I'm not proposing this as the current scenario. Really just investigating whether it is an option going forward; assuming the folks at Pasaca have not slammed the door closed. As we have seen here for years, reverse splits are perceived negatively. So, it makes sense that QMC wouldn't ask shareholders for approval* until after getting back into compliance and securing a new commitment from Pasaca.
A reverse split lowers the number of shares outstanding. For example: if a company reverse splits its stock 1-for-2, it means the shareholders must turn in their certificates and receive new certificates evidencing ownership of half the previous number of shares. A shareholder who owns 1,000 shares pre-split will own 500 shares of the post-split stock. The total number of outstanding shares decreases but the total number of authorized shares doesn't change. If the company had 100 million authorized shares and 50 million shares issued and outstanding pre-split, it will have 25 million issued and outstanding shares post-split and 100 million shares authorized. Post-split, the company will have 75 million shares that can be issued in the future if needed to raise capital. Prior to the reverse split, this available number of authorized shares had been 50 million out of the total 100 million authorized. https://pocketsense.com/stock-split-impact-authorized-shares-4733.html
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
