Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Novell, Dell Face Delisting From NASDAQ

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago

77

narramissic writes to tell us that Novell has confirmed receiving a delisting notice from the NASDAQ stock exchange, after the software company delayed filing its most recent quarterly report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Dell is in the same position. Both companies, and others including Apple, are grappling with investigations of the way they issued stock options and — in Dell's case — other accounting irregularities. Both companies are appealing the delisting, which means they won't vanish from the stock exchange anytime soon. NASDAQ rules require listed companies to announce the receipt of a delisting notice.

cancel ×

77 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Novell? (-1, Flamebait)

ThePlague (30616) | more than 7 years ago | (#16153965)

Are they still around? I haven't seen a Novell server in 7 years.

Re:Novell? (3, Informative)

beckerist (985855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154009)

You'd be surprised. I work for a software company that currently supports software that's been in the field for 20 over years (between acquisitions and people refusing to upgrade). I would say easily, more than 30% of the clients I work with still deal in a Novell Environment. This is analagous to those clients that are still in Windows 95 (and quite often are one and the same). If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Re:Novell? (2, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154150)

Except Windows 95 is really broken. Trust me on that! Netware, on the other hand, is pretty solid (except for 4.11 out of the box. That thing needed a few patches).

Re:Novell? (2, Interesting)

dalewj (187278) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154338)

I also work with some companies that don't get rid of software and I have a a few hundred clients still using ccmail, yep ccmail. And a bunch of those on Novell 3/4 servers (yep 3.12 still survives). It aint broke and they havent fixed it, but at some time I keep telling them those servers will finally go down and they will break and they will have to fix it.

Example, have one client running a ccmail network on a NT cluster on servers that have to be 1996? That is an example of how to run a network on 5 cents a day. coarse then it breaks and then it costs you $250,000 a day in losses, but some people just don't understand that.

Re:Novell? (2, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154766)

But there isn't any real reason for netware to break. Yes you may have to replace hardware but there really isn't any good reason that server can not run 10 or 20 years. The problems will be getting spare parts.
I find it funny that people think that if it isn't new it must be replaced. As long as you can get replacement parts for the hardware it should be work for a very long time.

Re:Novell? (2, Interesting)

dalewj (187278) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154893)

well ok think of it this way.

Your a public company, with employees, and stock holders, and various other things that you HAVE TO work to maintain a good corporation for.

You then decide on the risk of using software that IS NOT supported, and in many cases, the company who wrote it is 5-10 years out of business. Now what is the risk of hardware failure when you you probably dont even have all the hardware or software diskettes (CDs werent even used back then) to reproduce the hardware or drivers or software on another server?

ok you accept the risk? Fine its a risk and acceptable, but did you inform the board of directors who might then need to inform all the employees, stockholders, investors, and all of the people who it is their duty to inform, that if the software or hardware goes down, you could lose your XXXX database and that whole business process for XX amount of days and the information might not be recoverable?

Risk is risk and I understand not spending money if the risk is offest by price (say upgrading from Exchange 2000 to Exchange 2003, for alot of people, not worth the cost). BUT if you do not first make an informed decision and only think Money, then do not inform those who also have to take the risk into consideration. Then you are endagering your stockholders or worse your employees might not have a job next week. That is not a risk assessment, that is a person who is endangering a greater group of people. There are many of them out there, in 15 years of consulting i have seen dozens, if not more.

And isn't that the whole gotcha of the Title of this article in the first place? Informing people about how you do things and the decisions you make. Be it giving away stock or maintaining a decade over peice of software or hardware... Have you truely informed and taken a good risk assumption? /Rant

Re:Novell? (1)

tylernt (581794) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155268)

You then decide on the risk of using software that IS NOT supported, and in many cases, the company who wrote it is 5-10 years out of business
On the other hand, any system that has run trouble-free for 5-10 years has established a track record for reliability and is unlikely to *need* support from the authors.

Re:Novell? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 7 years ago | (#16156826)

Opportunity cost - if something like email were to get nastily horked and you had no support, that could kill your company. How many chambers before you're willing to play russian roulette?

Re:Novell? (1)

tylernt (581794) | more than 7 years ago | (#16157053)

I didn't say that you don't need any support -- I said that you wouldn't need support from *the authors*. Of course you should have an employee or a contractor that supports it.

Re:Novell? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16158129)

1. Novell isn't out of business.
2. Most Novell servers are used for file-servers and or print servers. With good backups it is a very low risk.
3. Software doesn't wear out. It doesn't less reliable over time. Yes there is a time when keeping up to day makes a lot of sense. There are times to keep using what works.

Re:Novell? (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 7 years ago | (#16157659)

I too used to support old software - often on novell 3.12 or Windows NT 4. The problem I've run into most of all is these people don't make regular backups and the machines and these file servers are running on are typically 386/486 pc's - not even server class hardware. I've never met anyone who takes their business seriously use antique hardware/software that few know how to maintain - least of which the shop/company owner.

The call that came in most often was the hard drive died and they lost all their data. Or they just bought some new pc's at worst buy and want to make them talk to the Novell machine (and on a side note: the built in Netware client for XP does a dandy job of talking to 3.x machines - its just no-one knows how to set it up anymore).

Re:Novell? (1)

oudzeeman (684485) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154025)

they bought SuSE

Re:Novell? (1, Interesting)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154037)

Netware is dead but OpenSuSE [opensuse.com] is still kicking. Although I'm thinking about switch to Ubuntu [ubuntu.com] .

Novell is still around (3, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154065)

They are still around. We use them here at the New Mexico Child, Youth and Family Development Department. It's actually one of the main reasons we managed to convince our management to go open source. Novell bought SuSE Linux, and we got 50 free SuSE Linux Enterprise Server licenses with full support. Now most of our back end stuff runs on SuSE. We still use Novell file and print servers, though.

Re:Novell? (3, Informative)

gabebear (251933) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154101)

Novell still has a lot of great software. I think they have the best webmail interface, although it's free Hula [hula-project.org] is a free version of Novell's NetMail. If I was implementing a webmail solution right now I would definately lean towards Novell's NetMail w/ eDirectory.

Re:Novell? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154177)

here are the university of manchester they are still using them for thier main login system and many shared file areas (homedirs have been moved to a new san which i belive is samba based but moving shared file areas has been abandoned at least in our department due to very different permissions handling).

they is also zenworks application deployment which is very very usefull if you have lots of users using lots of different software and moving arround a lot (read: students)

afaict netware makes thier money through selling more licenses (client and server) to existing customers and pressuring customers into upgrades by refusing to sell more cals for older versions, at least thats the impression i get from some people i've spoken too.

Greaatt...just what i needed to hear (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16153971)

I'm currently rethinking that resume and interview with Novell now....

Re:Greaatt...just what i needed to hear (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154062)

I'm sure my network instructor doesn't think the Novell and Apple merger will now happen as he speculated a few years ago. I suspect he was pimping the stocks since he had shares of both in his retirement account.

Re:Greaatt...just what i needed to hear (2, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154310)

I'm currently rethinking that resume and interview with Novell now...

It could be a good thing: This will probably drive their stock price down quite a bit. If they hire you, any options you get will be set that much lower. After this all blows over, the price will recover and you collect the difference.

The actual thing that should make you rethink your interview is their almost uninterrupted history of marketing blunders over the past 15 years.

Re:Greaatt...just what i needed to hear (1)

stevesliva (648202) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155352)

It could be a good thing: This will probably drive their stock price down quite a bit. If they hire you, any options you get will be set that much lower. After this all blows over, the price will recover and you collect the difference.
Especially if they back-date them. (rimshot)

But seriously, after Sarbanes-Oxley forced them to call a dollar a dollar, what companies still give their peons stock options? I know that MS moved to grants rather than options...

Let's see (-1, Offtopic)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154013)

Dell = monopoly which sells laptops for $399... they ought to cost more but for some reason they can afford it ... hmmm... /me hugs my Inspiron 630m which I did not pay $399 for ...

Tom

Thank God (2, Funny)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154080)

If Dell didn't have a monopoly, we'd have to choose from among IBM Thinkpads, iBooks, HP Pavillions, and who-knows-what else.

Uh, you might wanna rethink hugging that... (4, Funny)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154241)

If the battery goes off...

Delisting is a long, slow process... (3, Informative)

nead (258866) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154014)

that can get mired down any number [nasdaq.com] of ways.

Re:Delisting is a long, slow process... (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154060)

and there are quite a few letters they can add after the ticker,
probably starting with 'E'... DELLE

Non-story anyway. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154078)

Novell simply did not file some paperwork by the deadline because Novell is still working on stats related to awarding stock options.

Once they get those stats straight and file the paperwork, they'll be back in compliance and out of delisting danger (from this issue).

Re:Non-story anyway. (1)

Aditi.Tuteja (1004231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16156256)

Yea, the delisting notice was expected after Dell said earlier this month that it was unable to file its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Aug. 4 due to questions raised in an accounting investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Re:Non-story anyway. (1)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 7 years ago | (#16156455)

Yea, the delisting notice was expected after Dell said earlier this month that it was unable to file its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Aug. 4 due to questions raised in an accounting investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

To be fair, the laptop where dell was storing all of the 10-Q data mysteriously exploded.

Re:Non-story anyway. (1)

Aditi.Tuteja (1004231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16157574)

Now That is funny!

Re:Delisting is a long, slow process... (1)

jasonditz (597385) | more than 7 years ago | (#16158479)

God, I've had stocks that spent over a year on "delisting" notice before... it's completely inconceivable that the NASDAQ would ever allow a big company like DELL off their exchange, though their regulations probably do require them to at least go through the motions.

Now is the time for the workers to rise up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16154024)

and smash capitalism! We have nothing to lose but our chains!

Re:Now is the time for the workers to rise up (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154229)

We have nothing to lose but our chains!
....and our stock options.

OK, how about this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16154246)

You go first, and let all of us know how it goes.

What can posibly go wrong?
In many countries it has worked SO well, after all.

Re:Now is the time for the workers to rise up (1)

noSignal (997337) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155181)

Come, comrade; let us toast mother Russia and sing songs of the glory days! [/thick_russian_accent]
In Soviet Russia, NASDAQ lists you. Oh, wait...

Stock Option Backdating (5, Informative)

maynard (3337) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154061)

This issue is very serious. The Senate Finance Committee recently held an investigative session on stock option backdating chaired by Chuck Grassley (R-IA). The upshot was -- of course -- to continue investigating the matter further. A video [videoc-spa...6financerm] ( rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e090606_finance.rm ) of the investigatory session has been posted by C-SPAN, and is well worth watching for anyone interested in corporate financial shenanigans to illicitly increase executive compensation.

For those uninitiated with the process, stock option backdating is a form of option fraud whereby options which should be dated at time B (when the executive was hired, for example) but are instead backdated time A (when they are 'in the money') to insure a profit for the executive. It's crass and obviously illegal.

Watch the video and you'll enjoy seeing our representatives (on both sides of the isle) enjoying a collegial and humorous discussion on the record with those who should have been asked numerous uncomfortable questions about the practice. There are, fortunately, some very pointed questions. But the session often comes off as a giveaway to the witnesses, with senators and witnesses often laughing together at in-jokes.

If you're bothered by stock market insiders fraudulently diverting profits to their friends instead of keeping the market fair and clean, this committee session will make your blood boil.

Re:Stock Option Backdating (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16154181)

It is crass, but _not_ obviously illegal. As long as the stockholders are informed then it is perfectly legal.

What is illegal is informing your stockholders that options will be granted one way and then granting them a different way.

Re:Stock Option Backdating (1)

maynard (3337) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154228)

It is crass, but _not_ obviously illegal. As long as the stockholders are informed then it is perfectly legal.

I encourage you to hold that debate with an SEC investigator and criminal prosecutor. If Elliot Spitzer [state.ny.us] is in a good mood, he might even offer you a plea bargain. (yes, I know this is NASDAQ and not NYSE - but the point is still valid)

Re:Stock Option Backdating (2, Interesting)

dalewj (187278) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154426)

Well its not illegal (and i agree with informaing the stock holders makes it legal) at the moment. Odds are it will be very soon, but saying that, all the companys I follow didn't inform their investors, so they broke the rules. A few smart ones, made a quick change to their output to investors at the beginning of the year to squeeze it in, but again.. I wasnt informed when they actually did it.

so as a stock holder, Im highly annoyed that i had to buy stck at actual market prices.

++right and ++informative $ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16154746)

. ..

Re:Stock Option Backdating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16155229)

The extra money must also be treated as income, not capital gains, so payroll and income taxes must be declared and paid.

Re:Stock Option Backdating (4, Insightful)

GlL (618007) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154189)

I think that blood boiling was a little too mild for my reaction. This kind of white collar crime affects so many more people than one guy robbing a convenience store, but these guys just get slapped on the wrist. I have a much better idea. Lets send these alleged people to places like Riker's Island. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikers_Island [wikipedia.org] Put them in GP and let them experience real imprisonment. I guarantee you that there will be a huge downturn in white collar crime after some executive who bilked investors of millions does hard time.

Re:Stock Option Backdating (1)

loraksus (171574) | more than 7 years ago | (#16159443)

Mixing white and blue collar sociopaths is a great way to start an organized crime syndicate.

Re:Stock Option Backdating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16163264)

Mixing white and blue collar sociopaths is a great way to start an organized crime syndicate.

You're obviously not mixing them carefully enough. Try using the "pureee" setting. Problem solved! :-)

Re:Stock Option Backdating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16154562)

It should also be pointed out that Novell is voluntarily conducting their own audit, hence the slow filing on the form, hence the delisting notice (which will be appealed, but probably can't be appealed until it's issued), hence the appeal which will put the brakes on the delisting process.

In other words... "Red Tape still a problem. Film at 11."

Re:Stock Option Backdating (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155156)

For those uninitiated with the process, stock option backdating is a form of option fraud whereby options which should be dated at time B (when the executive was hired, for example) but are instead backdated time A (when they are 'in the money') to insure a profit for the executive. It's crass and obviously illegal.

My understanding is that backdating is explicitly legal. However, it is frowned upon by shareholders. So, the companies were illegally executing the legal practice so as not to piss off shareholders. The effect is stealing shareholder wealth without filing the proper paperwork to let them know they are being stolen from. But it is perfectly to dilute shareholder wealth, as long as the paperwork is in order letting them know that they are paying the CEO more for the options.

Re:Stock Option Backdating (1)

maynard (3337) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155815)

That video of the Senate Committee hearing is highly informative regarding the legality of this practice. While there are some who are willing to debate its legality (and you will see that among some of the witnesses), it is also clear that the SEC and (at least some) lawmakers expected this practice to be outlawed with the advent of Sarbanes-Oxley [wikipedia.org] .

where have I heard this before? (1)

Wizzerd911 (1003980) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154076)

Hmmm if you don't turn in your report on time, you're suspended :P where have I heard that sort of policy before? Geeze, I thought they get most of their people from Harvard and stuff.

Stock option accounting? Amateurs... (4, Insightful)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154119)

The issue of how to represent stock options (i.e., the *option* for an employee to buy stock at some pre-determined rate that may be below the market price, and may or may not be redeemed for stock) on a balance sheet is a difficult, and often debated one. Standards about how to represent them on a balance sheet have changed recently, and it's understandable about how there would be errors here. Even Apple screwed up this way (can't find the link, but it was on slashdot a month or so ago).

Why not focus on the REAL crime in accounting: the handling of pensions and health care obligations? For decades they were allowed to basically say, "hey, when it comes time to pay you, trust us, we'll have new revenues, and we'll pay you out of that". By not putting these obligations on the balance sheet now, millions of workers' pensions are at risk, and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation may go bankrupt as corporations try to shuck defined benefit plans (which are stupid anyway, but I digress). For GM and I'm sure several others, the present value of these obligations would more than cancel out their entire book value, i.e., the nominal value of all assets they hold. Oops!

And this isn't about some high-paid employees getting a little extra cash. This is about *retirement money*. And they're still allowed to hide the true cost of these things.

Someone's priorities are out of order...

Retirement plans and the government. (4, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154261)

Why not focus on the REAL crime in accounting: the handling of pensions and health care obligations? For decades they were allowed to basically say, "hey, when it comes time to pay you, trust us, we'll have new revenues, and we'll pay you out of that". By not putting these obligations on the balance sheet now, millions of workers' pensions are at risk, and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation may go bankrupt [...]

Why should the government make the companies do that? They do exactly the same thing with Social Security. Just substitute "Federal Treasury" for "Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation".

The fed "borrows" from the Social Security "trust fund", substituting special treasury bonds with ridiculously low interest rates, and these bonds are NOT included in the national debt calculation. Then the fed spends the money - which will eventually have to be made up from other taxes.

Re:Retirement plans and the government. (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154448)

My sarcasm detector is off today. I'm assuming you're extending my critique to governmental practices through clever use of satire, rather than claiming that the pracitice of unfunded, undebited obligations is acceptable for both government *and* corporations, yes yes?

Re:Retirement plans and the government. (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#16156490)

I'm assuming you're extending my critique to governmental practices through clever use of satire, rather than claiming that the pracitice of unfunded, undebited obligations is acceptable for both government *and* corporations, yes yes?

Yes. You got it in one. B-)

(Although the straight point remains valid: Legislators are unlikely to impose corrective requirements on corporations, for fear that doing so would lead to broader exposure of their own massive fraud.)

Re:Retirement plans and the government. (2, Insightful)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154474)

All of this just goes to show what a crock the pension system is. If you don't control your money, don't count on it being there for you at some future date.

Re:Retirement plans and the government. (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 7 years ago | (#16160703)

If you don't control your money, don't count on it being there for you at some future date
Yeah, it makes you wonder why all these companies bother with pension accounts, actuaries,investment analysts and shit, obviously they just like wasting their money rather than relying on the infallible financial forecasing ability of every cleaner, clerk or waitress that works for them.

Re:Retirement plans and the government. (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16160914)

Actually, there's sort of a paradox or catch-22, or just something amusing going on in this respect. The "cleaners, clerks, and waitresses" generally aren't impressed by defined benefit plans. *As a general rule* those kinds of workers want their compensation NOW. So they really couldn't care less if their employers tanked -- they've received every penny they were promised.

So, it's a tough question -- is it "stupid" for a worker to "fail to see" the advantage of an employer pension? Even when that pension, you know, isn't going to be there?

Re:Stock option accounting? Amateurs... (1)

hpcanswers (960441) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155034)

Why do companies ever bother with pensions? Or options, bonuses, commissions, etc? The only benefits that should exist beyond salary are insurance and possibly education reimbursement. If we want to motivate an employee, then we can give him a raise when he does well. If he does poorly, then we can fire him. It's pretty simple, really.

Re:Stock option accounting? Amateurs... (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155112)

Damn straight. I think pensions are offered to satisfy people with the whole "dependence mentality". "Oh, I'm incapable of saving my own money so I want my employer to provide all that." No, if you're contributing to a pension fund, give ME the money to invest instead. If the pension has a tax advantage, give MY savings the same tax advantage. It's ridiculous.

That said, they should still be held to honor every promise. If it breaks them -- good. Then maybe people will start learning how stupid these things are.

You are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16154157)

the Weakest Link, Good Bye

in 2001, Delisting was begining (5, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154199)

VA Linux faced a NASDAQ delisting in 2001, due to their penny-stock status (3 months of a closing price under $1.00 leads to delisting). NASDAQ gave everybody a 3-month repreive following the 9/11 bombings, by which time they managed lay off most of their employees, stop hemoraging cash, and escape delisting.

Oddly enough, that wasn't "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters" -- it was -1 troll. I wonder if it still is :)

Re:in 2001, Delisting was begining (1)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154271)

+5, Informative.
Thanks!

Re:in 2001, Delisting was begining (2, Informative)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154555)

This is a different kind of delisting. LNUX was going to be delisted because the company was worthless and the NASD felt that the general public should not be endangered by trading such a piece of crap on a major market. NOVL and DELL are going to have their tickers changed temporarily until they finish their audits and file their 10-Q, then they will be listed under their regular ticker again. This happens to plenty of companies quite frequently.

Re:in 2001, Delisting was begining (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16154757)

Along the same lines, SCO was also in danger of being delisted for the same reason. Right now, they are hovering around $2 a share (I don't know how). It would be great to see the shares fall enough to get them kicked off, or better yet just get their ass handed to them in court and be done with them for ever.

OMG!!! Ponies!!! = Profit (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155186)

Good going, that comment just dropped LNUX from $4.15 to $3.95.

BTW, 2006 has been good to them (from wikipedia):

On February 21, 2006, VA Software reported its first ever profitable quarter. Net income for the second quarter stands at $10.5 million, or 17 cents per share, compared to a net loss of $702,000, or a penny a share, in the previous year's second quarter. Excluding one time gains from the sale of Animation Factory, VA's profit that quarter would have been $1.1 million, or 2 cents per share[5]. VA followed this performance with two more consecutive profitable quarters, earning $1.1 million in Q306 and $700,000 in fiscal Q406, which ended on July 31. Fiscal 2006 was VA Software's first ever profitable year, with total earnings of $11 million, or 17 cents per share ($1.3 million, or 2 cents a share, if Animation Factory asset sale gains are excluded). VA ended the year with $51.9 million in the bank, up from $36.6 million the previous year

Notice, after the new site design, profit has really gone up. But what really kick started it? "OMG!!! Ponies!!!" of April 1. Thinking about this, I finally figured it out!

1. Step one
2. Step two
3. ????????
4. Profit!

Step 3? OMG!!! Ponies!!!

Is This The END OF DELL AND NOVELL? (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154207)

No. Hardly.

This is more plausible deniability on NASDAQ's part. It looks like they are playing "Tough Electronic Market Enforcer." Like most policies and procedures:
1. Some Admin Assistant at each company gets to fill out forms and write letters to the Exchange for someone else to sign.
2. Forms are sent to NASDAQ for "review" which takes a remarkably long time. So long in fact that Dell gets the SEC matter resolved through political donations to a couple of PAC's and their local reps.
3. And in the nick of time so both companies get to stay on the exchange!

The -only- people that get the book thrown at them are egregious and stupid violators that don't knuckle under or don't pay to play. Martha Stewart is an excellent example. Complicated schemes like back-dating options will catch 1 maybe two of at least dozens of companies that did it. The proverbial "mission accomplished."

Apple not under investigation (3, Informative)

jhealy (91456) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154256)

To be clear, Apple is conducting their own internal investigation, but is not under investigation by the SEC or any other third party. They have not received any delisting notices.

Source: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2049 [appleinsider.com]

Re:Apple not under investigation (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16154437)

To be clear, you are a fanboi moron who doesn't check reliable sources:

"Apple has received such a delisting notice" according to MarketWatch. [marketwatch.com]

Re:Apple not under investigation (1)

singingjim (957822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155653)

Dammit, you stole my thunder Coward. I was all over this...right after you were.

More common that you think (1)

thorkyl (739500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154406)

This is like the Pinkslip you get from the power company when you dont get the bill paid on time.

Dodgy Dell (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154744)

Its hardly surprising that Dell are being investigated for accounting anomolies. Its probably not their fault however. They don't even know the price of their own stock :P

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/02/dells_rapp ed_asa/ [theregister.co.uk]

Dude! (2, Funny)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 7 years ago | (#16154901)

You're getting a shareholder lawsuit! [smartmoney.com]

when with they investigate MSFT (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16154911)

That's right, Micro-let's reorg every 24 months-soft. It's always been fishy how they've been able to have many of their business divisions losing money quarter after quarter and year after year and then the deck is shuffled and it goes on for another few years. They reOrg as often as they send out patches for their operating system and software.

Something just smells wrong here. And yes, they do make a better target when they are that big and that wealthy. Hey, just look at how they 'tell the truth' in front of judges and in the press. If THAT is not a sign saying there is also likely to be some fancy accounting practices going on, I don't know what is.

Happens all the time (0, Redundant)

singingjim (957822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155129)

The exchanges give plenty of time to comply so as to avoid delisting. Happens all the time.

Let's run the country into the ground. (0, Troll)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155257)

Let's run the United States right into the ground. And let's do it by making it impossible for businesses to operate here. After all, that's where all the economic power comes from. So we'll do that by creating such a monstrocity of laws and regulations affecting businesses, and the larger and more successful the business, the more cumbersome, expensive, and downright unfair the regulations should be. If it becomes a public company, the pinnacle of achievement for many businesses, then we should turn every financial action of the company into an investigation for accounting irregularities. In the meantime, there should be no tarriffs on imports anymore, and we should encourage companies to outsource, or outright move, to China. And by doing all of the above, we'll successfully run the United States right into the ground.

Re:Let's run the country into the ground. (1)

singingjim (957822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155611)

Sounds like a plan. Nice work.

Tabloid headline (0, Redundant)

kitzilla (266382) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155267)

I'm glad to see the scab picked off questionable securities practicies (screw you, robber-baron corporate weasels), but this headline is a bit tabloid. These notices are routine and automatic, coming to nothing once the company in question files their tardy report.

Re:Tabloid headline (1)

singingjim (957822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155566)

Ya know, I said the same thing more succinctly 2 posts ago, but my post is still scored a zero. Stupid scoring gods hate me and I hate them.

Not again?!? (1, Flamebait)

wardk (3037) | more than 7 years ago | (#16155319)

I already de-listed them from my personal give-a-sh*t list.

but this sounds even more impactive. ouch!

Not as doomsday as the summary suggests... (2, Informative)

rfunches (800928) | more than 7 years ago | (#16157286)

A significant number of companies are having to restate past and current earnings (the latter is what is causing the delisting notices to go out, because the 10-Q for the most recent ended quarter has to also be restated) so given the situation, the flurry of delisting notices is not surprising. NASDAQ maintains a daily list of companies not in compliance [nasdaq.com] with continued listing requirements; today's list (9/21) had about 70 or so companies delinquent on their quarterly or annual reports (10-Q and 10-K) to the SEC. Most of the other companies don't meet the minimum $1 bid price (a company's shares trading below $1 for more than thirty days are served a notice of intent to delist, and have 180 days to come back into compliance.

Other reasons that could result in a delisting letter from NASDAQ include failure to maintain:

  • Minimum market value of publicly-held shares
  • Minimum market value of listed securities
  • Minimum number of market makers
  • Minimum level of stockholders' equity
  • Minimum level of total assets and/or total revenue
  • Minimum net income from continuing operations
  • Minimum number of publicly-held shares
  • Minimum number of round-lot shareholders

Other notable companies that face delisting include nVidia, Autodesk, BEA Systems, CNET, Verisign, and the Cheesecake Factory. The reason? Delinquent 10-K or 10-Q filings.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>