Replies to post #295563 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[Tough_to_make_money]

Thanks biopharm..Always on the ball!

[revenue_monster]

profitability has nothing to do with stock price. they need to come with more than that.

[exwannabe]

So the decision above was APPROVED for extension based on the company's statements and guess what? The decision to go public with telling shareholders and filing with the SEC the last 3 conference calls stating we are "x..." months away from becoming profitable will be key statements and Peregrine will of course have to show a card or puzzle piece or two for their supporting documents

Might want to read that a little more carefully.

Yes, the hearing committee granted the company's 1st extension. And a stated reason for that was a commitment to RS if need be. Same as with PPHM in Sep.

But in the following 6 months, the company failed to execute the reverse split. So then the hearing committee denied the second extension request and the listing council confirmed the decision.

The only difference at all between this an PPHM is that with PHMM the RS already has been approved by shareholders.


https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/Material_Search.aspx?cid=14&mcd=CD&sub_cid=76
Expand the first line to see it.

Rule 5550(a)(2): For continued listing, the minimum bid price per share for common stock shall be at least $1 per share.

Issue: The company was delisted by a Hearings Panel for failing to regain compliance with Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) after it was provided with the full extent of time available to do so by Staff and a Hearings Panel. The company appealed the Hearings Panel decision to the Listing Council.

Determination: Affirmed. The Hearings Panel was willing to grant the company an extension of time so that it could regain compliance with Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) because the company had committed to gaining shareholder approval of a stock split in a ratio sufficient to regain compliance with the rule. The company was unable to gain such approval in the time afforded. The Hearings Panel issued a second decision, which granted the company the full extent of time available under the rules contingent on the company gaining the required shareholder approval by a date sufficient for it to regain compliance with Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) prior to the expiration of the extension. The company failed to gain shareholder approval by the deadline, and the Hearings Panel issued a decision to delist the company’s shares.

In affirming the Hearings Panel decisions, the Listing Council finds that granting the company extensions to regain compliance with the $1 bid price requirement was reasonable and appropriate given the facts and circumstances presented by the record at the time the decisions were issued. In particular, it was reasonable for the Hearings Panel to rely on the company’s statements and commitments. It is incumbent on a company to provide NASDAQ accurate statements and to make commitments based on well-considered and reasonable assumptions. In the present case, it is not clear that the company’s failure to achieve the various commitments made to the Hearings Panel was due to a failure to consider all contingencies or was a result of unreasonable assumptions. In any event, the company failed to meet the most critical of those commitments, and the Listing Council finds no reason not to affirm the decision to delist the company’s securities.

[Dragon Lady]

Quote LOL, "Possible and here are the past Nasdaq hearing decisions .... based on price

"In affirming the Hearings Panel decisions, the Listing Council finds that granting the company extensions to regain compliance with the $1 bid price requirement was reasonable and appropriate given the facts and circumstances presented by the record at the time the decisions were issued. In particular, it was reasonable for the Hearings Panel to rely on the company’s statements and commitments. "
https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/Material_Search.aspx?cid=14&mcd=CD&sub_cid=76

So the decision above was APPROVED for extension based on the company's statements and guess what? The decision to go public with telling shareholders and filing with the SEC the last 3 conference calls stating we are "x..." months away from becoming profitable will be key statements and Peregrine will of course have to show a card or puzzle piece or two for their supporting documents "

WHAT????????????

1) The "council" has only granted such extensions like 10 times in 10 YEARS or whatever the number is (approx 2002 to TODAY), LOL !!

2) AND, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH WAS LEFT OFF, LOL !! The one that states, the "plan" to "regain compliance" was via a REVERSE SPLIT, a REVERSE SPLIT THAT SAID COMPANY JUST DIDN'T GET DONE IN TIME, thus were gonna get formerly de-listed.....LOL .....LOL GAWD LOL !!

https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/Material_Search.aspx?cid=14&mcd=CD&sub_cid=76

FULL TEXT OF TRUNCATED POSTED FACTS:

"Issue: The company was delisted by a Hearings Panel for failing to regain compliance with Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) after it was provided with the full extent of time available to do so by Staff and a Hearings Panel. The company appealed the Hearings Panel decision to the Listing Council.

Determination: Affirmed. The Hearings Panel was willing to grant the company an extension of time so that it could regain compliance with Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) because the company had committed to gaining shareholder approval of a stock split in a ratio sufficient to regain compliance with the rule. The company was unable to gain such approval in the time afforded. The Hearings Panel issued a second decision, which granted the company the full extent of time available under the rules contingent on the company gaining the required shareholder approval by a date sufficient for it to regain compliance with Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) prior to the expiration of the extension. The company failed to gain shareholder approval by the deadline, and the Hearings Panel issued a decision to delist the company’s shares.

In affirming the Hearings Panel decisions, the Listing Council finds that granting the company extensions to regain compliance with the $1 bid price requirement was reasonable and appropriate given the facts and circumstances presented by the record at the time the decisions were issued. In particular, it was reasonable for the Hearings Panel to rely on the company’s statements and commitments. It is incumbent on a company to provide NASDAQ accurate statements and to make commitments based on well-considered and reasonable assumptions. In the present case, it is not clear that the company’s failure to achieve the various commitments made to the Hearings Panel was due to a failure to consider all contingencies or was a result of unreasonable assumptions. In any event, the company failed to meet the most critical of those commitments, and the Listing Council finds no reason not to affirm the decision to delist the company’s securities."

SO, THEY ONLY ALLOWED THEM EXTRA TIME TO GET THE FORMAL PAPERWORK/PROXY DONE TO REVERSE SPLIT THEIR DANM SHARES. NOT because of some supposed "grand plan" that they "might/maybe could possibly be profitable" blah, blah, blah LOL !!! NOPER.

The NASDAQ is not gonna give a RIP about some tall tale stories ole PPHM has to tell, about what "might" happen in the future. GOT A REVERSE SPLIT, THEN SPLIT THE DAMN SHARES AND GET BACK IN COMPLIANCE LIKE 100's of OTHER COMPANIES WE WILL DE-LIST EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

CASE CLOSED, LOL !!

The split is as good as a done deal IMO. OVER. DONE.