What would they suspend them for? In your example, at least, the company did the right thing: it changed the a/s in Nevada before applying to FINRA for the reverse split, and then it notified shareholders of the planned r/s. That was entirely proper, and it's something all companies should do.
If you got the actual filing from Nevada, the amendment in question no doubt provides for the reverse split and for the lowered a/s. We just don't see the part about the split in the notice offered online.
ADTM, on the other hand, has lowered the a/s, but not said anything about a reverse split to its shareholders. Yet. It'd be interesting to see the complete Nevada filing.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
