InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 103
Posts 9634
Boards Moderated 3
Alias Born 11/06/2009

Re: frosr6 post# 128301

Saturday, 04/18/2015 11:37:36 AM

Saturday, April 18, 2015 11:37:36 AM

Post# of 163731
That's correct, as was stated in that example "Finra's refusal to process ".

But the split doesn't go 'through' the state it's domiciled in ...
They pulled a stunt there, putting the horse before the cart:

Prior to submitting its reverse-split application to Finra, EcoloCap had processed the change with the state of Nevada, where the company is registered, and obtained shareholders' permission to reduce its number of shares.



This is a little tortured ...

Before 2010, states had the main authority to approve or disapprove of actions such as reverse splits by companies whose shares were traded over the counter.

But then the SEC approved Finra Rule 6490, which required companies to notify Finra of actions such as reverse splits, dividends or name changes. It also gave Finra power to conduct reviews when such actions were proposed and to refuse to allow the actions when it received incomplete paperwork or when it saw indications of potential fraud.

Finra used its authority under Rule 6490 to deny EcoloCap's reverse split, even though the company had already amended its articles of incorporation on file with the state of Nevada, making the reverse split effective under state law, Anthony wrote.



Apparently this "Anthony" isn't quite up to date on how these things work. They can't just skirt the process and amend their AIC (Split wise) without FINRA approval.