Yes, but still no CVSI “uplist,” nor will there be. The reasons why are detailed, lengthy and prolonged. However as I’m back from watching Rafa beat Frances Tiafoe in straight sets in the quarters and awaiting Mausi to prepare for dinner I’ll elucidate the reasons why. Let’s begin with NASDAQ Ruls Section 5100 and move forward from there;
Quote:
5100. Nasdaq's Regulatory Authority 5101. Preamble to the Rule 5100 Series Nasdaq is entrusted with the authority to preserve and strengthen the quality of and public confidence in its market. Nasdaq stands for integrity and ethical business practices in order to enhance investor confidence, thereby contributing to the financial health of the economy and supporting the capital formation process. Nasdaq Companies, from new public Companies to Companies of international stature, are publicly recognized as sharing these important objectives.
Nasdaq, therefore, in addition to applying the enumerated criteria set forth in the Rule 5000 Series, has broad discretionary authority over the initial and continued listing of securities in Nasdaq in order to maintain the quality of and public confidence in its market, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest. Nasdaq may use such discretion to deny initial listing, apply additional or more stringent criteria for the initial or continued listing of particular securities, or suspend or delist particular securities based on any event, condition, or circumstance that exists or occurs that makes initial or continued listing of the securities on Nasdaq inadvisable or unwarranted in the opinion of Nasdaq, even though the securities meet all enumerated criteria for initial or continued listing on Nasdaq. In all circumstances where the Listing Qualifications Department (as defined in Rule 5805) exercises its authority under Rule 5101, the Listing Qualifications Department shall issue a Staff Delisting Determination under Rule 5810(c)(1), and in all circumstances where an Adjudicatory Body (as defined in Rule 5805) exercises such authority, the use of the authority shall be described in the written decision of the Adjudicatory Body.
Amended June 16, 2009 (SR-NASDAQ-2009-052).
IM-5101-1. Use of Discretionary Authority To further Companies' understanding of Rule 5101, Nasdaq has adopted this Interpretive Material as a non-exclusive description of the circumstances in which the Rule is generally invoked.
Nasdaq may use its authority under Rule 5101 to deny initial or continued listing to a Company when an individual with a history of regulatory misconduct is associated with the Company. Such individuals are typically an officer, director, Substantial Shareholder (as defined in Rule 5635(e)(3)), or consultant to the Company. In making this determination, Nasdaq will consider a variety of factors, including:
• the nature and severity of the conduct, taken in conjunction with the length of time since the conduct occurred;
• whether the conduct involved fraud or dishonesty; In the cases of Mona, Fife (“Iliad”) and Anton and Chia this applies. Mona committed fraud, paid restitution and voluntarily took a 5 year suspension. Fife (“Iliad”) is even more clear. Have a look;
As previously mentioned the CVSI relationship with John Fife (Iliad) a well known OTC toxic death spiral financier is yet another strike. Look at all the lawsuits and SEC regulatory fines and suspensions of Fife.
Fife himself was suspended by the SEC in August of 2007 which included his having to pay a hefty fine. The suspension was for a minimum 18 months before he could apply for reinstatement.
Fife works under numerous corporate veils. In addition to the Iliad LLC he used to loan CVSI money you will also find him making toxic, death spiral convertible dilutive loans under the names; Tonaquint, Tangiers, Chicago Ventures, JVF Holdings, Inter Mountain Capital I Inc and Utah Resources.
In the case of Anton and Chia it’s even more clear; The SEC disciplining CVSI’s accountant and auditor Anton and Chia is stated below as clear fraud, manipulation and subsequent discipline
• whether the conduct was securities-related; It was
• whether the investing public was involved; They were
• how the individual has been employed since the violative conduct; Taking the “Emeritus” position and placing his son in his position clearly violates this section
• whether there are continuing sanctions (either criminal or civil) against the individual; There are, a 5 year suspension
• whether the individual made restitution; Did he?
• whether the Company has taken effective remedial action; and
• the totality of the individual's relationship to the Company, giving consideration to:
º the individual's current or proposed position; The “Emeritus” position Mona Jr has taken and placing his son in his (Mona Jr’s position
º the individual's current or proposed scope of authority; Yet again, the “Emeritus” position and placing his son in his (Mona III’s position making Mona Jr violates this section
º the extent to which the individual has responsibility for financial accounting or reporting; and
º the individual's equity interest. He’s the largest shareholder, he’s taken the “Emeritus” position and he’s placed his son in his prior position. This is certainly not “clean hands” nor “hands off.”
Based on this review, Nasdaq may determine that the regulatory history rises to the level of a public interest concern, but may also consider whether remedial measures proposed by the Company, if taken, would allay that concern. Examples of such remedial measures could include any or all of the following, as appropriate:
• the individual's resignation from officer and director positions, and/or other employment with the Company;
• divestiture of stock holdings; He hasn’t (Mona Jr.)
• terminations of contractual arrangements between the Company and the individual; or (This is the first clear yes).
• the establishment of a voting trust surrounding the individual's shares. Oooooops, back to NO (Mona Jr
Nasdaq staff is willing to discuss with Companies, on a case-by-case basis, what remedial measures may be appropriate to address public interest concerns, and for how long such remedial measures would be required. Alternatively, Nasdaq may conclude that a public interest concern is so serious that no remedial measure would be sufficient to alleviate it. In the event that Nasdaq staff denies initial or continued listing based on such public interest considerations, the Company may seek review of that determination through the procedures set forth in the Rule 5800 Series. On consideration of such appeal, a listing qualifications panel comprised of persons independent of Nasdaq may accept, reject or modify the staff's recommendations by imposing conditions.
Nasdaq may also use its discretionary authority, for example, when a Company files for protection under any provision of the federal bankruptcy laws or comparable foreign laws, when a Company's independent accountants issue a disclaimer opinion on financial statements required to be audited, or when financial statements do not contain a required certification.
In addition, pursuant to its discretionary authority, Nasdaq will review the Company's past corporate governance activities. This review may include activities taking place while the Company is listed on Nasdaq or an exchange that imposes corporate governance requirements, as well as activities taking place after a formerly listed company is no longer listed on Nasdaq or such an exchange. Based on such review, and in accordance with the Rule 5800 Series, Nasdaq may take any appropriate action, including placing restrictions on or additional requirements for listing, or denying listing of a security, if Nasdaq determines that there have been violations or evasions of such corporate governance standards. Such determinations will be made on a case-by-case basis as necessary to protect investors and the public interest.
Although Nasdaq has broad discretion under Rule 5101 to impose additional or more stringent criteria, the Rule does not provide a basis for Nasdaq to grant exemptions or exceptions from the enumerated criteria for initial or continued listing, which may be granted solely pursuant to rules explicitly providing such authority.
Adopted March 12, 2009 (SR-NASDAQ-2009-018); amended June 16, 2009 (SR-NASDAQ-2009-052).
In addition you have the FDA Issue as stated by FDA Commissoner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. who stated “the passage of the U.S. farm bill, now called the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 since it is law, does not diminish the agency's regulatory oversight role related to cannabis-containing food and drink”. Dr. Gottlieb stated “the FDA will be diligent in monitoring the hemp marketplace to ensure that makers of non-approved products are not making unsubstantiated medical claims.
Also, the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act prohibits interstate commerce of food containing cannabidiol (CBD) or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) since it is an active ingredient in an FDA-approved drugs”. (Epidolex)
You also have the issue of GW Pharma and their use of CBD in what is now an approved medication creating Anti-Trust Issues.
The preponderance of the evidence based upon NASDAQ Rule 5101 in addition to the aforementioned evidence makes an uplist approval highly suspect and highly questionable. Why do you think it’s been 6 months during which other companies have applied and been approved and CVSI hasn’t?
Due to all this history along with the reasons I list above there'll be no uplist for CVSI to NASDAQ, ever.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
