reports obligations with the SEC, investors did not have access to accurate financial information regarding the company from August 17, 2005 until February 3, 2006, or a period of approximately five and one-half months. The Listing Council notes that the Panel provided the company with two extensions, in addition to its original extension of time, to become compliant with the filing requirement. The Listing Council observes that the Panel, in looking to provide the company with reasonable extensions, looked to the company for assistance in setting the prescribed deadlines. The Listing Council finds that the company was given every opportunity to regain compliance and notes that the company argued that it was on the “cusp of compliance” each time the Panel provided the company with an additional extension. While the Listing Council was sympathetic to the company’s argument that the timing of the filing was outside the company’s control, the Listing Council concurs with the Panel’s assessment that the company is solely responsible for compliance with the marketplace rules.

The Listing Council also denies the company’s request that the company be allowed to re-list under the continued listing requirements on the Capital Market upon becoming current with its periodic reporting obligation. The Listing Council notes that Listing Rule 4802(f)* provides, in part, that a security that has been delisted shall be required, prior to re-inclusion, to comply with the requirements for initial inclusion. As such, because the Panel appropriately delisted the company’s securities from the Capital Market, the initial listing requirements provide the correct standard for a review of the company’s listing qualifications. The Listing Council finds that the company will need to file a new listing application together with all applicable initial fees with Listing Qualifications, and the review of such application should be handled in the same manner as any new application to trade on The NASDAQ Stock Market.

* Listing Rule 4802(f) replaced former Listing Rule 4430(e). See SR-NASD-2004-125, which became effective on August 26, 2005.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 645

Listing Council Decision 2006-4

Identification Number 647

Issue: The company disclosed it would not timely file its March 31, 2005 Form 10-Q because it needed to restate all of its financial statements between the periods of January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2004, due to revisions in the valuation methodologies used in securitization transactions. The Panel delisted the company’s securities based on a filing delinquency.

Determination: The company was properly delisted because at the time of the Panel’s decision, the company was not current in all required public filings. As of the date of the Listing Council’s consideration of this matter, the company had still not filed its restated financial statements or Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2005. The Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information regarding the company. Investors in securities listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market are entitled to assume that issuers of those securities will promptly and accurately comply with their reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In this case, however, investors did not have access to accurate financial information regarding the company from January 1, 2002 through the date of the Listing Council’s deliberations. Furthermore, in the absence of accurate and reliable financial statements, Staff is unable to determine if the company was in compliance with all of the National Market continued listing requirements.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 647

Listing Council Decision 2006-3

Identification Number 648

Issue: The company was unable to timely file its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, due to an audit committee investigation into the company’s internal controls relating to travel and entertainment expenses. At the time of the Panel’s decision, the company had filed its December 31, 2004 year-end Form 10-K and March 31, 2005 Form 10-Q, but had not filed its Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended June 30 and September 30, 2005. The Panel delisted the company’s securities based on a filing delinquency.

Determination: The company was properly delisted because at the time of the Panel’s decision, the company was not current in all required public filings. As of the date of the Listing Council’s consideration of this matter, the company had still not filed its Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended June 30 and September 30, 2005. The Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information regarding the company. Investors in securities listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market are entitled to assume that issuers of those securities will promptly and accurately comply with their reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In this case, investors did not have access to accurate financial information regarding the company, for over nine months, from April 1, 2005 through the date of the Listing Council’s deliberations. The Listing Council notes that in the absence of accurate and reliable financial statements, Staff is unable to determine if the company was in compliance with all of the National Market continued listing requirements. The Listing Council denies the company’s request for a 60-day exception to re-list its securities on the National Market upon becoming current with its periodic reporting obligation. The Listing Council finds that it is not appropriate in this instance, given that the company had not provided accurate financial information for over nine months, and it was unclear to the Listing Council whether the company met either the initial or continued listing requirements for the National Market.

The Listing Council also denies the company’s request that the company be allowed to re-list under the continued listing requirements on the National Market upon becoming current with its periodic reporting obligations. The Listing Council notes that Listing Rule 4802(f)& provides, in part, that a security that has been delisted shall be required, prior to re-inclusion, to comply with the requirements for initial inclusion. As such, because the Panel appropriately delisted the company’s securities from the National Market, the initial listing requirements provide the correct standard for a review of the company’s listing qualifications. The Listing Council finds that the company will need to file a new listing application together with all applicable initial fees with Listing Qualifications, and the review of such application should be handled in the same manner as any new application to trade on The NASDAQ Stock Market.

* Rule 4802(f) replaced former Listing Rule 4430(e). See SR-NASD-2004-125, which became effective on August 26, 2005.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 648

Listing Council Decision 2006-2

Identification Number 649

Issue: The company’s year ended December 31, 2004 Form 20-F was delinquent due to a change of independent auditors and internal accounting staff, the delayed receipt of financial information from a significant investment, and the delayed receipt of accounting information related to the company’s other investments.

Determination: The company was properly delisted because at the time of the Panel’s decision, the company was not current in all required public filings. As of the date of the Listing Council’s deliberations, the company had still not filed its delinquent December 31, 2004 Form 20-F. The Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information regarding the company. The Listing Council finds that investors in securities listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market are entitled to assume that issuers of those securities will promptly and accurately comply with their reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Listing Council notes that in the absence of accurate and reliable financial statements, Staff is unable to determine if the company was in compliance with all of the Capital Market continued listing requirements.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 649

Listing Council Decision 2005-9

Identification Number 610

Issue: In connection with a periodic review of the company's filings, the Commission questioned the company's accounting for development costs and advances related to Indian casinos.

Determination: The company was properly delisted because at the time of the Panel's decision the company was not current in all required public filings. As of the date of the Listing Council's consideration of this matter, the company still had not filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2005 or Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended April 3 and July 3, 2005. The Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information regarding the company. Investors in securities listed on NASDAQ are entitled to assume that issuers of those securities will promptly and accurately comply with their reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Listing Council noted that in the absence of accurate and reliable financial statements, Staff was unable to determine if the company was in compliance with all of the Capital Market continued listing requirements.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 610

Listing Council Decision 2005-8

Identification Number 611

Rule 4310(c)(2)(B): For continued inclusion on The NASDAQ Capital Market, the issuer shall maintain:

Issue: At the time of the Panel’s decision, the company did not meet the minimum stockholders’ equity requirement or its alternatives for continued listing on The NASDAQ Capital Market. The company’s plan of compliance included a projected increase in stockholders’ equity to $2,874,000 at June 30, 2005. However, at the time of its decision, the Panel had not received any information from the company indicating it had achieved this projection or that it planned to report stockholders’ equity in compliance when it reported its second quarter earnings.

Determination: The company was properly delisted because at the time of the Panel’s decision the company was not able to demonstrate compliance with the minimum stockholders’ equity requirement or its alternatives, and its plan to regain compliance was not sufficiently definitive. At the time of the Listing Council’s deliberations, the company had been non-compliant for more than ten months and had still not provided any public filing which demonstrated compliance with the rule.

* * *

Issue: The company’s March 31, 2005 Form 10-Q contained financial statements that were not reviewed by independent auditors in conformance with SAS 100, as required by SEC Rule 10-01(d) of Regulation S-X. As such, the company did not comply with the filing requirement contained in Listing Rule 4310(c)(14).

Determination: The company was properly delisted because at the time of the Panel’s decision the company was not current in all required public filings. Even though the company became current shortly before the Listing Council’s deliberations, investors had been without access to current financial information for a period of nine months. The Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information regarding the company. Investors in securities listed on NASDAQ are entitled to assume that issuers of those securities will promptly and accurately comply with their reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Listing Council noted that in the absence of accurate and reliable financial statements, Staff was unable to determine if the company was in compliance with all of the Capital Market continued listing requirements.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 611

Listing Council Decision 2005-7

Identification Number 612

Issue: In connection with a periodic review of the company’s filings, the Commission questioned the company’s allocation to goodwill of customer related intangibles that were obtained through the acquisition of other businesses. Thereafter, the company disclosed that its audit committee concluded the previously issued financial statements for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and each of the four quarters of fiscal 2003 and the first three quarters of fiscal 2004 would need to be restated. The Panel delisted the company’s securities based on a filing delinquency.

Determination: The company was properly delisted because at the time of the Panel’s decision the company was not current in all required public filings. As of the date of the Listing Council’s consideration of this matter, the company had still not filed its Form 10-K for the year ended December 26, 2004, Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31 and June 26, 2005 or any prior period restatements. The Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information regarding the company. Investors in securities listed on NASDAQ are entitled to assume that issuers of those securities will promptly and accurately comply with their reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In this case, however, investors did not have access to accurate financial information regarding the company from December 26, 1999 through the date of the Listing Council’s deliberations. Furthermore, in the absence of accurate and reliable financial statements, Staff was unable to determine if the company was in compliance with all of the National Market continued listing requirements.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 612

Listing Council Decision 2005-6

Identification Number 613

Issue: At the Panel hearing, the company represented that it would file its delinquent December 31, 2004 Form 10-K later that day, and its delinquent March 31, 2005 Form 10-Q within 45 days. The company did not file its delinquent Form 10-K as promised and did not update the Panel as to the reasons until prompted by Panel staff. The Panel delisted the company’s securities based on a filing delinquency, after the company filed its delinquent Form 10-K, because the company had not filed its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 and had not demonstrated the ability to maintain compliance with the filing requirement over the long term.

Determination: The company was properly delisted because at the time of the Panel’s decision the company was not current in all required public filings. The Listing Council found that the Panel relied on the veracity of the company’s representations at the hearing that the company would file its Form 10-K later that day. The company’s acts of not filing its Form 10-K, failing to contact the Panel to correct its representations, and not informing the Panel as to the reasons for the failure to file, were significant events that the company knew, or should have known, were “material” to the Panel’s ultimate decision in this case. Given the Panel’s reliance on the company’s assurance that the Form 10-K filing would be made that day, the Listing Council found that the company should have reported these material events to the Panel immediately.

The Listing Council also found it reasonable, based upon all the facts and circumstances, including the company’s inability to file its Form 10-K on a timely basis, the lack of disclosure to the Panel, and recent history of delinquent filings, that the Panel questioned the company’s ability to maintain compliance with the filing requirement over the long term.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 613

Listing Council Decision 2005-5

Identification Number 614

Rule 4300*: NASDAQ, in addition to applying the enumerated criteria set forth in the Listing Rule 4300 and 4400 Series, will exercise broad discretionary authority over the continued inclusion of securities in NASDAQ in order to maintain the quality of and public confidence in its market. Under such broad discretion, NASDAQ may apply additional or more stringent criteria for the continued inclusion of particular securities or suspend or terminate the inclusion of particular securities based on any event, condition, or circumstance which exists or occurs that makes continued inclusion of the securities in NASDAQ inadvisable or unwarranted in the opinion of NASDAQ, even though the securities meet all enumerated criteria for continued inclusion in NASDAQ.

Issue: The Panel gave the company an extension to file its delinquent Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004. Pursuant to Listing Rule 4300, the Panel also exercised its discretionary authority and applied additional and more stringent criteria, whereby the Panel provided for a monitoring period of the company, which required the company to timely file all periodic reports ending on or before December 31, 2005. The company did not file the Form 10-Q within the original extension period and subsequently received additional extensions. The company also did not timely file its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. The Listing Council called the Panel's decision to determine if the additional extensions were appropriate.

Determination: The Panel's decision was reversed because, after citing Rule 4300 and applying additional and more stringent criteria, the Panel did not hold the company to the heightened standard. When the company missed its Panel imposed deadlines, the Panel provided the company with additional time. At the time of the Listing Council's consideration, the company still had not filed its delinquent December 31, 2004 Form 10-K. Consequently, the Listing Council determined, as a policy, to limit the discretion that Panels could exercise and found that exceptions granted by the Panel should not be greater than 90 days from the date of issuance of the Panel's decision.

* Please note that Listing Rule 4300 was re-codified and changed in August 2005. NASDAQ also added interpretative material regarding the use of its discretionary authority. For the current version of the rule, see Marketplace Listing Rule 4300 and IM-4300.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 614

Listing Council Decision 2005-2

Identification Number 617

Rule 4310(c)(14): The issuer shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of all reports and other documents filed or required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission"). This requirement is considered fulfilled for purposes of this paragraph if the issuer files the report or document with the Commission through the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system. An issuer that is not required to file reports with the Commission shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of reports required to be filed with the appropriate regulatory authority. All required reports shall be filed with NASDAQ on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or appropriate regulatory authority. Annual reports filed with NASDAQ shall contain audited financial statements.

Issue: After the company disclosed its audit committee's conclusions that the previously issued financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2002, and 2003, as well as all quarterly periods beginning January 1, 2001, should no longer be relied upon, the Panel delisted the company's securities based on a filing delinquency. The company had not filed its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 or any restatements.

Determination: The company was properly delisted because at the time of the Panel's decision the company was not current in all required public filings. As of the date of the Listing Council's consideration of this matter, the company had still not filed its Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended June 30 and September 30, 2004 or any prior period restatements. The Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information regarding the company. Investors in securities listed on NASDAQ are entitled to assume that issuers of those securities will promptly and accurately comply with their reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In this case, investors did not have access to accurate financial information regarding the company from January 1, 2001 through the date of the Listing Council's deliberations.

* * *

Rule 4350(i)(1)(B): Each issuer shall require shareholder approval ... prior to the issuance of designated securities ... when the issuance or potential issuance will result in a change of control of the issuer.

Rule 4350(i)(1)(D)(ii): Each issuer shall require shareholder approval ... prior to the issuance of designated securities in connection with a transaction other than a public offering involving: ... (ii) the sale, issuance or potential issuance by the company of common stock (or securities convertible into or exercisable common stock) equal to 20% or more of the common stock or 20% of more of the voting power outstanding before the issuance for less than the greater of book or market value of the stock.

Issue: The company violated Rules 4350(i)(1)(B) and 4350(i)(D)(ii) by issuing greater than 20% (in this case over 50%) of its pre-transaction total shares outstanding at a discount to the market price. The company issued 17,647,058 shares of its common stock in a private placement at $0.85 per share for a total purchase price of $15,000,000. Following the sale, the purchasers would own 50.3% of the company's outstanding common stock and would have the right to designate a majority of the board of directors. The price of the company's common stock was $1.65 at the time of the transaction.

Determination: Given that the company had 17,419,857 pre-transaction total shares outstanding, the transaction resulted in a greater than 20% issuance of securities and a change of control. The company was properly delisted for failure to comply with the shareholder approval requirements.

* * *

Rule 4310(c)(17): Issuers are required to notify NASDAQ 15 days prior to: (i) issuing securities that may potentially result in a change of control, or (ii) entering into a transaction that may result in the potential issuance of common stock (or securities convertible into common stock) greater than 10% of either the pre-transaction total shares outstanding or the voting power outstanding on a pre-transaction basis.

Issue: The company did not file the required listing of additional shares form notifying NASDAQ of the transaction.

Determination: The company was properly delisted for failure to comply with the listing of additional shares notification requirement.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 617

Listing Council Decision 2004-11

Identification Number 620

Rule 4310(c)(14): The issuer shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of all reports and other documents filed or required to be filed with the Commission. This requirement is considered fulfilled for purposes of this paragraph if the issuer files the report or document with the Commission through the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval ("EDGAR") system. An issuer that is not required to file reports with the Commission shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of reports required to be filed with the appropriate regulatory authority. All required reports shall be filed with NASDAQ on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or appropriate regulatory authority. Annual reports filed with NASDAQ shall contain audited financial statements.

Issue: After the company disclosed that it would restate its Forms 10-Q and delay filing its Form 10-K as a result of its audit committee’s investigation into accounting improprieties, the Panel delisted the company’s securities based on a filing deficiency. The company had not filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003; Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, or any prior period restatements for fiscal 2001 and 2002.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 620

Listing Council Decision 2004-7

Identification Number 653

Rule 4310(c)(14): The issuer shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of all reports and other documents filed or required to be filed with the Commission. This requirement is considered fulfilled for purposes of this paragraph if the issuer files the report or document with the Commission through the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval ("EDGAR") system. An issuer that is not required to file reports with the Commission shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of reports required to be filed with the appropriate regulatory authority. All required reports shall be filed with NASDAQ on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or appropriate regulatory authority. Annual reports filed with NASDAQ shall contain audited financial statements.

Issue: The company disclosed, in response to concerns raised by its independent auditors that it had initiated an internal investigation into its revenue recognition and inventory accounting practices. Furthermore, the financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2001 forward would need to be revised, and the previously issued financial statements during that time period should not be relied upon. As such, the company was unable to file its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 653

Listing Council Decision 2004-6

Identification Number 654

Rule 4310(c)(14): The issuer shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of all reports and other documents filed or required to be filed

with the Commission. This requirement is considered fulfilled for purposes of this paragraph if the issuer files the report or document

with the Commission through the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval ("EDGAR") system. An issuer that is not required

to file reports with the Commission shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of reports required to be filed with the appropriate regulatory

authority. All required reports shall be filed with NASDAQ on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or

appropriate regulatory authority. Annual reports filed with NASDAQ shall contain audited financial statements.

Issue: The company disclosed that its audit committee initiated an investigation, in connection with a continuing Securities and

Exchange Commission investigation and at the request of its independent auditors, into the accounting and disclosures related to the

company’s relationship with one of its distributors. As such, when the company filed its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September

30, 2003, the filing had not been reviewed by its independent auditors as required by SEC Rule 10-01(d) of Regulation S-X. As a

result, the company’s financial statements for that period could not be relied upon.

Determination: The company was properly delisted for failure to comply with the filing requirement. The Listing Council takes

seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with

current information regarding the company. Investors in securities listed on NASDAQ are entitled to assume that the companies of

those securities will promptly and accurately comply with their reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 654

Listing Council Decision 2004-1

Identification Number 659

Rule 4310(c)(14): The issuer shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of all reports and other documents filed or required to be filed with the Commission. This requirement is considered fulfilled for purposes of this paragraph if the issuer files the report or document with the Commission through the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval ("EDGAR") system. An issuer that is not required to file reports with the Commission shall file with NASDAQ three (3) copies of reports required to be filed with the appropriate regulatory authority. All required reports shall be filed with NASDAQ on or before the date they are required to be filed with the Commission or appropriate regulatory authority. Annual reports filed with NASDAQ shall contain audited financial statements.

Issue: The company filed its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, however, the filing had not been reviewed by its independent auditors, as required by SEC Rule 10-01(d) of Regulation S-X. As a result, the company’s financial statements for that period could not be relied upon.

* * *

Rule 4350(i)(1)(D)(ii): Each issuer shall require shareholder approval ... prior to the issuance of designated securities in connection with a transaction other than a public offering involving: … (ii) the sale, issuance or potential issuance by the company of common stock (or securities convertible into or exercisable common stock) equal to 20% or more of the common stock or 20% of more of the voting power outstanding before the issuance for less than the greater of book or market value of the stock.

Issue: The company violated Listing Rule 4350(i)(1)(D)(ii) by issuing greater than 20% of its pre-transaction total shares outstanding at a discount to the market price. The offering consisted of 9,500,000 shares of common stock, plus the potential issuance of 4,750,000 shares of common stock resulting from the exercise of the warrants. As such, the aggregate issuance would be 14,250,000 shares, or 22% of the 63,085,854 total shares outstanding on a pre-transaction basis, at below the market price based on a blended average of the common stock and warrant exercise prices.

Determination: The company was properly delisted for failure to comply with the shareholder approval requirement. Although the company stated that it was prepared to cure its shareholder approval violation, a period of approximately two and one-half months had passed, and the violation still had not been cured at the time of the Listing Council’s consideration.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 659

Listing Council Decision 2003-20

Identification Number 660

Rule 4310(c)(14): The issuer shall file with NASDAQ all reports and other documents required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Annual reports filed must contain audited financial statements.

Issue: The company failed to file its Form 10-K for its fiscal year end or its first and second quarter Forms 10-Q because it was in the process of restating its prior financial statements. In connection with the restatement, the company was also performing an internal investigation. As a result of the restatements, the company’s financial statements and audit report for the previous fiscal year could not be relied upon. At the time of the Listing Council’s decision, the company had been out of compliance with the filing requirement for six months and had still not made the necessary filings.

Determination: The company was properly delisted for failure to comply with the filing requirement. The Listing Council takes seriously the requirement to file accurate and reliable financial statements and the concomitant purpose to provide investors with current information regarding the company. Investors in securities listed on NASDAQ are entitled to assume that issuers of those securities will promptly and accurately comply with their reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In this case, however, investors did not have access to accurate financial information regarding the company for the previous fiscal year and the subsequent interim periods. Furthermore, in the absence of accurate and reliable financial statements, Staff was unable to determine if the company was in compliance with all of the NASDAQ continued listing requirements. With respect to the company’s request to be allowed to relist under continued listing criteria after it makes its periodic filings and restatements, the Listing Council notes that under Listing Rule 4330(e), a security that has been terminated from NASDAQ must meet the initial listing requirements before re-inclusion. Because the Panel appropriately delisted the company’s securities, the initial listing requirements are the correct standard for a review of the company’s listing qualifications at such time the company seeks to be.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 660

Listing Council Decision 2003-19

Identification Number 661

Issue: After the company disclosed that it had replaced its auditor, would need to restate its prior period financial statements, and would delay filing its Form 10-K as a result of its audit committee’s investigation into accounting improprieties, the Panel delisted the company’s securities based on a filing deficiency. The company subsequently filed amended prior period financial statements and its Forms10-K and 10-Q, which were deficient for a period of approximately 2 and 1 ½ months, respectively, as a result of accounting restatements related to an overstatement of the company’s revenue and net income.

Determination: The Panel’s decision was reversed because the company made the required filings and received an unqualified independent auditors’ opinion. However, there was insufficient record evidence to determine whether public interest concerns existed, particularly given the extent of the restatements, an investigation being conducted by the SEC, and the result of an internal investigation, which concluded that the company had engaged in fraudulent accounting. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Panel with instructions to further remand to Staff for an investigation. Thereafter, the Panel was required to issue a decision making a determination as to whether public interest concerns existed. If the Panel determined that no public interest concerns existed and there were no other deficiencies, the Panel was instructed to promptly relist the company’s securities.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 661

Listing Council Decision 2003-15

Identification Number 665

Issue: The company had not filed its Form 10-K or the past two Forms 10-Q and did not provide an estimated date for filing these SEC reports.

* * *

Rule 4310(c)(4): $1 minimum bid price requirement for continued listing on the SmallCap Market.

Issue: The bid price of the company’s common stock was below $1 for approximately 21 months. The company planned to effect a 1-for-4 reverse stock split after its annual meeting.

Determination: The company was properly delisted for failure to comply with the minimum bid price requirement. Even if the company effected its planned 1-for-4 reverse stock split, its share price would still be below $1.

* * *

Rule 4350(g): Issuers are required to solicit proxies and provide proxy statements for all meetings of shareholders.

Issue: Although the company recently filed a definitive proxy statement with the SEC, it previously had not filed a proxy statement, or solicited proxies, since its securities were listed on NASDAQ in 2000.

Determination: The company was properly delisted for failure to comply with the proxy solicitation requirements.

* * *

Rule 4310(c)(7): $1,000,000 market value of publicly held shares requirement for continued listing.

Issue: Based on information in the company’s information statement and its most recent stock price, its market value of publicly held shares was less than $1,000,000. The company believed its stock was undervalued.

Determination: The company was properly delisted for failure to comply with the market value of publicly held shares requirement.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 665

Listing Council Decision 2003-14

Identification Number 666

Issue: After the company disclosed that it would delay filing its Form 10-K as a result of its audit committee’s investigation into accounting improprieties, the Panel delisted the company’s securities based on a filing deficiency. The company subsequently filed its Forms10-K and 10-Q, which were deficient for a period of approximately 4 and 2 ½ months, respectively, as a result of accounting restatements related to revenue recognition adjustments.

* * *

Rule 4350(d)(2): An issuer must have an audit committee of at least three members, comprised solely of independent directors.

Issue: Two members of the audit committee served as interim presidents for approximately 45 days.

Determination: There was insufficient record evidence to determine whether the audit committee members were independent; therefore, the matter was remanded to the Panel. The company must provide the Panel with information as to whether such members received compensation as defined in the Rule 10A-3(b)(1)(ii)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and whether such members otherwise comply with NASDAQ Marketplace Listing Rule 4350(d)(2). If the audit committee members do not meet the criteria pursuant to the aforementioned rules, the company must submit a plan to the Panel to rectify the audit committee deficiency. If the Panel determines that the company’s only deficiency is the audit committee requirement, the Panel must provide the company an opportunity to cure the deficiency.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 666

Listing Council Decision 2003-12

Identification Number 668

Issue: After the company disclosed that it would delay filing its Form 10-K as a result of its audit committee’s investigation into accounting improprieties, the Panel delisted the company’s securities based on a filing deficiency. The company subsequently filed its Form 10-K and Form 10-Q, which were deficient for a period of approximately five and three months, respectively, as a result of accounting restatements related to revenue recognition adjustments.

Determination: The Panel’s decision was reversed because the company made the required filings, received an unqualified independent auditors’ opinion and was not deficient with any other NASDAQ requirement. However, there was insufficient record evidence to determine whether public interest concerns existed, particularly given the extent of the restatements and a formal investigation being conducted by the SEC. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Panel with instructions to further remand to Staff for an investigation. Thereafter, the Panel was required to issue a decision making a determination as to whether public interest concerns existed. If the Panel determined that no public interest concerns existed and there were no other deficiencies, the Panel was instructed to promptly relist the company’s securities.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 668

Listing Council Decision 2003-6

Identification Number 674

Issue: The company failed to file its first and second quarter Forms 10-Q as a result of an investigation and accounting restatements. As a result of the restatements, the company’s financial statements and audit report for the previous fiscal year could not be relied upon. At the time of the Listing Council’s decision, the company had been out of compliance with the filing requirement for approximately five months and had still not made the necessary filings.

Publication Date*: 7/31/2012

Identification Number: 674

Page: 1 of 2

home_footer_links

Nasdaq
What is Nasdaq?
Newsroom
Investor Relations
Careers

Public Policy Advocacy
On the Issues
Nasdaq Filings
Economic Signals

Corporate Solutions
Intelligence
Communications
Governance
Visibility

Related Links
Issuer Alerts
Listing Rules/Rule Filings
MarketWatch Electronic Disclosure
Nasdaq Online
Symbol Reservation

Copyright_statement

The Nasdaq Stock Market, Nasdaq, The Nasdaq Global Select Market, The Nasdaq Global Market, The Nasdaq Capital Market, ExACT and Exchange Analysis and Compliance Tracking system are trademarks of Nasdaq, Inc.
FINRA^® and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.^® are registered trademarks of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.

My Nasdaq Analyst

My Nasdaq Analyst

All
Within Last 30 days
Within Last 60 days
Last 3 Years
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002