Public Interest
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.
Bid Price
Rule 5550(a)(2): A Company that has its Primary Equity Security listed on the Capital Market must continue to maintain a minimum bid price of at least $1 per share.
Issue: The company was delisted by a Hearings Panel for public interest concerns and for failure to regain compliance with NASDAQ’s minimum bid price requirement.
After granting the company two 180 day compliance periods to regain compliance with the minimum bid requirement, Staff issued a delisting determination. The company appealed the determination to the Hearings Panel. During the Hearings Panel proceedings,
Staff determined the company was a public interest concern based on the action it took in writing off substantial loans owed by the company’s CEO, who is also Chairman of the company. On November 16, 2011, the Hearings Panel issued a decision to delist the
company based on its non-compliance with the minimum bid price requirement and for public interest concerns. On November 29, 2011, the company appealed the Hearings Panel decision to delist the company to the Listing Council.
Bid Price
The company has been, and continues to be, out of compliance with NASDAQ’s bid price requirement. The company failed to regain compliance with the bid price rule by effectuating a reverse stock split, as it had committed to do as a condition of receiving
a second 180 compliance period. Staff issued a delisting determination at the expiration of the second compliance period, consistent with Listing Rule 5550(a)(2).
Subsequent to Staff’s delisting determination, and the company’s appeal of the matter to the Hearings Panel , the company asserted that it had regained compliance with Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) since its bid price had closed at or above $1.00 for ten trading
days. Staff had not made such a determination and was reviewing what it considered suspicious trading in the company’s stock. Upon completion of its preliminary review of the aberrant trading in the company’s stock, Staff determined to extend the period to
regain compliance with the bid price requirement to twenty days, consistent with the authority provided by Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(F). Staff based its decision on several facts that led it to believe that the stock was manipulated.
The company did not maintain a bid price of $1 or more during the twenty day compliance period, never had a closing bid price significantly over $1, and currently has closing bid prices in the mid 20 cent range, which is near the price it had traded prior
to the brief run up in its stock price. The company had committed to effectuate a stock split if its stock was still below $1.00 at the end of the second compliance period, a condition to receiving the second period pursuant to Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A)(ii),
yet did not do so. The company did not indicate a willingness to effectuate a reverse stock split during the Hearings Panel proceedings.
Public Interest Concerns: Related Party Loan Write Off
Prior to its listing in August 2008, the company extended loans totaling approximately $140 million to two companies controlled by the company’s CEO and largest shareholder for the stated purpose of funding the construction of expressways in China. Subsequently,
the loan terms were modified and extended on multiple occasions. Despite receiving only one interest payment on the non-performing notes, the company also froze interest accruals on the non-performing notes and determined to extend $129 million in new loans
to the two entities owned and controlled by the Chairman and CEO, in addition to two other companies also owned by him (collectively, the “Non-Performing Loans”).
In September 2009, in an attempt to collect on the monies owed by the CEO’s entities, the company entered into a letter of intent to purchase 51% of one of the companies, yet it had to abandon the purchase when it was clear that government approval was
not forthcoming. In July 2011, the company announced that its board of directorsors had determined to write off a substantial portion of the Non-Performing Loans. The company also announced that the CEO had offered ownership interest in a commercial, residential
real estate and retail shopping mall development project as partial payment of the Non-Performing Loans, and that the board of directorsors was evaluating the proposal. In August 2011, the company issued a press release that announced that the board of directorsors
had met and discussed, among other things, the company’s plans to write off the Non-Performing Loans involving the CEO, and taking a 51% interest in a property held by the CEO as a partial offset to the Non-Performing Loans. In a Form 8-K filed with the SEC
in October 2011, the company stated that it had entered into agreements to acquire 51% of the entity controlled by the CEO, (the “Development Company”), as described in the company’s prior disclosures. The company also noted that it had recorded provisions
for bad debt expense of $149.5 million, or more than 70% of the $210 million owed by the companies controlled by the CEO.
In October 2011, Staff informed the company that it had determined that the company’s actions concerning the related party Non-Performing Loans represented a public interest concern, which was an additional basis for delisting pursuant to Listing Rule
5101. As a basis for its determination, Staff asserted that the company failed to undertake sufficient efforts to collect the amounts due on the Non-Performing Loans, instead accepting rights to control a separate related-party company, the value of which
was much less than the outstanding principal and interest balances. Staff further noted that the company’s failure to aggressively pursue collection efforts, and the subsequent transactions, were done for the benefit of the CEO and to the detriment of non-affiliated
shareholders. In response to the additional basis for delisting, the company claimed that management and the board of directorsors acted in the best interests of the public shareholders with respect to the Non-Performing Loans, noting that it had modified,
extended, and deferred interest payments on the loans as a normal response to any non-performing loan and the decision to write off the majority of the loan was made only made after all efforts were exhausted.
Public Interest Concerns: CFO Resignation
In mid-December 2011, the company issued a Form 8-K that disclosed that, the company received a letter of resignation on September 21, 2011 from CFO of the company, who was also a company director. The resignation letter was sent to the CEO. The company
asserted in the Form 8-K that it did not accept the CFO’s resignation, but that it knew that he did not continue to perform his duties as CFO of the company. There is evidence in the record that the company along with then-company counsel and independent auditors
were aware of the CFO’s unambiguous and immediate resignation from the company as a director and CFO. The company appointed an interim CFO a day prior to filing the mid-December 2011 Form 8-K.
Notwithstanding the CFO’s resignation several SEC disclosures were subsequently filed with the SEC containing his signature. As detailed in the company’s mid-December 2011 Form 8-K, the company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 filed
on October 13, 2011, its Quarterly Report on 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, filed on November 14, 2011 and its Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, filed on November 14, 2011, all of which included the resigned
CFO’s signatures, had in fact not been prepared or reviewed by the resigned CFO, and the resigned CFO had not personally signed such reports or consented to the use of his signature on such reports. It also appears that the company forged the resigned CFO’s
signature on a letter to Staff, dated September 30, 2011 – eight days after his resignation and unknown to him.
Determination: Affirmed. After a review of the record in this matter, the Listing Council affirms the Hearings Panel decision.
Bid Price
The Listing Council concludes that Staff acted appropriately in delisting the company based on bid price deficiency and its failure to cure the deficiency with a reverse stock split at the end of its second compliance period as it had committed to do.
The Listing Council further concludes that it was appropriate for Staff to apply a 20-day compliance period to the bid price deficiency pursuant to Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(F) based on concerns of stock price manipulation. The company asserts that the increases
in its stock price and volume are due to the public’s positive reaction to the Development Company acquisition. The Listing Council finds this argument unpersuasive given that the abnormal trading in the company’s stock began over a month after the initial
notice of the potential acquisition on, yet days prior to subsequent news concerning the prospective transaction. The Listing Council further concludes that Hearings Panel acted appropriately in delisting the company for failing to regain compliance with
the minimum bid price requirement. The company was unwilling to effectuate a reverse stock split adequate for it to regain compliance with Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) and the company’s closing bid price was declining during the period from the Hearings Panel hearing
through the issuance of its decision.
The company’s revised compliance plan provided to the Listing Council includes a provision to seek authority to effectuate a reverse stock split to regain compliance with Listing Rule 5550(a)(2), which would take approximately 45 to 50 days according to
the company. The Listing Council believes that the company has had ample opportunity to cure its bid price deficiency over the 360 days it was afforded by Staff, and as such, the Listing Council finds no reason to reverse the Hearings Panel’s decision to delist
the company.
Public Interest Concerns: Related Party Loan Write Off
The company wrote off as bad debt approximately $150 million of the $210 million owed under the Non-Performing Loans. The Listing Council believes that it was a reasonable determination to find a public interest concern based on the facts and circumstances.
The Non-Performing Loans were made to entities controlled by the company’s Chairman and CEO, who received the benefits of the loans over many years, paying negligible interest and repaying only a fraction of the original amount loaned. The Listing Council
is concerned that the company has not acted in the best interest of its public shareholders and believes that the company’s actions with respect to the Non-Performing Loans show a pattern of conduct that, in aggregate, reasonably support a determination that
delisting was warranted pursuant to Listing Rule 5101.
Public Interest Concerns: CFO Resignation
The Listing Council finds very concerning the apparent forgery of the resigned CFO’s signature on documents filed with the Commission and submitted to NASDAQ, the failure to disclose the CFO’s resignation as CFO and director timely, and the statements
made an independent director at the Hearings Panel hearing, which were misleading and evasive. It is undisputed that the CFO resigned in September 2011. It is also undisputed that the CEO and independent director were notified of resignation at the time of
the resignation. Notwithstanding, the CEO and independent director permitted the company to submit documents to the SEC and NASDAQ with the resigned CFO’s signature as the purported CFO. In addition, at the Hearings Panel hearing, which occurred after the
resignation of the CFO yet before the appointment of an interim CFO, an independent director stated that he had spoken to the CFO regarding possible manipulation of the company’s stock price. The earliest evidence in the record of NASDAQ’s concern regarding
possible manipulation of the company’s stock price was in a request for information sent to the company’s then-counsel on September 22, 2011, a day after the resignation of the CFO from the company. The Listing Council finds the company’s misrepresentations
and lack of disclosure concerning CFO’s resignation very troubling and an additional basis to delist the company pursuant to Listing Rule 5101.
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.” This authority stems directly from NASDAQ’s delegated responsibilities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Listing Rule 5101 is not invoked lightly and, in instances
in which a public interest concern is identified, the issues are very serious. In the present case, Staff’s concerns over the company’s actions concerning the loans made to the CEO and Chairman were sufficient to find a public interest concern and to delist
the company pursuant to Listing Rule 5101. The company’s misrepresentations and lack of disclosure concerning the CFO’s resignation is an independent, and truly troubling, basis for determining the company represents a public interest concern, and thus warrants
delisting pursuant to Listing Rule 5101.