TO ALL: Isn't CCEE Correct in Seeking Reverse Split Authority From Us?
It is no secret that NASDAQ will require that companies meet a minimum profile as a condition of retaining NASDAQ listing. The alternative to a NASDAQ listing for CCEE is the fraught-with-fraud, unregulatabe pink sheet/bulletin boards.
Every company that is to be thrown off the NASDAQ to the pink sheets will inevitably suffer a diminution in share price if for no other reason that there will be scant regulation over the bid/ask and no reliable way to determine what the real trading price is until 4:01 EST when the pink sheet stocks have to report a reckoning for the day's trades.
Therefore, it would seem that CCEE would be serving our best interest either intentionally, or indirectly by being ready to meet the new NASDAQ listing requirements. The only prudent way to insure that CCEE can meet the NASDAQ requirements is to be armed in advance with authority from the shareholders to allow a reverse split, if and when the need arises. Of course, arming CCEE with this authority does not require it to use it, and perhaps when the time for meeting the NASDAQ minimum-stock-price-requirement comes, other factors that favor CCEE might make the actual accomplishment and implementation of any reverse split unnecessary.
As in my other posts, allow me to say that I have no factual information to support what I have written above, and all of this is just what seems logical (and what I hope is in the minds of the managers of CCEE). The reverse split could very well be a manipulative device to defraud--- But if it is, why would the managers risk the possible consequences of illegal activity, especially where some of the shareholders who post on this thread (and Rick) are watching CCEE's every move so closely? |
