|
|
Timeframe
|
|
|
Category
|
|
|
Sub-Category
|
|
|
** To make multiple selections, select the first criterion and then press and hold
the Ctrl Key **
|
|
|
1- 1 of 1
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; All
|
|
|
|
Identification Number
616
|
|
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 for continued listing on The NASDAQ Capital Market. The company argued that it would demonstrate in excess
of $500,000 in net income from continuing operations when it filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. As such, the company requested an exception for six months to file its Form 10-K. Alternatively, the company requested additional
time to consummate a combination with an American Stock Exchange listed company. The effect of the combination would increase the company's stockholders' equity above the $2,500,000 continued listing requirement. The Panel was unwilling to grant the company
additional time to file its Form 10-K and also opined that the combination was not sufficiently definitive for an extension of time.
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. At the time of the Listing
Council's deliberations, the company had been non-compliant for over eight months and had still not consummated its business combination with the American Stock Exchange listed company.
* * *
Rule 4350(c): Each issuer shall maintain a sufficient number of independent directors on its board of directors to satisfy the audit committee requirement set forth in Listing Rule 4310(d)(2).
Rule 4310(d)(2): Each issuer must have, and certify that it has and will continue to have, an audit committee of at least three members, each of whom must: (i) be independent as defined under Listing Rule 4200(a)(15); (ii) meet the criteria
for independence set forth in Rule 10A-3(b)(1) under the Act (subject to the exemptions provided in Rule 10A-3(c)); (iii) not have participated in the preparation of the financial statements of the company or any current subsidiary of the company at any time
during the past three years; and (iv) be able to read and understand fundamental financial statements, including a company's balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement. Additionally, each issuer must certify that it has, and will continue to
have, at least one member of the audit committee who has past employment experience in finance or accounting, requisite professional certification in accounting, or any other comparable
experience or background which results in the individual's financial sophistication, including being or having been a chief executive officer, chief financial officer or other senior officer with financial oversight responsibilities.
Issue: After the Panel had issued its decision, a member of the company's audit committee resigned, leaving the company with only two independent audit committee members.
Determination: As a separate and additional ground for affirming the delisting of the company's common stock, the Listing Council found that because the company had not appointed a new independent director to the company's audit committee,
the company had failed to demonstrate compliance with the independent directors and audit committee composition requirements.
Publication Date*:
7/31/2012
|
|
|
Identification Number:
616
|
|
|
|
|