Slashdot Mirror


SCO Stock In Danger of Delisting, Again

hweimer writes "In 2005, SCO got into delisting trouble because they failed to file their annual 10-K report in a timely manner. SCO seems to be headed the same way again for a different reason: the stock price is too low to meet Nasdaq's requirements. Quoting: '[W]hat can a company do to boost its share price? Besides stopping to burn money and come up with a working business model, I mean.'"

8 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Easy fix? by daeg · · Score: 5, Informative
    Wrong: Does NASDAQ accept reverse stock splits as a method to regain compliance with the minimum bid price requirement?

    Yes. NASDAQ views reverse stock splits as an acceptable method to regain compliance. If the company determines to implement a reverse stock split, it will need to provide certain information to NASDAQ. See the following Frequently Asked Question for additional information. Furthermore, to inform the market of the reverse stock split, NASDAQ will append a fifth character, "D", to the company's symbol for approximately 20 trading days following the reverse stock split.
  2. Re:reverse split? by KokorHekkus · · Score: 4, Informative

    NASDAQ also has a minimum regarding the market value of the company and that is set to $5 million which means that they can't continue doing reverse splits ad infinitum. Current market value of SCOX is just shy of $20 million.

  3. Re:not actually delisting... by RobertLTux · · Score: 3, Informative

    just to tie things together
    http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter. html?month=04&day=25&year=2007&hour=16&min=00&sec= 00&p0=179

    gives you a countdown to "Hells Bells" at this point they need to
    A get above $1.00 for 10 days
    B maintain the other requirements
    C fight an Armageddon level filing (the constructive trust filing by Novell)

    IF ABC does fails Then TSCOG is D E A D (in full monty python flying circus fashion )

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  4. Re:Boosting prices by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

    As amusing as it is, it wouldn't work. The SEC has recently started halting trades on any company mentioned in such spam emails. I don't remember for how long exactly, but the hold is something like a week. Which means that such spam will most likely do more damage than good.

    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/09/023 5222

  5. Could survive for now on reverse splits by rfunches · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are still enough shares outstanding in the public float for a few more reverse splits. 2:1 reverse would take price to $1.88 leaving approximately 7.8 million public shares; 3:1 reverse to $2.82 and 5.6 million pubilc shares; 4:1 reverse to $3.76 and 3.9 million shares. For the requirements listed on page 14 of listing requirements (http://www.nasdaq.com/about/nasdaq_listing_req_fe es.pdf - PDF warning) the first is only being met with stockholder's equity (which is about $8 million). The second and third (publicly-held shares and market value of said shares) are in no danger of dropping below listing requirements. SCOX shouldn't be in danger of being delisted but their only option may be a reverse split since a buyback would not only drain cash reserves but also lower shareholder equity, which must be at a minimum of $2.5 million or else the stock gets a delisting notice yet again.

  6. Re:boosting share price by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 3, Informative
    So, did anyone else notice that hweimer who submitted this is the same Hendrick Weimer who runs, gosh darn it, the blog that is linked! And look, it's chock full of Google Ads!

    ... profit!

  7. Re:boosting share price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think his issue is that the poster didn't disclose that it was his own content, and even said "Quoting:" which at least implicitly infers that he just happened across the content, not that he'd written it. Disclosure = a fairly good rule of ethics for "journalists" (although the "blogosphere" (gack) is pretty good at being selective about when they want to categorize themselves as journalists).

  8. Re:boosting share price by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 5, Informative
    Their market cap is about $20m (at $0.94/share).

    Aside from rules compliance, and paying the annual listing fee, NASDAQ has three basic rules about staying listed:

    • Minimum share price of $1
    • at least 750k public shares
    • at least $5m market value.
    If they fall out of compliance for 30 straight days (and they last traded for $1 on March 13), they get a delinquency notice and have 90 days to get it together. Their ticker symbol will probably change from "SCOX" to "SCOXE" while they're under threat of delisting. [Source]

    SCO already did a 1:4 split back in 2002; I'm not sure how the exchange will feel about them doing it again, because had they not done that split, their share price would currently be less than a quarter.

    --
    This is not my sandwich.