Sat, Apr 19, 2014, 2:46 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

PURE Bioscience, Inc. Message Board

  • seattle49 seattle49 Feb 8, 2013 6:42 PM Flag

    Putting on the dog ... the Emperor still wears no clothes

    So as long as a company, say one that has not made a profit in a decade, will pay the $ 32,000 annual club fee ....... they can say they are a NASDAQ listed company with the supposed cachet a NASDAQ listing might imply, regardless of contravening reality of the company.

    " ... put on the dog (American & Australian informal)
    to try to seem richer or more important than you really are ... "

    Annual fee increase for NASDAQ-listed companies

    USA
    November 30 2012

    Yelena M. Barychev Author page » Christin R. Cerullo Author page » Francis E. Dehel Author page » Melissa Palat Murawsky Author page » Michael E. Plunkett Author page » Molly Crane Author page »

    Recently, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (Nasdaq) changed annual fees paid by companies listed on The NASDAQ Capital Market effective January 1, 2013.

    The annual fee paid by companies that list securities, other than American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), will increase from $27,500 to $32,000. The fee increase, which is the first since January 1, 2007, is based on Nasdaq’s costs related to companies listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market and the value that such a listing provides to the companies. Nasdaq has noted it has continued to enhance the listing experience and invested in its regulatory and compliance program and that such initiatives are funded through listing fees, including the annual fee.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • How is it possibly better ???? Did they even pay the legal fees to attempt that skulduggery ?

      Hiding behind a $ 32,000 annual membership fee to a private club may have falsely provided more recent investors too lazy to read the horrendous revelations about this gang in their own SEC filings with a false sense that they were investing in a real company doing real business. The last decade has shown the fallacy in that. Virtually none of the forward looking statements have proven to be worth more than spit on a sidewalk.

      Trying to co-opt a worthless competitor's trademarks, however distasteful and devoid of principle and integrity, accomplished nothing more than to prove that these rubes think so small they cannot rise above the height of the belly of a snake ..... imho of course.

      • 1 Reply to seattle49
      • Seattle, you are so right. For so long, you have seen Krall for what he is. His year after year actions are why I feel it is so important to spread the word about him to all corners of the world. A thief can no longer remain in the shadows stealing from people when people shine the light of truth upon him. No wonder the big names have distanced themselves from him. I would like to know that his neighbors all know what he does for a living. What kind of predator they live next to. Thanks for your constant insights.

    • Better than spending money stealing BONU trademarks
      which apparently took up a lot of mgt time but still a waste
      of money.

 
PURE
1.20+0.02(+1.69%)Apr 17 3:59 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.