The way I used it was to mean that the NYSE would delist FnF's stocks without the companies' (FHFA's) consent.
The NYSE does not take a unilateral approach to delisting and so delisting without consent is not standard NYSE protocol. A unilateral decision by the NYSE only occurs when no effort is made by a company to correspond, comply or show regard for NYSE rules and communications.
Maybe "forcibly" would have been a better term.
Not much better unless qualified with NYSE criteria.
For someone who has, in the past, chosen to define words in a non-traditional way, I would have expected you to glean that from the context rather than insisting on a definition from a dictionary.
There is no supportive context for that in the NYSE Listed Company Manual unless there are certain given conditions as mentioned above.
Did you mean 6/15/2010?
Yes.
Yes, this is a more clear way of asking the question. The 13 months comment I made was not, as you correctly point out, entirely appropriate due to the rise in the common share price above $1 in the meantime. There is still an oddity here, though ultimately irrelevant due to DeMarco's later voluntary delisting.
Not having FHFA/Fannie Mae's delisting correspondence hampers knowing precisely what happened after May 11, 2009. To further close out any notion of a favor given outside of NYSE rules, the NYSE, at its sole discretion, can allow an additional 6 month cure period if the initial cure period is unsuccessful, a grace period as previously noted in the possible explanations of why there was no price non-compliance notice sent in the 30 days after June 23, 2009.
Does a company have to delist all of its shares (common and preferred) if any one of them does not meet the various share price requirements?
Not necessarily. Such a delisting of both common and preferred can occur under specified conditions. According to Section 8 - 801.00 in the NYSE Listed Company Manual: