Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
big_island, I suspect Finch may have had something to do with notifying the SEC as Cane/Clark has another company acquired in similar fashion shortly before AIDO that has not been delisted by the SEC even though Cane/Clark has not done any filings for that company as well, and that stock is still trading as we speak.
Thanks for your efforts here, Wick -- trying to keep matters alive for us. I am still irked about that almost immediate delisting -- and I suspect it happened because one of the posters here wrote that he contacted Dan Finch a few months ago, calling to Finch's attention that aido was under going some active trading (with Finch then expressing surprise about that) -- then a few days later: delisting.
This suggests to me that that SOB Finch contacted the SEC and requested immediate killing of aido stock. My reason for saying that is that I have 'dead' pennies in my account for years and years and they have not delisted and are still available for trading. Aido could have remained available for trading for some who wanted to get at least 0.005 and clear their account and get a few dollars back for all their holdings. It didn't have to delist....so I suspect SOB Finch arranged that.
Finally, that dern guy has the audacity to be on Linked In, as though he has some professional credential after blowing off Advanced ID. That's shocking to me; he should be ashamed to present a public image of any sort. But that's the world of pennies, I've learned. Seems that 99.9% of these little companies are short-lived and set up to make a few people money...... I don't 'do' pennies any longer.
(If I were of the 'suing' type, I'd like to do something about this; after all those promising PRs Finch put out in recent years, and then he walks away. But I suppose one would have to have copies of all those promising PRs)
MaconMan, You need an account with the Nevada SoS to order copies of the document..
The link just shows the listing. Is there access to the actual filing? Does it say who the officers were?
Resignation of Officers filed a couple of weeks ago... http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/corpActions.aspx?lx8nvq=Kr0Idaeuk%252bMJMh9Ng%252bIFeg%253d%253d&CorpName=ADVANCED+ID+CORPORATION
Rgess, I emailed Bryan Clark, and he turned it over to Joe Laxague, who replied. As an alternative, I considered the possibility that the Ball family of Calgary might pursue taking over the company since they are large percentage share holders, but I have not made contact with them to determine if they are interested.
-----Original Message-----
From: Laxague, Joe <JLaxague@caneclark.com>
To: WICK <wickw50@aol.com>
Cc: Clark, Bryan <bclark@caneclark.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 23, 2013 1:21 pm
Subject: RE: Advanced ID Corp
Mr. Wick – no, not by our client. As custodian, our client reinstated the corporation with the State of Nevada and was looking for prospects that could be brought in as a new business for the company. Due to the SEC trade halt and administrative proceeding regarding its years of unfiled SEC reports, however, the company has been essentially killed off as a publicly traded entity in our opinion.
Please contact me if you wish to discuss it further.
Joe Laxague
Cane Clark LLP
3273 E. Warm Springs Rd.
Las Vegas, NV 89120
Phone: (702) 312-6255
Fax: (702) 944-7100
Mobile: (702) 525-6012
www.caneclark.com
From: Clark, Bryan
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:16 AM
To: Laxague, Joe
Subject: FW: Advanced ID Corp
From: WICK [mailto:wickw50@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:31 AM
To: Clark, Bryan
Subject: Advanced ID Corp
Mr. Clark,
Any chance of Advanced ID Corp being brought back to life publicly?
J. Wick
Shareholder
Any update here? Aido gone for good?
Thanks, Wick and Renee, for your informative replies to me. B.I.
big_island, I plan to keep in touch with Joe Laxague (jlaxague@caneclark.com) from time to time and see if they decide it is worth bringing the financials up to date... hopefully, some day they may decide to resurrect this as a public corporation...
I have yet to see any formerly suspended Grey Sheet stock regain stock registration with the SEC.
It may not necessarily be impossible but keep in mind that a company that did not file Financials for several years is not likely to thereafter see the light and want to re-apply, a lengthy process, BTW.
Advanced ID could have rectified the situation by simply filing Financials. They didn't.
Wick -- I just now found your extensive reply to me last month. You've answered my questions about any future. Thanks for that info...and indeed, it is unfortunate for many of us who had faith in Dan Finch and aido.
big_island, Here is the contact I have used recently at Cane/Clark. He has responded several times. He can probably update you best on where we stand. jlaxague@caneclark.com ... (Joe Laxague)
Yes, it's apparent it can't be traded...my concern is about what lies ahead. For example, is it still available to be revived, or is it just dead meat forever? There was supposedly a law group who was interested a few months ago, spurring some active trading. Is this still a possibility.... or have they, too, abandoned aido? Anyone?
Unfortunately the stock cannot trade because the stock registration has been revoked, so essentially Advanced ID is a private company.
So, now what, Folks? Is this the absolute end? All us holders no longer having a chance to get even one dollar back? Who knows what happens from here? :(
that is a no limit order(market)....MM taking advantage of peeps see it all the time on another POS stock
dont sweat it
a 4700 share trade at .0001 ... that's not good... eom
I agree.... I called four times to joe at caneclark... Never in and never returned calls go figure...both Dan and Seymour claim nothing was paid for shell. And said it was just taken over if you can believe that....but said shareholders will have to be notified before they can move ahead. ..maybe a court case could bring things to a head...
I'm surprised that Dan talked to anyone about aido, consider that the SOB abandoned the company (..company???), letting it slip away and leaving us shareholders with some hope of there actually being a rfid business to build again (after the recession). He just slipped away. He should be in hiding.
So what lies ahead for us? The new folks appear to be as little interested in aido as Dan Finch is/was.
MaconMan, OK and thanks for the effort. (I forwarded that info about Dan and Eduardo on to Joe).
Sorry wick, no I don't.I tried to do some internet searching and on the surface he looks like another Hawaii guy that maybe Seymour involved in AIDO. He was a real estate appraiser in California and then Hawaii and has let both of those licenses lapse, and was involved in some Hawaiian Legacy Hardwoods thing (http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs088/1103508273861/archive/1105430979144.html) that seems to now be defunct. I can not find anything recent (since some time in 2012) that he is involved in other than he "flew in from Thailand" to attend a 2012 Parent’s & Alumni dinner for the Cal Poly Rugby Club & Mustang Rugby Inc (http://www.calpolyrugby.com/2012/04/933/), where he was a player when he was in school. maybe he lives in Thailand now???
Sorry wick, no I don't.I tried to do some internet searching and on the surface he looks like another Hawaii guy that maybe Seymour involved in AIDO. He was a real estate appraiser in California and then Hawaii and has let both of those licenses lapse, and was involved in some Hawaiian Legacy Hardwoods thing (http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs088/1103508273861/archive/1105430979144.html) that seems to now be defunct. I can not find anything recent (since some time in 2012) that he is involved in other than he "flew in from Thailand" to attend a 2012 Parent’s & Alumni dinner for the Cal Poly Rugby Club & Mustang Rugby Inc (http://www.calpolyrugby.com/2012/04/933/), where he was a player when he was in school. maybe he lives in Thailand now???
jj, yep... that sounds like Dan and Seymour...
Talked to both Dan and Seymour past week... Both claim they didn't know company was been taken over by caneclark and said we would have to be informed by them before they can proceed they don't have no idea of what is going on. Par for the course
Macon,Man, btw, would you know how to get in touch with that Velci guy?
MaconMan, Thanks, I will pass that on to Joe...
If you go to this website (http://americas-tech.com/) and go to the Contact tab at the top, Dan is listed there. Clicking on his name gives you his email but it is a gmail account.
The other contact, Eduardo Kühner, is another guy that was involved with AIDO at the end when they stopped everything. If you go to the site's Group tab at the top, the left side of the page shows bios and mentions their involvement with AIDO. By what it shows on the site it looks like Dan just moved everything he was doing at AIDO over to this company.
This is the last cell phone number I have for Dan Finch: 214-755-0932
As I recall the Ball family in Canada (Real Estate holdings) had a large percentage of shares in the old company. Those share were managed by a gentleman and member of the family named Greg(I don't think his last name is Ball). He was in touch with Dan Finch and Seymour Kazimirsky on a regular basis. Maybe Greg could provide information if anyone knows how to get in touch with him....
got it, thanks
see my previous answer.
or attempting to terminate its reporting obligations by filing Form 15.
just a side note; in order to file a 15 the company would have had to have been current. a 15 doesn't get you out of past obligations.
Thanks for sharing. I don't see why they can't just file a form 15?
big_island, Well, I got a reply from Joe Laxague regarding future trading,... not exactly what I had hoped to hear:
Yes. The prior officers went for years without making SEC filings or attempting to terminate its reporting obligations by filing Form 15. From time to time, the SEC will start administrative proceedings to revoke registration of groups of companies in this situation. Because of that administrative filing, the stock is likely dead forever. We have no access to any records from the period during which the company was out of business and failing to report and thus no ability to file the intervening years of SEC periodic reports. Even if that were possible, it would likely not help at this stage. Nearly all trade halts are temporary, but once trading is halted for any period of time, brokers’ ability to trade it is severely limited. This combined with the SEC’s administrative filing likely makes any trading impossible. Theoretically, it could trade by appointment on the grey market, but few if any brokers will handle those trades.
Immediately after my client filed for custodianship over the company, persons unknown began to include the stock in pumping press releases (you know the type – lists of “hot stocks” that are ready for “big movement”). This garbage, combined with an otherwise inexplicable increase in volume, almost certainly led to the trade halt, which itself did certainly lead to the company coming up on the SEC’s radar and being tracked for revocation of registration. In general, promotion of a stock and/or a significant increase in trade volume when it has not made information available for years will lead to an OTC Markets “skull and bones” designation, an SEC trade halt, and eventual death.
It’s an unfortunate situation, as we had intended to seek options for recapitalizing the company and finding it a business opportunity so that it could become more than an empty shell. Given what has happened, however, this is now likely impossible.
Joe Laxague
Cane Clark LLP
3273 E. Warm Springs Rd.
Las Vegas, NV 89120
Phone: (702) 312-6255
Fax: (702) 944-7100
Mobile: (702) 525-6012
www.caneclark.com
SEC Rule 15c2-11 governs the submission and publication of quotations by brokers and dealers for certain non-Nasdaq over-the-counter equity securities. Specifically, the rule applies to a broker/dealer's initiation or resumption of quotations for such securities in any interdealer quotation medium, including the NASD's OTC Bulletin Board" and National Quotation Bureau, Inc.'s "Pink Sheets" ("pink sheets"). Pursuant to the rule, brokers and dealers are required to review and maintain specified information about the issuer of the security before publishing a quotation for that security.
Unless an exception to Rule 15c2-11 is available, the rule can be satisfied in one of only five ways: (1) the broker/dealer must have in its possession a prospectus specified by Section 10(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) that has been filed with the Commission and which has been in effect less than 90 calendar days; or (2) the broker/dealer must have a copy of the offering circular provided for under Regulation A of the Securities Act and the effective date must be within the preceding 40 days; or (3) the issuer must be current in its filings with the Commission and the broker/dealer must have in its possession the issuer's latest Form 10-K and all subsequent Form 10-Qs and Form 8-Ks; or (4) the issuer must be exempt from Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) and the broker/dealer must have in its possession all the information furnished to the Commission during the issuer's last fiscal year; or (5) the broker/dealer must have in its possession 16 items of information about the issuer, including financial information which shall be reasonably current in relation to the day the quotation is submitted.
Paragraph (g)(1) of Rule 15c2-11 provides that the required financial information with respect to the issuer will be presumed to be reasonably current, unless the broker/dealer has information to the contrary, if the balance sheet is as of a date less than 16 months before the submission or publication of the quotation; the statements of profit and loss and retained earnings are for the 12 months preceding the date of such balance sheet; and, if such balance sheet is not as of a date less than six months before the submission or publication of the quotation, is accompanied by additional statements of profit and loss and retained earnings for the period from the date of such balance sheet to a date less than six months before the submission or publication of the quotation.
Information that does not satisfy the time frame of paragraph (g)(1) of Rule 15c2-11, is presumptively not reasonably current. Broker/dealers seeking to rely on information outside of the time frame must affirmatively establish that the financial information is reasonably current.
Documentation compiled by a member pursuant to Rule 15c2-11 must be filed with the NASD pursuant to Schedule H, Section 4 of the By-Laws together with a completed Form 211 at least three business days prior to entering a quotation in a quotation medium. Upon receipt, the NASD conducts a substantive review of the material and within three business days, notifies the broker/dealer whether the application has cleared such that quotation activity may begin or, alternately identifies deficiencies in the submission which must be resolved prior to a member being permitted to enter a quotation in a quotation medium.
The following is a compilation of questions and answers relative to SEC Rule 15c2-11, the NASD's OTC Bulletin Board, and Schedule H of the NASD By-Laws.
QUESTIONS
Rule 15c2-11, Informational Requirements
Question #1: What degree of scrutiny must a broker/dealer give the required Rule 15c2-11 documentation prior to submitting the information to the NASD seeking clearance to publish a quotation?
Answer: Prior to submitting the information to the NASD, a broker/dealer must have a reasonable basis for believing that the information is accurate in all material respects and is obtained from a reliable source.
Question #2: What steps should a broker/dealer take to have a reasonable basis to believe that the information is accurate in all material respects?
Answer: A broker/dealer must review the material for obvious errors, internal inconsistencies, and questionable disclosures. This review must be in the context of all other information about the issuer in the broker/dealer's knowledge or possession, including the information required by paragraph (b).
Question #3: What are the requirements of Rule 15c2-11 paragraph (b)?
Answer: Paragraph (b) requires a broker/dealer to have in its possession: (1) A record of the circumstances surrounding the quotation request, including the identity of the person for whom the quotation is being submitted, (2) a copy of the trading suspension order or the Commission release announcing the suspension if the security has been suspended by the Commission during the last 12 months, and (3) a copy or written record of other material information, including adverse information, that the broker/dealer becomes aware of prior to publishing a quotation.
Question #4: What steps should a broker/dealer take to have a reasonable basis to believe that the information is obtained from a reliable source?
Answer: Generally, a broker/dealer can be satisfied that information is obtained from a reliable source if it is received from the issuer or its agents, or was obtained from an independent information service such as the Commission's public reference room. If a broker/dealer receives information about an issuer from another market maker or someone other than an agent of the issuer, the broker/dealer should verify the validity of the information with the issuer. Agents do not include promoters or others outside the issuer that may have a personal or an indirect interest in the security.
Question #5: Under what circumstances would a broker/dealer be required to take further steps to have a reasonable basis to believe that the information is accurate in all material respects and the sources of the information are reliable?
Answer: Ordinarily the broker/dealer need not do any further review unless a potential material deficiency has been detected. Examples of potential material deficiencies are material inconsistencies in the information or between the information and other information in the broker/dealer's possession, a qualified auditor's report, a recently acquired asset that materially enhances the financial condition of the issuer, or a material asset listed on the balance sheet that is unrelated to the issuer's business.
Question #6: What should a broker/dealer do if a potential material deficiency is detected in the documents?
Answer: A broker/dealer's specific efforts to satisfy itself with respect to the accuracy of the information if a potential material deficiency has been detected will vary with the circumstances, and may require the broker/dealer to obtain additional information or seek to verify existing information. For example, the broker/dealer may be satisfied that the information is correct after questioning the issuer, or the broker/dealer may need to consult an independent source, such as an attorney or accountant. Regardless of the methodology used to review a potential material deficiency, members are required to maintain in their records any other material information (including adverse information) regarding the issuer which comes to the member's knowledge or possession before the publication or submission of the quotation. Members are also strongly urged to document the manner in which the material deficiencies are resolved.
Question #7: May a broker/dealer satisfy its obligation to review the required information and have a reasonable belief as to its accuracy and the reliability of its source solely because its documentation has been reviewed by the NASD?
Answer: No. A broker/dealer must independently satisfy the requirements of Rule 15c2-11. Clearance by the NASD to initiate quotations in a quotation medium is not a substitute for this review.
Question #8: Are a wholesale market maker's obligations under Rule 15c2-11 any different than a retail market maker's obligations?
Answer: No. Commission Release No. 34-29094 states that the rule is directed at the fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative potential of a broker/dealer's quotations, and does not focus on whether the broker/dealer also engages in retail activity.
Question #9: Can a supplemental prospectus satisfy Rule 15c2-11(a)(1)?
Answer: Yes. As long as the supplemental prospectus is filed pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Securities Act and includes sufficient information about the issuer to enable the broker/dealer to satisfy its obligation under Rule 15c2-11, i.e., it contains the types of information described in Rule 15c2-11(a)(5). However, if the issuer meets the requirements of Rule 15c2-11(a)(3), the broker/dealer must obtain the documents required by Rule 15c2-11(a)(3).
Question #10: Is the issuer required to be current in its filings with the Commission in order for the broker/dealer to utilize Rule 15c2-11(a)(3)?
Answer: Yes. Issuers that meet the requirements of Rule 15c2-11(a)(3) are those issuers that report to the Commission and are current in their reports. The broker/dealer must have the issuer's latest Form 10-K and all subsequent Form 10-Qs and those Form 8-Ks filed within five business days prior to publication or submission of the quotation. If the issuer has not filed a Form 10-K, the broker/dealer must have a copy of the prospectus, which has been in effect less than 16 months, and all subsequent Form 10-Qs and Form 8-Ks. If a filing is due at the Commission prior to the NASD's clearance of the Form 211 application, that filing must also be submitted with the application.
Question #11: What happens if an issuer is not current in its filings with the Commission?
Answer: If the issuer is not current in its filings with the Commission, the broker/dealer can seek to satisfy another subsection of the rule. Usually this would be Rule 15c2-11(a)(5). However, the fact that the issuer is not current in its filings may bear upon the determination of whether the available information is materially accurate.
Question #12: Can banks that file Form 10-Ks and Form 10-Qs with the Office of Thrift Supervision or other bank regulators satisfy Rule 15c2-11(a)(3)?
Answer: If the reports are filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act with bank regulators, the reports will satisfy Rule 15c2-11(a)(3).
Question #13: What information is required to be submitted under Rule 15c2-11(a)(4) relating to certain foreign issuers which are exempt from the periodic reporting requirements of Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act?
Answer: The broker/dealer is required to submit all the information that the issuer has furnished during its past fiscal year to the Commission in order for the issuer to maintain its Rule 12g3-2(b) exemption.
Question #14: Must the financial information required under Rule 15c2-11(a)(5) be independently audited?
Answer: No. Rule 15c2-11(a)(5) does not require audited financials. However, a broker/dealer would ordinarily be required to review unaudited financial statements more closely than if the statements were independently audited. Nevertheless, simply because the statements have been audited, a broker/dealer cannot avoid its responsibility to review the financial statements in order to have a reasonable basis to believe that the information is accurate.
Question #15: If an issuer has filed a Form 10-K or a prospectus with the Commission and the issuer is current in its reports to the Commission, can the broker rely on Rule 15c2-11(a)(5)?
Answer: No. If an issuer has filed a 10-K or prospectus with the Commission and is current in its reports, the broker must file under, and have in its possession the information required by, Rule 15c2-11(a)(3).
Question #16: What are the requirements for a broker/dealer if the issuer or its predecessor has been the subject of a Commission trading suspension during the preceding year?
Answer: An SEC trading suspension should alert the broker/dealer to the possibility that information in its possession concerning the issuer may no longer be current or accurate. The broker/dealer must be particularly cautious when seeking to reinstate quotations following an SEC trading suspension. The member must obtain a copy of the Commission trading suspension order or the Commission release announcing the trading suspension. A broker/dealer should, at a minimum, receive assurances or additional information with respect to matters cited in the suspension order or with respect to other matters affecting the broker/dealer's reasonable belief as to the accuracy of the information. Reliance on new information or assurances from prior sources of information in these circumstances, however, requires caution. In exceptional cases, where the source is unable to provide reasonable assurances about the reliability of the information, consultation with an independent accountant or attorney may be warranted. All information gathered in the broker/dealer's investigation of the issues must accompany the Form 211 application.
Rule 15c2-11 Exceptions
Question #17: Are there any exceptions from the informational requirements of Rule 15c2-11?
Answer: Yes. If a broker/dealer can meet one of the exceptions of Rule 15c2-11, it is not required to maintain or submit to the NASD any documents required by Rule 15c2-11. These exceptions primarily relate to instances where a broker/dealer wishes to quote a security that: is traded on a national securities exchange in the United States; represents unsolicited customer interest; has been the subject of regular and continuous quotations for the past 30 days; or is traded on Nasdaq.
Question #18: When does the Rule 15c2-11(f)(1) "exchange" exception apply?
Answer: The exchange exception applies to securities that are traded on a United States national securities exchange on the same day or the business day prior to the day the application is made to the quotation medium.
Question #19: If the common stock of an issuer trades on the New York Stock Exchange, are the warrants of the same issuer exempt from Rule 15c2-11?
Answer: No. The exception relates only to specific securities and not to the issuer. Each security must independently meet the requirements of the exception.
Question #20: If trading in a security is halted or suspended on Nasdaq or an exchange, but the security has not been officially delisted from Nasdaq or the exchange, can it be listed on the OTC Bulletin Board?
Answer: No. The OTC Bulletin Board is only for non-Nasdaq, non-U.S. exchange-listed securities. Dual listing is not permitted. Until a security is officially delisted from an exchange or Nasdaq, it cannot be entered on the OTC Bulletin Board.
Question #21: If the broker/dealer is claiming the Rule 15c2-11(f)(2) "unsolicited customer interest" exception of Rule 15c2-11, can the broker/dealer publish quotations for the security in a quotation medium for its own account?
Answer: No. If the broker/dealer claims the unsolicited customer interest exception, it can only publish or submit a quotation for that customer account. If the broker/dealer wishes to publish or submit a quotation for its own account or any other accounts, it must comply with Rule 15c2-11. Paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 15c2-11 does not apply to a quotation consisting of both a bid and an offer, each at a specified price, unless the quotation medium specifically identifies the quotation as representing a customer's unsolicited indication of interest.
Question #22: Will the NASD be monitoring the broker/dealer's compliance with the unsolicited customer interest exception?
Answer: Yes. The NASD monitors all aspects of broker/dealer compliance with Rule 15c2-11, including a quotation utilizing the unsolicited customer interest exception. The NASD may require the broker/dealer to produce its trading records and other documents to determine whether the broker/dealer traded for any account other than the indicated customer.
Question #23: What are the requirements of Rule 15c2-11(f)(3), the "piggyback" exception?
Answer: If a broker/dealer is relying on the Rule 15c2-11(f)(3) exception, the security must be quoted in the same interdealer quotation medium as the intended quotation during the past 30 calendar days, and that during those 30 days the security had to be quoted on at least 12 days without more than four consecutive business days without quotations.
Question #24: Do "name only" quotations satisfy the piggyback exception requirement that the security be quoted in the quotation medium?
Answer: Yes. The information requirements of Rule 15c2-11 apply to name only as well as priced quotations. Both types of quotations can be used to satisfy the piggyback exception. It should be noted, however, that each broker/dealer submitting a quotation must satisfy the informational requirements of Rule 15c2-11 until all of the requirements of the piggyback exception, including the 30-day quotation period, have been satisfied.
Question #25: What happens when a security is no longer quoted by a broker/dealer in the quotation medium?
Answer: If a security is not quoted by any broker/dealer for a period of more than 4 business days, the security no longer qualifies for the piggyback exception. A broker/dealer would be required to comply with Rule 15c2-11 before it could initiate or resume quotation of the security.
Question #26: What constitutes a "business day" for purposes of Rule 15c2-11?
Answer: For purposes of Rule 15c2-11, a "business day" is defined by reference to the quotation medium to which a broker/dealer submits the quotation. Any day that the quotation medium accepts and disseminates quotations would constitute a "business day" under Rule 15c2-11.
Question #27: Must a broker/dealer quote a security for an entire "business day" to qualify for the "piggyback" exception contained in paragraph (f)(3)ofRulel5c2-11?
Answer: Under the "piggyback" exception, a security will be deemed to have been quoted on a business day where a broker/dealer has continuously quoted a security for all or a substantial portion of that day. The existence of closing quotations on the OTC Bulletin Board may be used by the NASD to create a rebuttable presumption that the broker/dealer continuously quoted a security for a substantial portion of the business day.
Question #28: If a security qualifies for the piggyback exception in one quotation medium, does it meet the piggyback exception for other quotation mediums? For example, if a security is quoted in the OTC Bulletin Board, can a market maker quote the security in the "pink sheets" without filing a Form 211 application?
Answer: No. The staff of the SEC takes the position that the piggyback exception does not transfer from one quotation medium to another. Thus, quotations for a security in the OTC Bulletin Board may not be used to satisfy the piggyback requirements for the "pink sheets."
Question #29: What are the requirements of Rule 15c2-11(f)(5), the "Nasdaq" exception?
Answer: In order for a broker/dealer to rely on the Nasdaq exception, the security must be authorized for quotation on Nasdaq and the authorization must not be suspended, terminated, or prohibited.
Question #30: Can a broker/dealer publish a quotation on the OTC Bulletin Board for a security that is currently traded on Nasdaq?
Answer: No. The OTC Bulletin Board does not allow quotations for Nasdaq securities.
Question #31: If the common stock and units of an issuer are already quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board, does a Form 211 application need to be submitted for the warrants of the same issuer?
Answer: Yes. Rule 15c2-11 applies to securities, not issuers. Quotations for the common stock and units may be in compliance wit