Replies to post #112832 on Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[nerby]

Gotta agree with that, loan.

[TOB]

You're misrepresenting my statement by selectively quoting one sentence.

"I think the bottom line is we just don't know. And that "we" included the CEO being advised by very competent attorneys specializing in up-listing. "

To suggest that the CEO "just don't know" exactly what the uplisting requirements are at this point, or AT ANY POINT, is patently absurd. -loanranger

Which is misleading as you omit my explanation in the rest of the paragraph.

I think the bottom line is we just don't know. And that "we" included the CEO being advised by very competent attorneys specializing in up-listing. Why? For the simple reason being NASDAQ exercises discretion and they conduct a discussion with the company after the application is filed. NASDAQ has their own process and timing. As we are applying to join their club, we await their decision on the pending application. -TOB

I've highlighted what you chose to ignore. As the process involves discussion and discretion on the part of NASDAQ, this adds the element of uncertainty to both competent attorneys and competent CEOs. Thus I'm suggesting that they believed they met the criteria, but couldn't predict NASDAQ's discretionary discussion and decision process.

I've heard of several examples of companies meeting criteria, but NASDAQ deciding to delay, see another filing, or see a rising share price, all discretionary. You know of two, that they state in their rules that they use audited financials, yet use discretion in sometimes relying of un-audited 10-Qs. They are also not clear on what 'operating history' means to them and don't used the term as standard in the financial industry.

So yes, it's not black and white and unless the attorneys and CEO are clairvoyant, they would not know in advance what would be the result of NASDAQ's discretionary judgement.