|
|
|
| |
|
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
685
|
|
|
Rules 4300 and 4330(a)(3): NASDAQ may exercise its discretion in applying additional or more stringent criteria for initial or continued inclusion or suspend or terminate the inclusion of an otherwise qualified security if NASDAQ deems
it necessary to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, or to protect investors and the public interest.
Issue: Staff's investigation revealed a stock exchange settlement agreement involving a director of the company, who was also an officer and significant shareholder. The agreement, in which the director acknowledged the facts in the agreement
as true and correct, set forth the regulatory history of the director, including misrepresentations to the stock exchange and numerous serious violations of sales practice regulations, which occurred in the mid-1990's. The company stated that it made good
faith efforts to address Staff's concerns through the director's resignation from the board and his position as an officer. In addition, the director provided irrevocable proxies for his voting rights to the independent directors of the company.
Determination: The company was properly delisted based on public interest concerns. The Listing Council believed that the stock exchange findings constituted a pattern of fraudulent behavior towards public investors. Furthermore, the director
continued to exert influence over the company as a significant shareholder and an employee serving in an important role. Although the director provided irrevocable proxies to independent directors, the proxies expired in two years, and the director was not
prevented from disposing of his shares or purchasing and voting additional shares of the company prior to such time. The director's admitted past violations of the stock exchange securities regulations and his continued influence over the company raised the
risk of future violations of securities laws and regulations and provided grounds for denying the company's request for continued listing in order to protect the quality of and public confidence in The NASDAQ Stock Market and to protect investors and the public
interest. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has held that "the risk associated with investing in NASDAQ is market risk rather than the risk that the promoter or other persons exercising substantial influence over the issuer is acting in an illegal
manner."* The SEC has further held that "both the tax and the securities regulatory schemes depend on the honor, candor, and integrity of regulated persons to report accurately to the regulatory authority the information sought by such authority."**
* * *
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. The company stated that its stock was below $1 for only two days prior to delisting and, therefore, had not been below $1 for the 30 consecutive business days as required
by Listing Rule 4310(c)(8)(B). The company maintained that its compliance with the minimum bid price requirement should therefore be evaluated based on the first 30 consecutive days after it begins trading on NASDAQ.
Determination: The company was properly delisted based on public interest concerns. Because the company did not comply with the minimum bid price requirement and did not have a definitive plan to regain compliance in the near term, it
would be inappropriate to relist the company. In this regard, the SEC has determined that investors are entitled to assume that the securities on NASDAQ meet the listing requirements.
* DHB Capital Group, Inc., Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 37069 (April 5, 1996) (quoting Tassaway, Inc., Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 34151
(March 13, 1975)).
** JJFN Services, Inc., Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 39343 (November 21, 1997).
|
Publication Date*:
7/31/2012
|
|
|
Identification Number:
685
|
|
|
|
|