Having exhausted all available administrative remedies, CleanTech seeks a temporary
stay, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction preventing NASDAQ from delisting it from the NASDAQ Stock Exchange, pending CleanTech's appeal of NASDAQ's final delisting
decision to the Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC").
The document is a Form 8-K filed by Micron Technology, Inc. with the SEC on December 5, 2006. It summarizes that:
1) The company's board of directors amended the bylaws to decrease the authorized number of directors from nine to seven following the resignations of two directors.
2) An exhibit attaching the amended bylaws is included.
3) The filing is signed by the company's vice president of finance and chief financial officer.
This document is a complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Adecco USA, Inc. for unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC alleges that Adecco disciplined and terminated Jeffrey Byard for opposing unlawful employment practices and participating in a proceeding protected under Title VII. The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief, backpay, compensatory and punitive damages for Byard, and for Adecco to adopt non-discriminatory employment practices.
This document is a complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Adecco USA, Inc. for unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC alleges that Adecco disciplined and terminated Jeffrey Byard for opposing unlawful employment practices and participating in a proceeding protected under Title VII. The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief, backpay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages on behalf of Byard.
Alice Bennett filed a complaint against her former employer Rikards-Hayley for discrimination, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith, wrongful discharge, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bennett, a female employee of 4 years, claims she was denied a promotion in favor of a less qualified male employee and was then terminated. She alleges the company discriminated against her based on her sex and weight. Bennett is suing for lost wages, benefits, damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages.
The settlement agreement outlines the terms agreed upon between Alice Bennett and Rikards-Hayley to resolve Bennett's employment discrimination lawsuit against Rikards-Hayley. Rikards-Hayley agrees to pay Bennett $882,000, with $162,000 paid up front and the remaining $720,000 paid in monthly installments of $6,000 over 10 years. In exchange, Bennett agrees to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and provide full releases of all wrongful discharge and discrimination claims against Rikards-Hayley. Both parties agree the payment fully settles all claims between them.
national oilwell varco 2007 Proxy Statement/2006 Annual Report on Form 10-Kfinance40
This document is the 2007 proxy statement and 2006 annual report to stockholders of National Oilwell Varco. It includes information on the annual meeting such as date, time, location as well as proposals to be voted on. It provides details on director elections, board committees, audit committee report and executive compensation. Financial statements and notes for 2006 are also included in an appendix.
1) Micron Technology, Inc. is filing an amendment to their Form 8-K to correct share numbers that were incorrectly reported in an earlier filing.
2) The amendment discloses that the company accelerated the vesting of restricted stock held by their former CFO, W.G. Stover, Jr., who resigned in November 2007 after 20 years with the company.
3) Under the terms of his severance agreement, 26,467 shares were scheduled to vest within a year of his termination, but the company opted to also accelerate the vesting of an additional 19,600 shares held by Mr. Stover given his long tenure.
The document reports that Micron Technology's Compensation Committee accelerated the vesting of restricted stock held by their former CFO, W.G. Stover Jr., who resigned in November 2007 after 20 years with the company. Under Stover's severance agreement, restrictions on 27,640 shares were to lapse within a year of his resignation, but the Committee accelerated those and an additional 18,427 shares. The form of Stover's severance agreement had been included as an exhibit in Micron's 2007 annual report.
The document is a Form 8-K filed by Micron Technology, Inc. with the SEC on December 5, 2006. It summarizes that:
1) The company's board of directors amended the bylaws to decrease the authorized number of directors from nine to seven following the resignations of two directors.
2) An exhibit attaching the amended bylaws is included.
3) The filing is signed by the company's vice president of finance and chief financial officer.
This document is a complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Adecco USA, Inc. for unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC alleges that Adecco disciplined and terminated Jeffrey Byard for opposing unlawful employment practices and participating in a proceeding protected under Title VII. The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief, backpay, compensatory and punitive damages for Byard, and for Adecco to adopt non-discriminatory employment practices.
This document is a complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Adecco USA, Inc. for unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC alleges that Adecco disciplined and terminated Jeffrey Byard for opposing unlawful employment practices and participating in a proceeding protected under Title VII. The EEOC is seeking injunctive relief, backpay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages on behalf of Byard.
Alice Bennett filed a complaint against her former employer Rikards-Hayley for discrimination, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith, wrongful discharge, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bennett, a female employee of 4 years, claims she was denied a promotion in favor of a less qualified male employee and was then terminated. She alleges the company discriminated against her based on her sex and weight. Bennett is suing for lost wages, benefits, damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages.
The settlement agreement outlines the terms agreed upon between Alice Bennett and Rikards-Hayley to resolve Bennett's employment discrimination lawsuit against Rikards-Hayley. Rikards-Hayley agrees to pay Bennett $882,000, with $162,000 paid up front and the remaining $720,000 paid in monthly installments of $6,000 over 10 years. In exchange, Bennett agrees to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and provide full releases of all wrongful discharge and discrimination claims against Rikards-Hayley. Both parties agree the payment fully settles all claims between them.
national oilwell varco 2007 Proxy Statement/2006 Annual Report on Form 10-Kfinance40
This document is the 2007 proxy statement and 2006 annual report to stockholders of National Oilwell Varco. It includes information on the annual meeting such as date, time, location as well as proposals to be voted on. It provides details on director elections, board committees, audit committee report and executive compensation. Financial statements and notes for 2006 are also included in an appendix.
1) Micron Technology, Inc. is filing an amendment to their Form 8-K to correct share numbers that were incorrectly reported in an earlier filing.
2) The amendment discloses that the company accelerated the vesting of restricted stock held by their former CFO, W.G. Stover, Jr., who resigned in November 2007 after 20 years with the company.
3) Under the terms of his severance agreement, 26,467 shares were scheduled to vest within a year of his termination, but the company opted to also accelerate the vesting of an additional 19,600 shares held by Mr. Stover given his long tenure.
The document reports that Micron Technology's Compensation Committee accelerated the vesting of restricted stock held by their former CFO, W.G. Stover Jr., who resigned in November 2007 after 20 years with the company. Under Stover's severance agreement, restrictions on 27,640 shares were to lapse within a year of his resignation, but the Committee accelerated those and an additional 18,427 shares. The form of Stover's severance agreement had been included as an exhibit in Micron's 2007 annual report.
This document is Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.'s annual report for 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It discusses Starwood's business operations, properties, legal proceedings, executive officers, market for common stock, selected financial data, management discussion/analysis of financial results, controls and procedures, directors and executive compensation, security ownership, and related party transactions.
Cabot Koppers Class Complaint Filed 4.20.2010Johnny
This document appears to be a civil cover sheet for a class action lawsuit filed in federal court. The plaintiffs are Maria and Michael Parsons on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The defendants are Kopper Inc. f/k/a Koppers Industries, Inc., Cabot Corporation, and Beazer East, Inc. The lawsuit relates to the Cabot Koppers Superfund Site and alleges jurisdiction under diversity of citizenship. The plaintiffs are seeking over $5 million in damages.
1) Micron Technology appointed Robert Bailey to its Board of Directors and its Audit and Governance Committees.
2) Micron revised the form of severance agreement for its officers to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.
3) The new severance agreement provides compensation and benefits for a 12-month transition period following an officer's termination or loss of officer status, subject to noncompetition and confidentiality conditions.
The petition was filed by three creditors (BDCM Opportunity Fund II, LP; Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 Adviser, L.L.C.; and Spectrum Investment Partners LP) against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. seeking an order for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The petition alleges that Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. owes at least $21.5 million to the petitioning creditors and is generally not paying its debts as they become due.
This document is Xcel Energy Inc.'s annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2001. It provides an overview of the company's electric and gas utility operations in multiple US states, discusses regulatory issues, and reports operating statistics. It also describes subsidiaries including NRG Energy, which is involved in power generation, and e prime, an internet-based business services company. The report is intended to provide shareholders and the SEC with comprehensive information on the company's structure, business operations, and performance.
This document is Xcel Energy Inc.'s annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2001. It provides an overview of the company's electric and gas utility operations in multiple US states, discusses regulatory issues, reports operating statistics, and summarizes subsidiaries including NRG Energy and e prime. The report is intended to comply with SEC reporting requirements and provide comprehensive information on the company's business and performance to investors.
This document is Dover Corporation's annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the SEC for the 2003 fiscal year. It includes an overview of the company's business segments and strategy of acquiring niche industrial companies. It is divided into four parts that cover business details, financial information, information about directors and executives, and exhibits. Dover operates businesses in diversified industrial, industrial equipment, resource exploration and technologies sectors. The company aims to own leading niche businesses, maintain customer focus and innovation, and generate strong cash flows.
The document is a Form 8-K filed by Micron Technology, Inc. with the SEC on November 20, 2007. It summarizes that the company's Compensation Committee approved an amendment to Micron's proposed 2007 Equity Incentive Plan to remove language allowing unused shares from options and stock appreciation rights to be reused. The amended plan will be submitted for shareholder approval at Micron's annual meeting on December 4, 2007. A copy of the amended plan is included as an exhibit to the Form 8-K filing.
pilgrim's pride E6F8E5CC-96EB-4461-AC0C-CA7478A47A6C_PILGRIMSPRIDECO10KAfinance30
This document is an amendment to Pilgrim's Pride Corporation's annual report on Form 10-K for the 2008 fiscal year. It includes additional information required for items 10-14 of Part III, including details on directors, executive officers, executive compensation, security ownership, related party transactions, and accounting fees. The amendment was filed to incorporate this information by reference since the company's definitive proxy statement will not be filed within 120 days of the fiscal year end.
pilgrim's pride E6F8E5CC-96EB-4461-AC0C-CA7478A47A6C_PILGRIMSPRIDECO10KAfinance30
This document is an amendment to Pilgrim's Pride Corporation's annual report on Form 10-K for the 2008 fiscal year. It includes additional information required for Items 10-14 of Form 10-K, which were not included in the original filing. It discloses that the company's CEO and COO resigned in December 2008 and a new CEO was appointed. It also provides information on the company's board of directors and executive officers as required.
This document is a motion and proposed order seeking to admit David Hillman pro hac vice to represent three parties, BDCM Opportunity Fund II, LP, Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 Ltd. and Spectrum Investment Partners, L.P., in the bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, LTD. (L.P.). The motion includes a certification by Mr. Hillman that he is eligible for admission, a member in good standing of the New York bar, and familiar with the local bankruptcy rules. The proposed order grants the motion for Mr. Hillman's pro hac vice admission.
Frontier Oil Corporation reported record earnings for 2007 of $499.1 million, a 32% increase over 2006. This was due to robust refining crack spreads and wide crude oil differentials, which allowed the company to process a record amount of low-cost heavy crude oil at its refineries. The company reinvested part of the earnings in expanding its El Dorado refinery and increasing its heavy crude processing. It also spent on share repurchases and dividends. Frontier remains committed to reinvesting in its refineries and pursuing acquisitions that are a good strategic fit.
This document is R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company's annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the SEC for the 2003 fiscal year. It provides an overview of the company's business segments including print, logistics, and financial services. The print segment focuses on magazines, catalogs, retail, telecommunications, books, premedia, direct mail, and international markets. The logistics segment provides distribution and delivery services. The financial segment supports the communications needs of corporations accessing global capital markets.
This 10-Q filing from FirstMerit Corporation provides an overview of the company's financial position as of March 31, 2009. It includes consolidated balance sheets, income statements, and statements of cash flows. Some key details include total assets of $10.97 billion, total deposits of $7.68 billion, net income of $29.4 million for the quarter, and an increase in cash provided by operating activities to $16.86 million compared to the prior year.
This document is National Oilwell's Form 10-K annual report filed with the SEC for the year ended December 31, 2000. It provides information on the company's business operations, financial results, risks, properties, legal proceedings, and executives. National Oilwell is a leading manufacturer of oilfield equipment and provider of supply chain integration services. It operates in two business segments: Products and Technology, and Distribution Services.
This document is a motion and order for the admission of Victoria A. Lepore to represent BDCM Opportunity Fund II LP, Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 Ltd. and Spectrum Investment Partners, L.P. pro hac vice in two bankruptcy cases in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The motion certifies that Lepore is eligible for admission, admitted and in good standing in New York and will submit to the court's jurisdiction. The order grants the motion.
This document is Dover Corporation's annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the SEC for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006. It provides an overview of Dover's business operations, reporting segments, management structure, acquisition strategy, and key financial data for fiscal year 2006. Dover operates through six business segments that manufacture specialized industrial products and equipment. It pursues a decentralized management approach and acquisition strategy focused on niche market leaders.
This document is National Oilwell's annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the SEC summarizing its business operations for the year ending December 31, 2001. National Oilwell is a leading provider of equipment and components for oil and gas drilling, as well as supply chain services to the upstream oil and gas industry. It experiences volatility in revenues and earnings depending on oil and gas prices and levels of drilling activity. The business strategy focuses on leveraging its installed base of equipment, expanding downhole products, furthering information technology, and pursuing acquisitions. The report provides details on products and services, operations, marketing, competition, manufacturing, engineering, and risk factors.
This document is National Oilwell's annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the SEC. It summarizes the company's business operations, including that it designs and manufactures equipment and provides services for oil and gas drilling and production. It has two business segments: Products and Technology, which includes capital equipment, and Distribution Services, which provides maintenance and supplies. National Oilwell competes based on product quality and service. Risk factors include volatility in oil and gas prices affecting demand, and reliance on the oil and gas industry's willingness to explore and produce.
valero energy Quarterly and Other SEC Reports 2008 3rdfinance2
- Valero Energy Corporation filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008.
- The report includes consolidated financial statements and notes, and discusses operating revenues, costs and expenses, operating income, net income, earnings per share, and cash flows for the relevant periods.
- Highlights include operating revenues of $35.96 billion for Q3 2008, net income of $1.152 billion for Q3 2008, and net cash provided by operating activities of $3.477 billion for the first nine months of 2008.
GeoInvesting has a longstanding reputation as short sellers. Our work in exposing more than $10 billion in U.S. listed China based frauds was featured in the recent feature documentary The China Hustle. We also offer portfolio protection for our members, based on the research strategies that have made us extremely well-known for our on the ground due diligence.
There are multiple niches in the microcap space where GeoInvesting’s track record has proven that consistent alpha can be achieved. Each strategy provides favorable percentage returns, but is limited in size. A combination of well-defined strategies can enhance portfolio returns by offering the benefit of diversifying into uncrowded situations with low market correlation without overexposing to a single stock.
We believe the best way for a company of your size to approach a microcap strategy would be to deploy a target capital amount across a few basket portfolios of around 5 stocks each. These baskets can vary by strategy and time horizon. Around these baskets, we can implement one-off ideas as they emerge based on very high probability special situations
More Related Content
Similar to Cleantech Innovations (CTEK) files Injunctive Relief Against NASDAQ
This document is Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.'s annual report for 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It discusses Starwood's business operations, properties, legal proceedings, executive officers, market for common stock, selected financial data, management discussion/analysis of financial results, controls and procedures, directors and executive compensation, security ownership, and related party transactions.
Cabot Koppers Class Complaint Filed 4.20.2010Johnny
This document appears to be a civil cover sheet for a class action lawsuit filed in federal court. The plaintiffs are Maria and Michael Parsons on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The defendants are Kopper Inc. f/k/a Koppers Industries, Inc., Cabot Corporation, and Beazer East, Inc. The lawsuit relates to the Cabot Koppers Superfund Site and alleges jurisdiction under diversity of citizenship. The plaintiffs are seeking over $5 million in damages.
1) Micron Technology appointed Robert Bailey to its Board of Directors and its Audit and Governance Committees.
2) Micron revised the form of severance agreement for its officers to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.
3) The new severance agreement provides compensation and benefits for a 12-month transition period following an officer's termination or loss of officer status, subject to noncompetition and confidentiality conditions.
The petition was filed by three creditors (BDCM Opportunity Fund II, LP; Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 Adviser, L.L.C.; and Spectrum Investment Partners LP) against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. seeking an order for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The petition alleges that Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. owes at least $21.5 million to the petitioning creditors and is generally not paying its debts as they become due.
This document is Xcel Energy Inc.'s annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2001. It provides an overview of the company's electric and gas utility operations in multiple US states, discusses regulatory issues, and reports operating statistics. It also describes subsidiaries including NRG Energy, which is involved in power generation, and e prime, an internet-based business services company. The report is intended to provide shareholders and the SEC with comprehensive information on the company's structure, business operations, and performance.
This document is Xcel Energy Inc.'s annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2001. It provides an overview of the company's electric and gas utility operations in multiple US states, discusses regulatory issues, reports operating statistics, and summarizes subsidiaries including NRG Energy and e prime. The report is intended to comply with SEC reporting requirements and provide comprehensive information on the company's business and performance to investors.
This document is Dover Corporation's annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the SEC for the 2003 fiscal year. It includes an overview of the company's business segments and strategy of acquiring niche industrial companies. It is divided into four parts that cover business details, financial information, information about directors and executives, and exhibits. Dover operates businesses in diversified industrial, industrial equipment, resource exploration and technologies sectors. The company aims to own leading niche businesses, maintain customer focus and innovation, and generate strong cash flows.
The document is a Form 8-K filed by Micron Technology, Inc. with the SEC on November 20, 2007. It summarizes that the company's Compensation Committee approved an amendment to Micron's proposed 2007 Equity Incentive Plan to remove language allowing unused shares from options and stock appreciation rights to be reused. The amended plan will be submitted for shareholder approval at Micron's annual meeting on December 4, 2007. A copy of the amended plan is included as an exhibit to the Form 8-K filing.
pilgrim's pride E6F8E5CC-96EB-4461-AC0C-CA7478A47A6C_PILGRIMSPRIDECO10KAfinance30
This document is an amendment to Pilgrim's Pride Corporation's annual report on Form 10-K for the 2008 fiscal year. It includes additional information required for items 10-14 of Part III, including details on directors, executive officers, executive compensation, security ownership, related party transactions, and accounting fees. The amendment was filed to incorporate this information by reference since the company's definitive proxy statement will not be filed within 120 days of the fiscal year end.
pilgrim's pride E6F8E5CC-96EB-4461-AC0C-CA7478A47A6C_PILGRIMSPRIDECO10KAfinance30
This document is an amendment to Pilgrim's Pride Corporation's annual report on Form 10-K for the 2008 fiscal year. It includes additional information required for Items 10-14 of Form 10-K, which were not included in the original filing. It discloses that the company's CEO and COO resigned in December 2008 and a new CEO was appointed. It also provides information on the company's board of directors and executive officers as required.
This document is a motion and proposed order seeking to admit David Hillman pro hac vice to represent three parties, BDCM Opportunity Fund II, LP, Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 Ltd. and Spectrum Investment Partners, L.P., in the bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, LTD. (L.P.). The motion includes a certification by Mr. Hillman that he is eligible for admission, a member in good standing of the New York bar, and familiar with the local bankruptcy rules. The proposed order grants the motion for Mr. Hillman's pro hac vice admission.
Frontier Oil Corporation reported record earnings for 2007 of $499.1 million, a 32% increase over 2006. This was due to robust refining crack spreads and wide crude oil differentials, which allowed the company to process a record amount of low-cost heavy crude oil at its refineries. The company reinvested part of the earnings in expanding its El Dorado refinery and increasing its heavy crude processing. It also spent on share repurchases and dividends. Frontier remains committed to reinvesting in its refineries and pursuing acquisitions that are a good strategic fit.
This document is R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company's annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the SEC for the 2003 fiscal year. It provides an overview of the company's business segments including print, logistics, and financial services. The print segment focuses on magazines, catalogs, retail, telecommunications, books, premedia, direct mail, and international markets. The logistics segment provides distribution and delivery services. The financial segment supports the communications needs of corporations accessing global capital markets.
This 10-Q filing from FirstMerit Corporation provides an overview of the company's financial position as of March 31, 2009. It includes consolidated balance sheets, income statements, and statements of cash flows. Some key details include total assets of $10.97 billion, total deposits of $7.68 billion, net income of $29.4 million for the quarter, and an increase in cash provided by operating activities to $16.86 million compared to the prior year.
This document is National Oilwell's Form 10-K annual report filed with the SEC for the year ended December 31, 2000. It provides information on the company's business operations, financial results, risks, properties, legal proceedings, and executives. National Oilwell is a leading manufacturer of oilfield equipment and provider of supply chain integration services. It operates in two business segments: Products and Technology, and Distribution Services.
This document is a motion and order for the admission of Victoria A. Lepore to represent BDCM Opportunity Fund II LP, Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 Ltd. and Spectrum Investment Partners, L.P. pro hac vice in two bankruptcy cases in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The motion certifies that Lepore is eligible for admission, admitted and in good standing in New York and will submit to the court's jurisdiction. The order grants the motion.
This document is Dover Corporation's annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the SEC for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2006. It provides an overview of Dover's business operations, reporting segments, management structure, acquisition strategy, and key financial data for fiscal year 2006. Dover operates through six business segments that manufacture specialized industrial products and equipment. It pursues a decentralized management approach and acquisition strategy focused on niche market leaders.
This document is National Oilwell's annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the SEC summarizing its business operations for the year ending December 31, 2001. National Oilwell is a leading provider of equipment and components for oil and gas drilling, as well as supply chain services to the upstream oil and gas industry. It experiences volatility in revenues and earnings depending on oil and gas prices and levels of drilling activity. The business strategy focuses on leveraging its installed base of equipment, expanding downhole products, furthering information technology, and pursuing acquisitions. The report provides details on products and services, operations, marketing, competition, manufacturing, engineering, and risk factors.
This document is National Oilwell's annual report (Form 10-K) filed with the SEC. It summarizes the company's business operations, including that it designs and manufactures equipment and provides services for oil and gas drilling and production. It has two business segments: Products and Technology, which includes capital equipment, and Distribution Services, which provides maintenance and supplies. National Oilwell competes based on product quality and service. Risk factors include volatility in oil and gas prices affecting demand, and reliance on the oil and gas industry's willingness to explore and produce.
valero energy Quarterly and Other SEC Reports 2008 3rdfinance2
- Valero Energy Corporation filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008.
- The report includes consolidated financial statements and notes, and discusses operating revenues, costs and expenses, operating income, net income, earnings per share, and cash flows for the relevant periods.
- Highlights include operating revenues of $35.96 billion for Q3 2008, net income of $1.152 billion for Q3 2008, and net cash provided by operating activities of $3.477 billion for the first nine months of 2008.
Similar to Cleantech Innovations (CTEK) files Injunctive Relief Against NASDAQ (20)
GeoInvesting has a longstanding reputation as short sellers. Our work in exposing more than $10 billion in U.S. listed China based frauds was featured in the recent feature documentary The China Hustle. We also offer portfolio protection for our members, based on the research strategies that have made us extremely well-known for our on the ground due diligence.
There are multiple niches in the microcap space where GeoInvesting’s track record has proven that consistent alpha can be achieved. Each strategy provides favorable percentage returns, but is limited in size. A combination of well-defined strategies can enhance portfolio returns by offering the benefit of diversifying into uncrowded situations with low market correlation without overexposing to a single stock.
We believe the best way for a company of your size to approach a microcap strategy would be to deploy a target capital amount across a few basket portfolios of around 5 stocks each. These baskets can vary by strategy and time horizon. Around these baskets, we can implement one-off ideas as they emerge based on very high probability special situations
The document summarizes the investment strategies and approach of Geoinvesting.com, which focuses on identifying undervalued microcap stocks. Some of their main strategies include buying stocks that are underreacting to good news ("Buy on Pullback"), targeting companies that may be acquisition candidates, and investing in turnaround situations. They provide several case studies of past investments that achieved significant returns, such as NV5 Global, GTT Communications, Zynex, and Vocus, to illustrate how they successfully implemented these strategies.
Dr. Andrew W. Lo - Adaptive Markets: Financial Evolution and the Speed of Tho...GeoInvesting LLC
This document summarizes Andrew Lo's presentation on adaptive markets. Lo discusses how the traditional view of efficient markets based on rational investor behavior is incomplete. He argues markets are adaptive, influenced by human psychology and constantly changing environments. Lo presents his adaptive markets hypothesis, drawing on evolutionary biology and noting markets evolve as individuals compete and learn. This new view has implications for investing, regulation, and developing more sophisticated indexes that account for individual investor needs and behaviors.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
Pioneer Power Solutions (PPSI) May 2017 Investor PresentationGeoInvesting LLC
Pioneer Power Solutions, Inc. (PPSI) manufactures, sells and services a broad range of electrical transmission, distribution and on-site power generation equipment in the field of utility, industrial, commercial original equipment manufacturer, and in critical power markets.
This presentation covers:
Transmission and Distribution Solutions - Equipment that distributes, controls, conditions and monitors the flow of electrical energy while protecting critical equipment such as transformers, motors, data center equipment and other machinery.
Critical Power Solutions - Onsite power generation systems, control equipment and services that ensure uninterrupted power to operations in times of emergency and in primary power applications, including data centers
Maj Soueidan Oct 2016 Traders For A Cause PresentationGeoInvesting LLC
Maj Soueidan is the founder of GeoInvesting.com, which helps everyday investors find underfollowed micro-cap stock ideas through information arbitrage. GeoInvesting educates investors, saves them time performing research, and aims to provide institutional-quality ideas. Maj takes advantage of readily available information not found by others to identify inflection points in stocks before they are processed by the broader market. While some of Maj's past ideas have increased over 1,000%, others that were once multi-baggers are now down substantially. GeoInvesting presents elevator pitches on ideas, issues daily reports, and keeps members alerted through social media.
Maj Soueidan Oct 2016 Microcap Conference Philly PresentationGeoInvesting LLC
Inflection points can serve as triggers for you to invest in particular stocks right before the meat of their growth cycles or at a time when they’ve improved their risk profiles for various reasons. I’ve found that the identification of inflection points has helped me pinpoint companies that tend to become acquisition targets. Of over 40 stocks that have been both the focus of our research AND acquired, some of these acquisitions were actually predicted by my team; others were just a byproduct of what happens when good research is rewarded.
Shedding Light on Tech Pro Technology (03823.HK)GeoInvesting LLC
• Tech Pro is a company that seems to be suffering from an identity crisis
• We believe the stock price is detached from the reality of our on the ground due diligence and the company’s financials
• Our due diligence raises questions that we believe should be brought to the attention of both the company’s auditor and regulators
• We believe the company will require continued dilutive equity financing to sustain operations
• We are currently short Tech Pro (03823.HK)
One of key strategies I use to find microcap diamonds in the rough is to combine the concepts of Growth + Value. On April 11, 2016, I presented (videos at bottom) at the 2016 Microcap Conference Toronto, where I gave a speech on this very subject. More detail on this presentation can be seen at my blog, http://geoinvesting.com/combining-tenets-growth-value-find-hidden-microcap-opportunities/.
President and Co-Founder of GeoInvesting presented at the 2016 Microcap Conference in Toronto, focusing on stock trading and investing strategies revolving around using a combination of growth and value when selecting investments.
microcapconf.com/conferences/toronto-2016/
April 11, 2016 - Heng Ren White Paper on Chinese BuyoutsGeoInvesting LLC
- 38 Chinese companies have announced management buyouts of US shareholders since 2015, offering below-average premiums. On average, premiums were less than three-quarters of the US average.
- These companies significantly increased their cash holdings after listing in the US, from an average of $46M pre-IPO to $280M at the time of buyout announcements. However, they are squeezing out US investors at prices below fair value and sometimes even below the IPO price.
- After buying out US shareholders, some companies have offered shares in China at much higher values, indicating the buyout offers to US investors were too low and unfairly enriched company management. Regulators need to close loopholes to
Moseda Technologies Company Presentation, November 2015GeoInvesting LLC
Moseda Technologies Inc. primarily engages in the development and operation of mobile device management software systems that allow the management to tracking of assets using mobile devices. It develops SmartCare, a mobile health solution for accessing, tracking, and managing patient health records securely from the Web, smartphone, or tablet; for automatic vital tracking; and for healthcare providers to manage staff and tasks. The company also provides SmartCare@Home, a telemedicine solution that utilizes the mobile, wearables, and SaaS technology to allow for remote patient monitoring. In addition, it offers SmartFleet, a fleet and asset tracking software for businesses that operate mobile and vehicle fleets. The company is headquartered in Vancouver, Canada.
Moseda Technologies Inc. primarily engages in the development and operation of mobile device management software systems that allow the management to tracking of assets using mobile devices. It develops SmartCare, a mobile health solution for accessing, tracking, and managing patient health records securely from the Web, smartphone, or tablet; for automatic vital tracking; and for healthcare providers to manage staff and tasks. The company also provides SmartCare@Home, a telemedicine solution that utilizes the mobile, wearables, and SaaS technology to allow for remote patient monitoring. In addition, it offers SmartFleet, a fleet and asset tracking software for businesses that operate mobile and vehicle fleets. The company is headquartered in Vancouver, Canada.
This CEO will present Phase 2 clinical trial results on November 7th that could revolutionize Alzheimer's treatment. If the results continue the promising early Phase 2A results of 83% of patients benefiting and a 4x improvement in memory over current drugs, the small company's stock could experience unprecedented gains as high as 2,150% as it moves towards Phase 3 trials. The discovery of an effective treatment for Alzheimer's, which currently has no cure, could be worth $67 billion annually and save the US healthcare system from being overwhelmed by rising Alzheimer's costs in the coming decades.
The document summarizes several stock picks and trades made by GeoInvesting between February and April 2015:
- They traded in and out of AMCN based on news and an investment valuing the stock at $8.
- They added to their position in ESCC at $0.40 in March 2015 based on an imminent liability resolution announced in April, causing the stock to rise 100%.
- In April they stated ORBK's muted reaction to strong earnings was a buying opportunity but visibility may only extend a few quarters.
- Several other trades and recommendations over this period included TOUR, HOFT, GBSN, NNBR, NVEE, ISDR, MNTX, BIOQ, LAS
L & L Energy's (LLEN) Dickson Lee Sentencing Memorandum - 2015GeoInvesting LLC
This document is a government sentencing memo recommending a 60 month prison sentence for Dickson Lee, the founder and CEO of coal company L&L Energy. It summarizes that Lee pled guilty to securities fraud for fabricating the existence of a CFO and lying on SEC filings to fraudulently obtain a NASDAQ listing, which boosted the company's stock price. It also claims that later, with the company desperate for cash, Lee secretly issued and dumped over 500,000 shares on the market without disclosure. The memo argues the fraud was severe and undermined market integrity, and that the sentencing guidelines fail to capture the full severity of Lee's actions.
Vocus cloud marketing software analyst day presentation june 6 2012GeoInvesting LLC
- Vocus provides cloud marketing software to help businesses attract, engage and retain customers.
- Digital marketing represents a significant opportunity, with the market expected to grow to $77 billion by 2016.
- Vocus' software suite addresses key functions of modern digital marketing like social, search, email and publicity.
- The company has a scalable and profitable business model focused on the SMB market of $3,000-30,000 customers.
We have reason to believe that the SEC already has Qihoo on its radar. Given the information presented in this report, along with other issues that we have omitted, we believe that Qihoo will be delisted from the NYSE and management charged with securities fraud.
Equity Insights - Sionex (SINX) Research Report May 2012GeoInvesting LLC
Sionix designs, develops, markets, and sells water management and treatment
solutions intended for use in the oil and gas, agriculture, disaster relief, and
municipal (both potable and wastewater) markets. The Company’s Mobile
Water Treatment System (“MWTS”) is configured dependent upon customer
requirements and integrates components and technologies based on those
requirements. Within these systems, the company utilizes a Dissolved Air
Floatation (“DAF”) system with patented technology that management
estimates removes more than 99.95 percent of the organic, and most
inorganic, particles in water. This includes the removal of hydrocarbons,
insoluble metals, infectious bacteria, algae, and color. Historically, DAF systems
similar to the DAF used in Sionix MWTS created bubbles that were 50 microns
or greater, which were unable to remove all contaminants due to their size.
The Sionix technology utilizes and refines DAF technology to provide a pretreatment
process using ambient oxygen and minimal chemical flocculent
aids that can be more efficient and cost-effective. The company’s patented
technology makes micro-bubbles that allow a much greater percentage of
contaminants to be captured, floated to the surface, and skimmed off with
minimal use of chemicals. The Company’s MWTS is mobile and modular such
that it can be transported easily to address a wide range of water treatment
markets and can meet customers’ needs for new systems or to replace or
integrate with existing filtration technologies. Sionix was initially incorporated
in Utah in 1996 and reincorporated in Nevada in 2003. The company’s website
is www.sionix.com.
The E-Way Bill revolutionizes logistics by digitizing the documentation of goods transport, ensuring transparency, tax compliance, and streamlined processes. This mandatory, electronic system reduces delays, enhances accountability, and combats tax evasion, benefiting businesses and authorities alike. Embrace the E-Way Bill for efficient, reliable transportation operations.
Methanex is the world's largest producer and supplier of methanol. We create value through our leadership in the global production, marketing and delivery of methanol to customers. View our latest Investor Presentation for more details.
ZKsync airdrop of 3.6 billion ZK tokens is scheduled by ZKsync for next week.pdfSOFTTECHHUB
The world of blockchain and decentralized technologies is about to witness a groundbreaking event. ZKsync, the pioneering Ethereum Layer 2 network, has announced the highly anticipated airdrop of its native token, ZK. This move marks a significant milestone in the protocol's journey, empowering the community to take the reins and shape the future of this revolutionary ecosystem.
World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4
World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4
World economy charts case
World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4
World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4
World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4
World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4World economy charts case study presented by a Big 4study presented by a Big 4
Cleades Robinson, a respected leader in Philadelphia's police force, is known for his diplomatic and tactful approach, fostering a strong community rapport.
UnityNet World Environment Day Abraham Project 2024 Press ReleaseLHelferty
June 12, 2024 UnityNet International (#UNI) World Environment Day Abraham Project 2024 Press Release from Markham / Mississauga, Ontario in the, Greater Tkaronto Bioregion, Canada in the North American Great Lakes Watersheds of North America (Turtle Island).
UnityNet World Environment Day Abraham Project 2024 Press Release
Cleantech Innovations (CTEK) files Injunctive Relief Against NASDAQ
1. JS 44C/SDNY
REV. 5/2010
JUDGE FORREST civil c °fRlEECIV 9358
The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information containecmBrein neither replace nor suppf
ed^rerein nor supplBrrrent tttefittng and service of
<%».
pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. Tbjs^forrji^appcbvad, b^'the 0
Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of
initiating the civil docket sheet.
<fc
'//
?rv *n
PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Mills
US OiSii
CleanTech Innovations, Inc. Please see attached list.
ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
Fensterstock & Partners LLP, 100 Broadway, New York, NY Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW,
10005,(212)785-4100 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 955-8500
CAUSE OF ACTION (cite the us. civil statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of cause)
(DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY)
In this removed action, the plaintiff asserts claims under 15 U.S.C. § 78s(g) and U.S. Const, amend. V.
Hasthisor a similar case been previously filed inSDNY at anytime? No? 7 Yes? f_] Judge Previously Assigned
If yes, was this case VolD Invol. LJ Dismissed. NoLJ Yes U If yes, give date. & Case No.
(PLACE AN [x] IN ONE BOX ONLY) NATURE OF SUIT
ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES
TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 1 J610 AGRICULTURE [ ]422 APPEAL [ ]400 STATE
CONTRACT [ ]620 OTHER FOOD & 28 USC 158 REAPPORTIONMENT
[ ]310 AIRPLANE [ ]362 PERSONAL INJURY - DRUG [ ] 423 WITHDRAWAL [1410 ANTITRUST
[ ] 110 INSURANCE [ ]315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT MED MALPRACTICE 11625 DRUG RELATED 28 USC 157 [ 1430 BANKS & BANKING
[ ] 120 MARINE LIABILITY [ I 365 PERSONAL INJURY SEIZURE OF [ J 450 COMMERCE
[ ]130 MILLER ACT [ ]320 ASSAULT, LIBEL & PRODUCT LIABILITY PROPERTY [ J 460 DEPORTATION
[ ] 140 NEGOTIABLE SLANDER []368 ASBESTOS PERSONAL 21 USC 881 PROPERTY RIGHTS [ 1470 RACKETEER INFLU
INSTRUMENT [ ]330 FEDERAL INJURY PRODUCT [ ]630 LIQUOR LAWS ENCED & CORRUPT
[ J150 RECOVERY OF EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ( ]640 RR & TRUCK [ ] 820 COPYRIGHTS ORGANIZATION ACT
OVERPAYMENT & LIABILITY [ ]650 AIRLINE REGS [ ] 830 PATENT (RICO)
ENFORCEMENT OF [ ]340 MARINE PERSONAL PROPERTY [ ]660 OCCUPATIONAL [ ] 840 TRADEMARK [1480 CONSUMER CREDIT
JUDGMENT [ ]345 MARINE PRODUCT SAFETY/HEALTH []490 CABLE/SATELLITE TV
[ ] 151 MEDICARE ACT LIABILITY r 1370 OTHER FRAUD [ ]690 OTHER [ 1810 SELECTIVE SERVICE
[ ]152 RECOVERY OF [ ]350 MOTOR VEHICLE r 1371 TRUTH IN LENDING SOCIAL SECURITY XI 850 SECURITIES/
DEFAULTED [ ]355 MOTOR VEHICLE [ ]380 OTHER PERSONAL COMMODITIES/
STUDENT LOANS PRODUCT LIABILITY PROPERTY DAMAGE LABOR [ ] 861 HIA (1395ff) EXCHANGE
(EXCL VETERANS) [ ]360 OTHER PERSONAL M385 PROPERTY DAMAGE [ ] 862 BLACK LUNG (923) [ I 875 CUSTOMER
[ ] 153 RECOVERY OF INJURY PRODUCT LIABILITY [ 1710 FAIR LABOR [ ] 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) CHALLENGE
OVERPAYMENT OF STANDARDS ACT [ J864 SSID TITLE XVI 12 USC 3410
VETERAN'S BENEFITS [ I 720 LABOR/MGMT [ ] 865 RSI (405(g)) [ J890 OTHER STATUTORY
[ ] 160 STOCKHOLDERS SUITS RELATIONS ACTIONS
[ ] 190 OTHER CONTRACT [ I 730 LABOR/MGMT [ 1891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS
[ ] 195 CONTRACT PRODUCT REPORTING & FEDERAL TAX SUITS [ ]892 ECONOMIC
LIABILITY DISCLOSURE ACT STABILIZATION ACT
[ 1196 FRANCHISE [ I 740 RAILWAY LABOR ACT [ ) 870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or [ ]893 ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES [ I 790 OTHER LABOR Defendant) MATTERS
LITIGATION [ ] 871 IRS-THIRD PARTY [I 894 ENERGY
CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS [ 1791 EMPL RET INC 26 USC 7609 ALLOCATION ACT
REAL PROPERTY SECURITY ACT [ J895 FREEDOM OF
[ ]441 VOTING [1510 MOTIONS TO INFORMATION ACT
[ ]210 LANDCONDEMNATION [ ]442 EMPLOYMENT VACATE SENTENCE IMMIGRATION [ )900 APPEAL OF FEE
[ ] 220 FORECLOSURE [ ]443 HOUSING/ 20 USC 2255 DETERMINATION
[ ] 230 RENT LEASE & ACCOMMODATIONS [ J 530 HABEAS CORPUS [ 1462 NATURALIZATION UNDER EQUAL ACCESS
EJECTMENT [ ]444 WELFARE [ ]535 DEATH PENALTY APPLICATION TO JUSTICE
[ ] 240 TORTS TO LAND [ ]445 AMERICANS WITH r 1540 MANDAMUS & OTHER [ I 463 HABEAS CORPUS- [ J950 CONSTITUTIONALITY
[ ] 245 TORT PRODUCT DISABILITIES - T 1550 CIVIL RIGHTS ALIEN DETAINEE OF STATE STATUTES
LIABILITY EMPLOYMENT [1555 PRISON CONDITION [ I 465 OTHER IMMIGRATION
[ ] 290 ALL OTHER [ ]446 AMERICANS WITH
REAL PROPERTY DISABILITIES -OTHER
[ ] 440 OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS
Check if demanded in complaint:
n CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DO YOU CLAIM THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN S.D.N.Y.?
UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 IF SO, STATE:
DEMAND $_ OTHER JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
Check YES only if demanded in complaint
JURY DEMAND: • YES 0 NO NOTE: Please submit at the time of filing an explanation of why cases are deemed related.
2. (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) ORIGIN
I I 1 Original IjlJ 2a. Removed from I I3 Remanded from I I 4 Reinstated or I | 5 Transferred from | | 6 Multidistrict I I 7 Appealto District
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened (Specify District) Litigation Judge from
Magistrate Judge
Li 2b.Removed from
Judgment
State Court AND
at least one
party is pro se.
(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) BASIS OF JURISDICTION IF DIVERSITY, INDICATE
• 1 U.S. PLAINTIFF • 2 U.S. DEFENDANT 0 3 FEDERAL QUESTION Q4 DIVERSITY CITIZENSHIP BELOW.
(U.S. NOT A PARTY) (28 USC 1322, 1441)
CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)
(Place an [X] in one box for Plaintiff and one box for Defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF PTF DEF
CITIZEN OF THIS STATE [11 [ 11 CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A [ 13 [ 13 INCORPORATED and PRINCIPAL PLACE []5 []5
FOREIGN COUNTRY OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE
CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE []2 [)2 INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE []4 []4 FOREIGN NATION [16 [ ]6
OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE
PLAINTIFF(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)
DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)
DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS UNKNOWN
REPRESENTATION IS HEREBY MADE THAT, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE BEEN UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, TO ASCERTAIN THE
RESIDENCE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:
Check one: THIS ACTION SHOULD BE ASSIGNED TO: • WHITE PLAINS 7 MANHATTAN
(DO NOT check either box if this a PRISONER PETITION.)
DATE12/20/2011 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT
[ ] NO 14 1985
RECEIPT*
Q*4»t ,Cox
fc] YES (DATE ADMITTED Mo.
Attorney Bar Code # 1962
Yr. )
Magistrate Judge is to be designated by the Clerk of the Cou rt. 1%. JUDGE DOISGER
Magistrate Judge is so Designated.
Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court by. Deputy Clerk, DATED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (NEW YORK SOUTHERN)
3. JUDGE*OKKEST
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CLEANTECH INNOVATIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
NASDAQ STOCK MARKET, LLC;
11 cw 9S58
MERIT E. JANOW; STEPHEN D. BARRETT;
DANIEL C. BIGELOW; MICHAEL J. :--o
CURRAN; JOHN A. FRY; WILLIAM o
LYONS; JOHN D. MARKESE; DOUGLAS
MELAMED; ERIC W. NOLL; WENDY
WHITE; and NASDAQ OMX GROUP, INC., i 3
Defendants.
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Defendants NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, Merit E. Janow, Stephen D. Barrett, Daniel C.
Bigelow, Michael J. Curran, John A. Fry, William Lyons, John D. Markese, Douglas Melamed,
Eric W. Noll, Wendy White, and NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. respectfully notice this Court that:
1. A civil action was commenced on December 20, 2011 in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, bearing index number 653524-11, captioned CleanTech Innovations, Inc.
v. NASDAQStock Market, LLC (the "state-court action").
2. Defendants were served with the Complaint on December 20, 2011. A copy of
the Complaint is attached as Exhibit A. This Notice of Removal is filed within 30 days of
Defendants' receipt of the initial pleading. Removal is therefore timely under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(b).
3. On December 20, 2011, Plaintiff CleanTech Innovations, Inc. ("CleanTech") filed
a proposed order to show cause in the state-court action, along with a memorandum of law and
supporting affidavits by Blair C. Fensterstock and Arnold Staloff, seeking a temporary
4. restraining order against Defendants. In addition, on December 20, 2011, CleanTech filed a
notice of motion for admission of Arlen Specter pro hac vice, along with a proposed order and
supporting affidavits by Arlen Specter and Blair C. Fensterstock. The same day, the Supreme
Court of the State of New York granted the order to show cause and also granted the motion for
admission pro hac vice. A copy of these filings is attached as Exhibit B. No other pleadings or
orders have been entered with regard to any of the papers served or filed in the state-court action.
4. This action is removable to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) in that it is a
civil action over which this Court has original and exclusive federal question jurisdiction under
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 78aa because the action arises out of and
seeks to enforce a duty or liability created by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange
Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 78 et seq. NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC is a self-regulatory organization
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a national securities exchange
pursuant to the Exchange Act, as amended. 15 U.S.C. § 78f et seq. The Complaint challenges a
decision by NASDAQ to delist CleanTech's stock from its exchange; NASDAQ and the other
defendants—the members of its Board of Directors and its parent company—were involved in
the delisting proceedings only because of NASDAQ's functions as a self-regulatory
organization. The propriety of Defendants' conduct identified in the Complaint must be
determined exclusively by federal law. See 15 U.S.C. § 78aa.
5. The Complaint expressly "arisfes] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. CleanTech asserts, as its third cause of action, that NASDAQ
has "arbitrarily and capriciously attempted] to delist CleanTech from its stock exchange," in
purported "violation] [of] Section 19(g) of the [Exchange] Act and the Rules promulgated
thereunder by the SEC." Compl. ^f 110. Similarly, CleanTech's fourth cause of action asserts
5. that the same alleged conduct failed to "afford CleanTech the due process to which it is entitled
under the U.S. Constitution when faced with a regulatory action." Id. If 115. Because federal
law supplies the causes of action, if any, invoked by CleanTech in these claims, its suit arises
under federal law. See, e.g., Am. Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U. S. 257, 260
(1916) ("A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action."), quoted with approval in
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trustfor S. Cal, 463 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1983).
6. In addition, removal is proper because CleanTech's suit falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the federal courts. Under 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, "[t]he district courts of the United
States ... shall have exclusive jurisdiction of violations of [the Exchange Act] or the rules and
regulations thereunder, and of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any
liability or duty created by [the Exchange Act] or the rules and regulations thereunder."
CleanTech's complaint alleges both that Defendants "violated Section 19(g) of the [Exchange]
Act, Compl. ^[110, and that they "violated the mandated procedures under NASDAQ and SEC
rules," id. 78. These allegations can be addressed only in federal court. See, e.g., Sparta
Surgical Corp. v. NASD, 159 F.3d 1209, 1212 (9th Cir. 1998) ("federal courts are vested by 15
U.S.C. § 78aa with the exclusive jurisdiction over actions brought 'to enforce any liability or
duty' created by exchange rules"); Christian, Klein, & Cogburn v. NASD, 970 F. Supp. 276, 278
(S.D.N.Y. 1997) (Sotomayor, J.) (upholding removal of complaint against a self-regulatory
organization that "directly invoke[d] violations of federal securities laws as a basis" for the
requested relief).
7. A copy of the Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal is attached as Exhibit C.
Promptly after filing this Notice of Removal, FINRA will serve the Notice of Filing of Notice of
6. Removal on CleanTech, and will file a copy with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
8. WHEREFORE, FINRA removes the state-court action from the Supreme Court of
the State of New York to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Dated: December 20, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
Douglas^.. Cox (DC-1962)
'ouelas^R. (DC-196:
Counsel ofRecord
F. Joseph Warin
Scott P. Martin
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 955-8500
Fax: (202) 467-0539
Counselfor Defendants
7. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 20, 2011, the foregoing Notice of Removal was served
by commercial carrier for next-day delivery upon the following:
Blair C. Fensterstock, Esq.
FENSTERSTOCK & PARTNERS LLP
100 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10005
Counselfor Plaintiff
otTP. Martin
Sco
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 955-8500
Facsimile: (202) 530-4238
8. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
CLEANTECH INNOVATIONS, INC., Index No. ^ 5 2^ |
Plaintiff, Date ofFiling: J^/Zfc/^l
Plaintiff has designated
New York County as the
NASDAQ STOCK MARKET, LLC; MERIT E. JANOW; place of trial pursuant to
STEPHEN D. BARRETT; DANIEL C. BIGELOW; CPLR § 503(1), based upon
MICHAEL J. CURRAN; JOHN A. FRY; the residence of some
WILLIAM LYONS; JOHN D. MARKESE; Defendants.
DOUGLAS MELAMED; ERIC W. NOLL;
WENDY WHITE; and NASDAQ OMX GROUP, INC.,
Defendants.
SUMMONS
To the above named Defendants:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve a
copy of your answer, or if the Complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance, on the Plaintiffs attorneys within twenty (20) days after the service of this
summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete
if this summons is not personally delivered to your within the State of New York); and in case of
your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief
demanded in the Complaint.
9. Dated: December 20, 2011
FENSTERSTOCK & PARTNERS LLP
AlAJb (jtJjM&i
Blair C. Fensterstock
Thomas A. Brown II
Eugene D. Kublanovsky
Michael T. Phillips II
Kristen M. Madison
100 Broadway
New York, New York 10005
(212) 785-4100
Counselfor PlaintiffCleanTech
Innovations, Inc.
Hon. Arlen Specter
Attorney-at-Law
1525 Locust Street, Nineteenth Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
(215 735-4200
Counselfor PlaintiffCleanTech
Innovations, Inc.
TO: Office of General Counsel
The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC
805 King Farm Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20850
Eric Noll
The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC
805 King Farm Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20850
Edward S. Knight, Esq.
NASDAQ OMX
One Liberty Plaza
New York. NY 10006
10. ATTACHMENT A
List of Defendants:
Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC
Merit E. Janow
Stephen D. Barrett
Daniel C. Bigelow
Michael J. Curran
John D. Markese
Douglas Meland
Eric W. Noll
Wendy White
Nasdaq OMX Group, Inc.
11. Stephen D. Barrett
H.C. Wainwright & Co., Inc.
52 Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Daniel C. Bigelow
Monadnock Capital Management, LP
1900 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-3527
Michael J. Curran
Centerline Group
625 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
John D. Markese
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
Wendy White, Esq.
University of Pennsylvania
133 South 36th Street, Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Merit E. Janow
Weatherhead East Asian Institute
Columbia University
420 West 118th Street, MC 3323
New York, NY 10027
A. Douglas Melamed, Esq.
Intel Corporation
2200 Mission College Blvd.
Santa Clara, CA 95054-1549
John A. Fry
Drexel University
3141 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
William M. Lyons
Morningstar, Inc.
22 West Washington Street
Chicago, IL 60602
12. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
x
CLEANTECH INNOVATIONS, INC., Index No. (jffi 5 2M v/1
Plaintiff COMPLAINT
v.
NASDAQ STOCK MARKET, LLC; MERIT E. JANOW;
STEPHEN D. BARRETT; DANIEL C. BIGELOW;
MICHAEL J. CURRAN; JOHN A. FRY;
WILLIAM LYONS; JOHN D. MARKESE;
DOUGLAS MELAMED; ERIC W. NOLL;
WENDY WHITE; and NASDAQ OMX GROUP, INC.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff CleanTech Innovations, Inc. ("CleanTech") brings this action for injunctive
relief against Defendants NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC ("NASDAQ"); NASDAQ's Board of
Directors (individually, Merit E. Janow, Stephen D. Barrett, Daniel C. Bigelow, Michael J.
Curran, John A. Fry, William Lyons, John D. Markese, A. Douglas Melamed, Eric W. Noll, and
Wendy White; collectively, the "Directors"); and NASDAQ's parent company the NASDAQ
OMX Group ("OMX"). By and for its Complaint, CleanTech alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. CleanTech is a U.S. publicly-traded company and market leader in China's clean energy
industry. It is a leading designer and manufacturer of wind turbines and other wind energy
technologies. Since December 15, 2010, CleanTech has been listed on the NASDAQ under the
stock symbol CTEK.
2. Having exhausted all available administrative remedies, CleanTech seeks a temporary
stay, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction preventing NASDAQ from delisting it
I
13. from the NASDAQ Stock Exchange, pending CleanTech's appeal of NASDAQ's final delisting
decision to the Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC").
3. NASDAQ arbitrarily and capriciously determined to delist CleanTech through a slapdash
and sporadic process in contravention of NASDAQ's Stock Market Equity Rules, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and the Rules promulgated thereunder by the SEC, and due
process under the Constitutions of the United States and State of New York.
4. NASDAQ has created this emergency. On December 16, 2011, NASDAQ filed a Form
25 Delisting Notice with the SEC, despite the fact that CleanTech's appeal to the SEC is still
pending. Without judicial intervention, NASDAQ's delisting of CleanTech will be effective 10
days after filing - on December 26, 2011.
5. Delisting CleanTech prior to the SEC's decision on the merits of CleanTech's appeal will
cause the Company irreparable harm - making it difficult for the Company to operate or raise
needed capital and pushing the company into insolvency.
6. Maintaining the status quo, in which CleanTech is suspended from trading on the
NASDAQ but is not delisted, would fairly balance the equities and present no harm to NASDAQ
or the public markets. By preserving the status quo, the SEC would have time to hear the merits
of CleanTech's appeal and CleanTech would be able to operate effectively in the clean energy
marketplace.
THE PARTIES
7. Plaintiff CleanTech Innovations, Inc. is a U.S. publicly-traded company headquartered in
China. Its principal place of business is C District, Maoshan Industrial Park, Tiding Economic
Development Zone, Tiding City, Liaoning Province, China 112616.
14. 8. Defendant NASDAQ Stock Market LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with
its principal place of business at One Liberty Plaza, 165 Broadway, New York, New York,
10006. NASDAQ operates as a non-profit entity, with its profits and losses allocated to
Defendant NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.
9. Defendant NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal
place of business at One Liberty Plaza, 165 Broadway, New York, New York, 10006.
10. Defendant Merit E. Janow is the Chairwoman of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Board
of Directors. She is a Professor in the Practice of International Economic Law and International
Affairs at the School of International and Public Affairs ("SIPA") of Columbia University.
Professor Janow is the Director of the Program in International Finance and Economic Policy at
SIPA and Co-Director of Columbia's APEC Study Center. In addition, she serves on the faculty
of the Weatherhead East Asian Institute and the Center on Japanese Economy and Business at
Columbia Business School. Upon information and belief, her address is at the Weatherhead East
Asian Institute, 420 West 118th Street, MC 3323, New York, New York 10027.
11. Defendant Stephen D. Barrett is a member of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Board of
Directors. Mr. Barrett is the Chief Executive Officer of H.C. Wainwright & Co., Inc., an
investment banking firm. He also serves as Managing Partner of Barrett Associates LLC.
Previously, he served as Vice President of Merrill Lynch and Co. and as Vice Chairman of
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. Upon information and belief, his address is at H.C. Wainwright & Co.,
Inc., 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, New York 10017.
12. Defendant Daniel C. Bigelow is a member of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Board of
Directors. He is the President of Monadnock Capital Management LP. Upon information and
15. belief, his address is at Monadnock Capital Management, LP, 1900 Market Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103-3527.
13. Defendant Michael J. Curran is a member of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Board of
Directors. He is the Senior Managing Director and Interim Co-Head of the Affordable Housing
Group at Centerline Capital Group, Inc. and serves as its Head of Asset Management. Upon
information and belief, his address is at Centerline Capital Group, Inc., 625 Madison Avenue,
New York, New York 10022.
14. Defendant John A. Fry is a member of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Board of
Directors. Since 2010, he has served as the President of Drexel University. He is also a director
of Community Health Systems, Delaware Investments, and NASDAQ-OMX. Upon information
and belief, his address is at Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19104.
15. Defendant William Lyons is a member of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Board of
Directors. He is the Independent Director in the Technology, Information, and Delivery Services
Sector at Morningstar, Inc. Upon information and belief, his address is at Morningstar, Inc., 22
West Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602.
16. Defendant John D. Markese is a member of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Board of
Directors. Since 1992, he has served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the
American Association of Individual Investors. He has been a Director of NASDAQ OMX
PHLX, Inc. since July 1, 2011 and NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. since May 1996. Upon
information and belief, his address is at the NASDAQ headquarters, One Liberty Plaza, 165
Broadway, New York, New York 10006.
I
I
16. 17. Defendant A. Douglas Melamed is a member of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Board
of Directors. He is the Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Intel Corporation. Upon
information and belief, his address is at Intel Corporation, 2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa
Clara, California 95054-1549.
18. Defendant Eric W. Noll is a member of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Board of
Directors. He is the current Chief Executive Officer of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC and the
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. As Executive Vice President of Transaction Services of the United
States and United Kingdom at NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., he oversees the trading operations
of all United States Transaction Services business and is responsible for NASDAQ OMX
Europe. Upon information and belief, his address is at the NASDAQ headquarters, One Liberty
Plaza, 165 Broadway, New York, New York 10006.
19. Defendant Wendy White is a member of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC Board of
Directors. She is the Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the University of
Pennsylvania and Penn Medicine. Upon information and belief, her address is at the University
of Pennsylvania and University of Pennsylvania Health System, 133 South 36th Street, Suite
300, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
20. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants under CPLR §§301 and 302
because they do and transact business in New York, and because many of the material
procedures, events, and occurrences giving rise to the claims alleged herein took place in New
York.
17. 21. Venue is proper in this county pursuant to CPLR § 503(a) because one or more of the
Defendants, including NASDAQ and OMX, had their headquarters in New York County, New
York at all relevant times.
NASDAQ ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY
DETERMINES TO DELIST CLEANTECH
22. Starting on December 15, 2010, CleanTech has been listed on the NASDAQ, having been
approved by NASDAQ Listing Qualifications on December 10, 2010. Fensterstock Aff.1 Ex. 5.
This listing was approved following a five-month review process which included extensive
vetting of, and review of information about, CleanTech's relationship with a successful private
investor and corporate advisor (the "Consultant") referenced in an August 2010 article in
Barron's, the business publication. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 2.
23. Shortly after approving CleanTech's listing on the NASDAQ, NASDAQ Listing
Qualifications Staff (the "Staff) began requesting additional information about CleanTech's
relationship with the Consultant. The Staff requested information regarding CleanTech's
relationship with the Consultant and any affiliated persons or entities, pursuant to NASDAQ
Rules 5205(e) and 5250(a)(1), which empower the Staff to request such information and delist
companies if they do not provide that information. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 2.
24. On December 13, 2010, CleanTech consummated a $20 million financing which was
urgently needed to permit CleanTech to meet mid-December bid deadlines for major wind tower
contracts for 2011. This financing permitted CleanTech to win over $20 million in contracts
with major energy producers. Fensterstock Aff. Exs. 2, 4, 6.
25. CleanTech provided a plethora of information responsive to the Staffs requests,
demonstrating that there was no improper relationship or conduct. Fensterstock Aff. Exs. 2, 4.
1 "Fensterstock Aff." refers to the Affidavit of BlairC. Fensterstock in Support of Plaintiffs Orderto Show Cause
with a Temporary Restraining Order and its attached Exhibits.
18. CleanTech made further disclosures in its Form 8-K, filed with the SEC onDecember 16, 2010.
Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 6.
26. CleanTech filed an S-l Registration Statement on December 16, 2010 to register investor
shares, which was subject to complete SEC scrutiny and review. The SEC cleared the S-l
without any staff comments.
27. Despite the fact that CleanTech provided the information and disclosed it in its December
16, 2010 Form 8-K, the Staff argued that CleanTech withheld material information regarding a
financing plan involving the Consultant and his affiliate companies, which was consummated in
December 2010 (the "December Financing"). Fensterstock Aff. Exs. 2, 7, 9.
28. Contrary to the theories espoused by the NASDAQ Staff and ultimately ratified by
Defendants' determination to delist CleanTech, the December Financing was in no way
connected to or conditioned upon CleanTech's being approved for listing on the NASDAQ, and
CleanTech promptly, timely, and pursuant to all rules and procedures, disclosed the financing in
its December 16, 2010 Form 8-Kand S-l aftersecuring it. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 18.
29. CleanTech further pointed out that it had timely, and pursuant to all proper procedures,
informed the Staff of CleanTech's continuing relationship with the Consultant and his affiliate
companies during the listing application process, and that the Staffhad issued no objection to
CleanTech's ties. That process was thorough, complete, and informed the staff of the
Consultant's activities and relationship with CleanTech and included the production of hundreds
of pages of e-mails, the forced production of attorney-client information, and extensive
interviews. Fensterstock Aff. Exs. 2, 4, 17, 18.
30. Finally, on January 13, 2011, the Staff notified CleanTech that it had determined to delist
CleanTech from NASDAQ, in contravention of NASDAQ's Stock Market Equity Rules, the Act
19. and the Rules promulgated thereunder by the SEC, and due process under the Constitutions of
the United States and State of New York. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 7.
31. CleanTech requested a hearing on January 20, 2011, as a result of the Staffs
determination. The NASDAQ Listing Qualification Hearing Panel (the "Hearing Panel") heard
oral arguments with respect to the CleanTech's Delisting on February 24, 2011 in Washington
D.C. (the "Hearing"). Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 8.
Michael Emen's Discriminatory Comments to the Hearing Panel
32. Representing the Staff at the Hearing was Michael Emen, among others. Mr. Emen, in
putting forth the Staffs position supporting the CleanTech Delisting, spoke at length regarding
the NASDAQ's official —and blatantly discriminatory ~ policy against Chinese companies that
seek listing on the NASDAQ through a mechanism known as reverse mergers. Fensterstock Aff.
Ex.8.
33. Mr. Emen did not hide his contempt for such Chinese companies, or the people who
promote them. Indeed, Mr. Emen proudly admitted singling out such companies and their listing
applications for special consideration, stating that "[o]ver the past year, we've developed
expansive procedures to use in reviewing just this type of company that go well beyond what we
do with other applications." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 8 at 59:15-18. Mr. Emen's statements clearly
indicate that the Staff, rather than apply the same set of procedures for each company that seeks
to be listed on the NASDAQ, instead used a different and racially profiling set of procedures for
a separate class of companies that had one thing in common: their management is Chinese, even
though they are American companies complying with American securities laws.
34. The Staff, by its own admission, applied a double standard to companies that sought
listing on the NASDAQ based on nothing more than whether the listing applications were from
20. China-based companies. In so doing, theNASDAQ applied blatant discriminatory practices and
procedures to single out China-based companies for review and delisting. Fensterstock Aff. Ex.
8.
35. Mr. Emen's bias against China-based companies and reverse mergers are evident in his
statements at the Hearing, including the following examples:
a. "The key regulatory challenge facing us today - NASDAQ - is how to effectively
mitigate the regulatory and reputational risks associated with the listing of Chinese reverse
merger companies..." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 8 at 58:10-14.
b. "Today, nearly 15 percent of our applications come from China, and the majority
of our 180 Chinese listings are the result of reverse mergers." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 8 at 58:15-
18.
c. "There's a cottage industry here and in Chinawhich is devoted to arranging these
reverse merger transactions." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 8 at 58:22-59:2.
d. "Among the promoters the press is focused on are [the Consultant] and his close
associate Ming Li, who, through control of firms here and in China, orchestrated the entire
process through which CleanTech went public and became listed." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 8 at
59:22-60:4.
36. What is more, Mr. Emen's comments at the Hearing reveal that it was the involvement of
the Consultant, rather than any issue regarding CleanTech's alleged untimely disclosure of
information, which resulted in the Staffs request that it be delisted. In fact, when questioned
about whether CleanTech could apply in the future for re-listing, Mr. Emen responded
"[c]ertainly we'd be looking, among other things, at the company's then relationship with [the
Consultant] and his associates in making that decision." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 8 at 73:8-11.
I
21. 37. Despite the fact that the Consultant was not accused, at any time, of any wrongdoing
related to CleanTech, the staff singled out CleanTech's mere association with the Consultant as a
reason for delisting, and went so far as to suggest that any future consideration regarding re
listing CleanTech on the NASDAQ was dependent on, as Mr. Emen stated, "the company's then
relationship with [the Consultant]." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 8 at 73:8-11.
38. Mr. Emen's comments at the Hearing revealed the true motivation behind the Staffs
reason to delist CleanTech: (1) the fact that it was a Chinese company, and (2) its association
with the Consultant. Mr. Emen sought to paint CleanTech in a negative light based solely on its
association with the Consultant and his reputation - not CleanTech's. As Mr. Emen stated at the
Hearing, "[i]t doesn't matter whether [the Consultant's] reputation is deserved or not. What
matters is that he is notorious. We knew of his reputation. We were concerned about it. We
were entitled to ask about it and we've asked about it through the very end of the approval
process." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 8 at 61:18-62:2.
39. Mr. Emen's comments are particularly notable because CleanTech's association with the
Consultant was not listed by the Staff as a basis for delisting, yet the Staff devoted tremendous
time and effort to the Consultant at the Hearing and, indeed, throughout the initial listing process.
40. Notably, despite the Staffs stated "concerns" regarding the Consultant, prior to
NASDAQ's initial approval of CleanTech's listing on the NASDAQ, the Staff had met with,
interviewed, and questioned the Consultant for almost five hours. All of his career, regulatory
history, and the false and misleading articles and blogs about him were explained fully. The
Staffknew full well of his role and relationship with CleanTech, and they nevertheless approved
CleanTech's listing. Mr. Emen and the Staff only subsequently, at the Hearing, sought to
leverage the selective negative press and innuendo they could find concerning the Consultant, to
10
I
22. support their delisting case. Then, they delisted CleanTech basedon fabricated and unsupported
reasons. Fensterstock Aff. Exs. 2, 4, 17.
41. It is apparent that the Staffs false allegation that CleanTech failed to timely disclose
material information was merely an artifice created to single out a China-based company for
delisting based predominately on its association with an individual, who Mr. Emen insinuated
had a "notorious reputation," but against whom no allegations of wrongdoing concerning any
aspect of the CleanTech listing was ever levied and who has never been accused of any criminal
activity. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 8 at 61:20.
42. Mr. Emen's comments to the Hearing Panel were a ruse to shift the focus away from the
Staffs weak case against CleanTech and its pre-judgment that it would delist CleanTech as a
China-based scapegoat.
The Hearing Panel Determines to Delist CleanTech
43. On February 28, 2011, based primarily upon irrational animus against China-based
companies and businesspeople, the Hearing Panel wrongfully determined to delist CleanTech
from the NASDAQ, in contravention of NASDAQ's Stock Market Equity Rules, the Act and the
Rules promulgated thereunder by the SEC, and due process under the Constitutions of the United
States and State of New York. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 9.
44. On March 2, 2011, NASDAQ suspended CleanTech from trading on the NASDAQ.
Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 24.
45. Since being suspended from trading and threatened with delisting, CleanTech's stock
price has fallen from a high of $9.00 to $0.70 - a precipitous decline in market capitalization
equal to approximately $200 million. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 22.
11
23. The Council Sides With CleanTech and Then Reverses Course
46. CleanTech appealed to the NASDAQ Listing and Hearing Review Council (the
"Council"), the body charged with reviewing Hearing Panel decisions, on February 28, 2011 —
the very same day as the Hearing Panel's determination that CleanTech should be delisted.
Fensterstock Aff. Exs. 9, 10.
47. The Council heard new evidence demonstrating that CleanTech's relationship with the
Consultant and the December Financing - in which the Consultant's companies played a part -
were proper.
48. On April 27, 2011, Apollo Asia Management L.P. ("Apollo"), an investment fund located
at 9 West 57th Street, New York City, with $68 billion under management and a sophisticated
shareholder of CleanTech stock, submitted a letter to the NASDAQ Office of Appeals and
Review. Apollo submitted this letter not "on behalf of [CleanTech] ... only to offer the
perspective of a sophisticated shareholder on the circumstances that seem to have led to
[CleanTech's]-Nasdaq delisting." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 12, p. 1.
49. In its letter, Apollo noted that it "[was] well aware of [CleanTech's] affiliation with the
[Consultant] and companies with whom the [Consultant] is affiliated. We are aware of the 2010
Barron's article casting aspersions on [the Consultant] and aware that he may have had
regulatoryproblems in the past. Although his problems occurred in the distant past, and could be
considered by many as minor, we take them seriously. Nonetheless, we have at no time felt that
the affiliation with [the Consultant] has been detrimental to [CleanTech]." Fensterstock Aff. Ex.
12, p. 2.
50. In its letter, Apollo also described the circumstances surrounding the December
Financing being reviewed by NASDAQ.
12
24. "The Council should understand that the benefits to [CleanTech] were
considerable, as the financing allowed [CleanTech] to secure business
opportunities that would not have otherwise been available to it, and made
[CleanTech] more creditworthy by expanding the size and stability of its capital
base. It is also noteworthy that the financing appeared to us to have come
together quickly, of necessity, due to contract bid deadlines [CleanTech] was
facing. Apollo is extremely active in financing markets. Although Apollo was
not involved in this [CleanTech] financing, we have had no reason to believe,
either before or after the financing, that better terms were available than those
obtained." FensterstockAff. Ex. 12,p. 2.
51. In its letter, Apollo concluded:
"In summary, we are of the opinion that, to our knowledge, [CleanTech] has not
done anything that is materially harmful or dangerous to existing or future
shareholders. Nasdaq's decision to delist, however, has negatively impacted the
value of [CleanTech] stock, limited the ability of shareholders to exit their
investments and jeopardizes [CleanTech's] future. We think it is ironic and most
unfortunate that the very constituency Nasdaq aims to protect should be so
negatively affected by its decision. We appreciate that every delisting has
potential to harm existing shareholders, and that this criterion alone cannot
therefore be the sole reason for overturning a delisting decision. But when
viewed alongside questioned company actions that have not harmed shareholders,
and that have in some cases helped shareholders, Nasdaq's decision to delist
[CleanTech] seems unduly harsh." (Emphasis added.) Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 12,
p. 3.
52. On behalf of CleanTech, on May 5, 2011, Donohoe Advisory Associates LLC
("Donohoe") submitted a letter to the NASDAQ Listing and Hearing Review Council, Office of
Appeals and Review. This letter responded to the inclusion of the Apollo letter into the record
before the Council. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 13.
53. In its letter, Donohoe wrote:
"Finally, we think it is important to take note of Apollo's view that [the
Consultant] and [his affiliated company] greatly assisted CleanTech and that
Apollo and other shareholders benefitted from that assistance. Moreover, we
believe it is significant that Apollo expressed this positive view in spite of its
awareness of the Barron's article, which was the basis for the Staffs initial focus
on the Company's relationship with [the Consultant] ... As we indicated in our
Appeal Brief, the Staff had to have reached a conclusion that there was no issue
with the Company's affiliation with [the Consultant] or it would not have been
able to issue the listing approval letter to CleanTech on December 10, 2010. As
13
25. noted throughout the Appeal Brief, during the application process CleanTech had
provided the Staff with the . . . engagement letter and made numerous
representations indicating the expectation that [the Consultant's affiliate] would
be participating in future financings as both investor and placement agent. In that
regard, an . . .affiliate even invested in the Company during the middle of the
application process. In possession of this knowledge, the Staff then issued an
approval letter which did not include any restrictions on CleanTech's
relationship or dealings with [the Consultant or his affiliate companies] . . .
Again, as noted in the Appeal Brief, it was not until the Staff reviewed the
December Financing and concluded that it was a "bad deal," that the Staff raised
concerns about the Company's relationship with [the Consultant] ... As stated
herein and throughout the Appeal Brief, we believe the record is abundantly clear
that the Staffs subjective analysis of the December Financing was faulty and
inherently flawed." (Emphasis added.) Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 13, p.2.
54. On May 19, 2011, the Council issued a decision remanding the delisting dispute to the
Hearing Panel for further development of factual issues. This decision is attached as
Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 14.
55. In its decision to remand to the Hearing Panel, the Council found that the factual record
before the Hearing Panel did not justify delisting and was deficient of evidence on two of the
Staffs accusations against CleanTech. First, the Council found that the Hearing Panel was not
presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that CleanTech intentionally withheld information
about the Consultant, his affiliates, and certain corporate financings. Second, the Council found
the Hearing Panel was not presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that the Company
knew that listing approval from NASDAQ was imminent when it failed to disclose that
information. The Council directed the Staffand CleanTech to present more facts to the Hearing
Panel on these two issues. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 14.
56. On May 26, 2011, NASDAQ notified CleanTech that it had reopened the record before
the Hearing Panel to permit the Staff to respond to an alleged ex parte communication.
NASDAQ bizarrely alleged that the exparte communication was caused by CleanTech because,
when it failed to provide the Staff with a courtesy copy of its April 5, 2011 submission to the
14
26. Council, the Staff had no alternative but to contact the Council after the record was closed.
CleanTech was permitted to rebut the Staffs response. The Office of Appeals and Review
issued a stay of its May 19 decision. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 15.
57. On June 30, 2011, the Consultant submitted a letter (the "June 30 letter") to the
NASDAQ Listing and Hearing Review Council to assist the Council in its understanding of his
role and relationship with CleanTech. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 17.
58. In his letter, the Consultant described his open and willing participation in all of the
NASDAQ inquiries thus far. "We met with NASDAQ China Staff in relation to CleanTech on
several occasions. On November 5, 2010, I voluntarily met with seven NASDAQ listing
investigations and listing qualifications staff in their Rockville offices for almost five hours in
which I answered every question posed to me. The questions addressed my relationship with
CleanTech, the China space generally, issues with other China companies, my history in the
securities industry and even the Barron's article, which I felt contained vague and irresponsible
innuendo." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 17, p. 1.
59. The June 30 letter also described other meetings that he and his associates, including Mr.
Ming Li, had with NASDAQ China Staff. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 17.
60. The June 30 letter clarified some of his business practices.
"We believe that the NASDAQ Staffs criticism of us is based upon a mistaken
belief that we are like certain intermediaries, promoters and finders engaged in
short-term operations to earn a short-term fee. Our business is quite different.
Anchored by ... a well-staffed Beijing-based private equity investor conducting
painstaking and meticulous due diligence, [we work] for the long-term benefit of
our clients and their shareholders. It is essential and common sense for non-US
companies to obtain the type of services that we provide. It is not realistic to
expect a foreign-based company coming to the US market for the first time to
have pre-existing relationships with the legal, banking and accounting
professionals needed to guide a public company or to have an understanding of
US business practices and customs. Imagine the situation in reverse. How could
a US company with no China experience be expected to enter China without the
15
27. guidance of experienced, bilingual local Chinese professionals that understand
Chinese business practices, customs and laws?" Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 17, p.3.
61. The June 30 letter continues:
"The NASDAQ Staff has implied that the involvement of our firm with
CleanTech may somehow constitute a public interest concern. Yet, our firm has
no regulatory history, neither have we ever been labeled 'a public interest
concern' anywhere in the world, including in the US and in China. We have
unfortunately been attacked by tabloid writers and short-sellers along with hosts
of investment banks, consulting firms, corporate issuers, accounting firms and
institutional investors associated with the China space. We are faulted along with
certain other advisors in the China space for doing business with China in a highly
charged anti-China atmosphere. In fact, the Staff has admitted that they are now
scrutinizing all deals in the China space due to public attention and sentiment in
this area." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 17, p.4.
62. The June 30 letter further disclosed: "I have never been sued by the SEC, had to pay a
fine to the SEC, been subject to disgorgement, or other penalty or sanction, nor have I ever been
convicted of a crime." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 17, p. 5.
63. The June 30 letter also discussed CleanTech's previous financing, filings, and Form 8-
Ks, demonstrating that CleanTech's financings and disclosures were entirely within industry
standards, and that the December Financing did not distinguish itself from any of the other
CleanTech financings that NASDAQ and the SEC approved previously. Fensterstock Aff. Ex.
17.
64. The June 30 letter also explained the circumstances surrounding the December
Financing:
"In late November 2010, Stifel advised CleanTech's corporate counsel that Stifel
would not be able to complete the planned $50 million public offering in 2010
and advised the Company to postpone the offering until the first quarter of 2011.
Given the December contract bid deadline, CleanTech, with the assistance of [our
Chinese affiliate], contacted several Wall Street firms and Chinese banks,
including Barclays Capital, Stifel, Cantor Fitzgerald, Canaccord/Genuity, William
Blair, and Bank of Montreal Capital Markets, Bank of China, Shanghai Pudong
Development Bank and Tiding Rural Credit Union seeking their input and/or
possible participation in obtaining a $20 million bridge financing. It quickly
16
28. became clear from those discussions that CleanTech would not be able to get a
bridge financing from any of these banks in a timely fashion.
On November 28, 2010, CleanTech urgently requested that [we] arrange the $20
million financing under the scope of services outlined in the Engagement Letter.
The financing negotiations were conducted rapidly between counsel, Orrick
Herrington, and the Company's securities counsel, Mr. Robert Newman, from
November 30 through the closing of December 13, 2010.
Prior to this financing, [we and our] affiliates owned no voting securities in
CleanTech. Following the financing that voting interest increased to
approximately 2.5%. ... CleanTech is not like some other China-based
companies experiencing accounting or fraud problems and appearing in the news
and should not be punished as if it were one of those companies simply because it
is based in China." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 17, p. 8.
65. About the December Financing, the Consultant wrote:
"Further, the financing was not in any way designed to coincide with the
NASDAQ listing approval and was not in any way conditioned upon a NASDAQ
listing. The financing would have gone through with or without the NASDAQ
listing. Neither I nor anyone at [my company or our Chinese affiliate] had any
role in deciding how or when to disclose the financing to NASDAQ or the SEC,
just as we had no role in deciding how or when to disclose the October financing
by Strong Growth [the China affiliate of the Consultant's Company] into
CleanTech." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 17, p. 5.
"[T]he financing developed rapidly in response to an urgent need. There was
never any effort to conceal our involvement with CleanTech or any CleanTech
financing from NASDAQ and [we] had no role in filing the Form 8-K announcing
the transaction. At all relevant times leading up to the consummation of the
December 13, 2010 financing, [we never] discussed with CleanTech whether or
when the financing would be disclosed to the NASDAQ." Fensterstock Aff. Ex.
17, p. 8.
66. The difficulty in obtaining bridge financing in November and December 2010 was
exceptionally difficult, a fact confirmed by Mr. Newman, CleanTech's securities counsel. "We
viewed the [December Financing] opportunity on the terms CleanTech obtained as a major
victory given the poor market conditions and inability of CleanTech to attain alternate financing
in December of 2010." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 18, p.3.
17
I
29. 67. At all times, CleanTech was transparent with the Staff- this was evident in CleanTech's
rush to disclose the December Financing, just days later in its December 16, 2010 Form 8-K
financing. Fensterstock Aff. Exs. 6, 18.
68. Yet, in a stunning reversal, the Council rapidly issued another decision on July 22, 2011,
short-circuiting the remand to the Hearing Panel and instead affirming the Hearing Panel's
February decision delisting CleanTech. The Counsel held that "[t]he Listing Counsel need not
resolve this dispute. The evidence shows that [CleanTech] intentionally withheld documents
from Staff concerning the December Financing despite repeated requests for information . . ."
Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 20, enclosed within as Ex. A, p. 7.
69. The Council affirmed the Hearing Panel decision in contravention of NASDAQ's Stock
Market Equity Rules, the Act and the Rules promulgated thereunder by the SEC, and due process
under the Constitutions of the United States and State of New York. Id.
70. Reversing its position, the Council suddenly found that CleanTech purposefully withheld
information from the Staff and Hearing Panel concerning certain financing involving [the
Consultant]. Id.
71. This determination was clear legal error and was arbitrary and capricious.
72. This determination was clear legal error because the documents that it newly identified as
purposefully withheld were attorney-client privileged documents that, under the law and under
the SEC's own policies, are held sacrosanct and are protected from production. Fensterstock Aff.
Ex. 18, p. 3.
73. NASDAQ arbitrarily and capriciously pushed for the production of attorney-client
privileged documents. These privileged documents are the only documents that CleanTech was
alleged to have "purposefully withheld." Instead, as the Wall Street law firm Newman &
18
§
30. Morrison LLP explained in its July 1, 2011 letter, it attempted merely to protect CleanTech's
attorney-client privilege while being completely responsive to the NASDAQ inquiries. A true
and correct copy of this letter is attached as Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 18.
74. As Newman & Morrison wrote about the attorney-client privilege that NASDAQ Staff
sought to destroy:
"With respect to [whether CleanTech intentionally withheld information from
NASDAQ Staff], there was no point in time during my firm's representation of
CleanTech that I, nor any member of our firm, intended to withhold information
from the Staff regarding [the Consultant] and his affiliates and/or the [December
Financing]. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, none of CleanTech's
officers, directors, or shareholders, [or the Consultant or his affiliates] intended to
withhold information from the Staff . . . It is my understanding that after
reviewing the approximately 190 emails generated in connection with the
Financing during the period from November 30, 2010, the date of initiation of the
financing effort, to December 13, 2010, the date of closing, the Staff has focused
on one email from Jason Li to me, dated December 9, 2010, as an indication that
CleanTech was fearful of disclosing the planned Financing to NASDAQ. As was
evident in my response to Mr. Li, I interpreted this as a request to expedite the
completion of the Financing and not worry if completion of the Financing
somehow caused a delay in the listing application review process. Accordingly, I
responded that I would move forward with the financing as quickly as possible.
Had I understood Mr. Li's emails to be expressing a concern that the completion
of the Financing could have a negative impact on the listing application, I would
have immediately initiated a discussion on that point with Mr. Li. Moreover, I
would have contacted the NASDAQ Staff to obtain assurances for CleanTech that
it would not negatively affect CleanTech in any way. In my mind, this was a
transaction that fully complied with NASDAQ's shareholder approval rules, was
on terms considered favorable by all involved, and was essential to the future
growth of the Company." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 18, pp. 1:2.
75. Further, NASDAQ Staff inaccurately characterized the process between CleanTech and
the Staff. As Newman & Morrison wrote:
"No person from our firm was involved in any of the [NASDAQ Staff Inquiry]
conversations from the Staffs Submission. Mr. Uchimoto and I discussed the
fact that the Staff was asking CleanTech to waive attorney-client privilege, and I
told him I needed time to review the issue and discuss the facts with our client.
The Staff has incorrectly implied that we were not cooperating with their request
to immediately produce all emails, which would have meant the violation of the
attorney-client privilege. We disagree with that characterization. We were very
19
1
31. responsive in providing the emails given the legal research required before
releasing attorney-client privileged information, time-zone differences, language
barrier and technical issues of combing through the firm's email system to
respond to a comprehensive information request by the Staff. The process took
approximately two days and we responded fully on November 24, 2010."
Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 18, p. 3.
The NASDAQ Board of Directors Declines Review
76. On November 23, 2011, the NASDAQ Board of Directors declined to review the
Council's decision pursuant to its power under NASDAQ Rule 5825, rendering the Council's
decision final. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 19.
77. Under NASDAQ Rule 5825, any member of the Board of Directors may call for the
review of a Council decision. On information and belief, each of the Board Members were not
even informed of the Council's decision with enough information to make a proper decision on
whether to review the Council's decision. This refusal to review the Council's decision was also
made in contravention of NASDAQ's Stock Market Equity Rules, the Act and the Rules
promulgated thereunder by the SEC, and due process under the Constitutions of the United
States and State of New York.
78. On information and belief, expedited discovery will demonstrate that the Board Members
violated the mandated procedure under NASDAQ and SEC Rules, refused to review the Council
decision in bad faith, and contravened their duties when they refused review of the Council
decision.
79. Also on November 23, 2011, CleanTech appealed the decision of the Board of Directors
to the SEC, as provided by Rule 420 of the SEC Rules of Practice. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 20.
80. On December 9, 2011, NASDAQ sent an email to Dave Donohoe, Financial Advisor to
CleanTech, notifying Donohoe Advisory that the NASDAQ Stock Market will issue the attached
20
I
32. press release on December 15, 2011, announcing the filing of NASDAQ's Form 25 Delisting
Notice to go into effect 10 days later. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 24.
81. Also on December 9, 2011, CleanTech submitted a Motion for Reconsideration to the
Board of Directors requesting that they reconsider their decision to decline to review the matter.
Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 21.
82. On December 12, 2011, NASDAQ Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary Joan
C. Conley rejected the Motion for Reconsideration, admitting that "Nasdaq's rules do not
provide a procedure by which the Board of Directors may call a decision for review after the
decision becomes thefinal action ofNasdaq." (Emphasis added.) Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 23.
83. On December 16, 2011, NASDAQ filed a Form 25 Delisting Notice with the SEC, even
as CleanTech's appeal to the SEC is still pending. That From 25 reiterated that:
"On May 26, 2011, the Company was provided notice that the May 19, 2011
Council decision was stayed to allow the record to be opened so that Staff could
address an ex-parte communication on the record. On July 22, 2011, the Council
issued a decision that affirmed the Panel decision to delist the Company's [sic]
securities. On November 23, 2011, the Company was provided notice that the
Nasdaq Board of Directors declined to call the Council decision for review
pursuant to Rule 5825(a)."
Without judicial intervention, NASDAQ will delist CleanTech in 10 days - on December 26,
2011. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 25.
84. This delisting, were it to become effective on December 26, 2011, would be in
contravention of NASDAQ's Stock Market Equity Rules, the Act and the Rules promulgated
thereunder by the SEC, and due process under the Constitutions of the United States and State of
New York.
21
33. 85. If CleanTech is delisted, it faces the distinct possibility of becoming insolvent. This
result would be manifestly unjust and would cause irreparable harm to CleanTech and its
shareholders, making it difficult to raise capital or compete in the marketplace.
CLEANTECH HAS EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
86. CleanTech has exhausted all of the available administrative remedies to prevent the
delisting. NASDAQ filed its Form 25 Delisting Notice with the SEC on December 16, 2011,
starting a ten-day countdown clock that will lead to CleanTech's delisting on December 26,
2011. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 25.
87. A procedural and due process dead zone now exists. There is no other process available
to stay Nasdaq's decision other than through this Court. CleanTech submitted its appeal to the
SEC on November 23, 2011. The SEC can overturn NASDAQ's decision to delist CleanTech.
Because of the standard SEC briefing schedule, the appeal of the delisting decision to the SEC
will not be resolved until well into 2012. By this time, the ten-day countdown clock to
December 26, 2011 will have rung and CleanTech will be delisted, causing it significant and
truly irreparable harm; one which cannot be remedied with money. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 20.
88. Because of this procedural and due process dead zone, nothing short of immediate
judicial intervention can stop the irreparable harm that NASDAQ's delisting would cause
CleanTech.
NASDAQ MUST BE ENJOINED FROM DELISTING CLEANTECH TO AVOID
IRREPARABLE HARM. PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO. AND PROTECT THE
INTERESTS OF THE PARTIES AND SHAREHOLDERS
89. As a result of NASDAQ's arbitrary, capricious, and racially motivated actions thus far, in
addition to NASDAQ's unwarranted and obtrusive invasion of the attorney client privilege,
CleanTech has been unduly harmed. CleanTech has lost an excellent opportunity to bid on the
22
I
34. New Jersey Atlantic City Project which involved the construction of six wind towers for a total
contract order of $8,400,000. The New Jersey Atlantic City Project also involves a follow-up
project, which will construct 70 towers, for a total price of just under $100 million. The first
towers will be assembled in New Jersey, using United States employees. The State of New
Jersey would have provided CleanTech, at very low cost and with simple terms, the capital
necessary to construct and outfit a manufacturing facility. As the result of the delisting effort by
NASDAQ, CleanTech lost this opportunity. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 21, enclosed within as Ex. A.
90. Since being suspended from trading and threatened with delisting, CleanTech's stock
price has fallen from a high of $9.00 to $0.70 - a precipitous decline in market capitalization
equivalent to approximately $200 million. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 22.
91. When NASDAQ threatened CleanTech with delisting, a $50,000,000 stock offering that
CleanTech was preparing with Stifel Financial Corporation was abandoned because Stifel could
not sell CleanTech's stock. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 21, enclosed within as Ex. A.
92. NASDAQ's efforts have also sabotaged CleanTech's efforts to raise capital through the
Toronto Stock Exchange and Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Id.
93. In its April 27, 2011, letter to the NASDAQ Office of Appeals and Review, Apollo also
described the irreparable harm to CleanTech shareholders as a result of NASDAQ's trading
suspension and threat to delist CleanTech. Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 12.
94. Apollo noted that the delisting decision "disadvantaged existing and future shareholders
of [CleanTech] - ironically, the very constituencies it aims to protect." As proof of such harm,
Apollo pointed out that (1) CleanTech stock fell over 50% since the initial delisting decision; (2)
the stock's volume also fell, resulting in reduced liquidity; (3) as a public company, CleanTech
was required to disclose the delisting decision, which resulted in permanent damage to its
23
35. reputation; and (4) the delisting decision impaired CleanTech's ability to obtain financing, which
has caused irreparable harm. Id., pp. 1-2.
95. If CleanTech is delisted, the re-listing process will bring it further financial ruin. The
application costs a $25,000 fee, and NASDAQ gives no indication of how soon the application
will be processed. CleanTech will lose significant time and money.
96. These types of harms will only be exacerbated should Defendants be permitted to
effectuate the delisting while CleanTech's SEC appeal is still pending.
97. Delisting CleanTech prior to the SEC's decision on the merits of CleanTech's appeal
would cause the company irreparable harm - making it difficult for the company to operate or
raise needed capital and pushing the company into insolvency.
98. Maintaining the status quo, in which CleanTech is suspended from trading on the
NASDAQ but not delisted, would fairly balance the equities and presents no harm to NASDAQ
or the public markets. By preserving the status quo, the SEC would have time to hear the merits
of CleanTech's appeal and CleanTech would be able to operate effectively in the clean energy
marketplace.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Against All Defendants)
TEMPORARY STAY OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
99. CleanTech incorporates the preceding allegations of this Complaint in paragraphs 1
through 98 as if fully set forth herein.
100. Without a stay pending its hearing on the preliminary injunction enjoining NASDAQ
from delisting CleanTech, CleanTech will suffer irreparable harm while it simply awaits the
SEC's adjudication of its appeal.
101. A temporary stay and preliminary injunction would preserve the status quo while this
Court and the SEC determine the merits of permanent injunctive relief.
24
36. 102. Maintaining CleanTech's listing on the NASDAQ pending the SEC's determination of
CleanTech's appeal would properly balance the equities. It is no burden for NASDAQ to
maintain CleanTech's listing on the NASDAQ - NASDAQ has already suspended trading in
CleanTech on the exchange and that suspension continues.
103. Having submitted its appeal to the SEC, CleanTech has exhausted all of its administrative
remedies. The SEC may still reverse NASDAQ's decision to delist. However, no NASDAQ or
SEC administrative procedure permits CleanTech to seek an interim stay of the delisting.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Against All Defendants)
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
104. CleanTech incorporates the preceding allegations of this Complaint in paragraphs 1
through 103 as if fully set forth herein.
105. Without a permanent injunction enjoining NASDAQ from delisting CleanTech,
CleanTech will suffer irreparable harm while it simply awaits the SEC's adjudication of its
appeal.
106. A permanent injunction would preserve the status quo while the SEC determines the
merits of CleanTech's appeal.
107. Maintaining CleanTech's listing on the NASDAQ pending the SEC's determination of
CleanTech's appeal would properly balance the equities. It is no burden for NASDAQ to keep
CleanTech suspended from trading but maintain its listing on the NASDAQ.
108. Having submitted its appeal to the SEC, CleanTech has exhausted all of its administrative
remedies. The SEC may still reverse NASDAQ's decision to delist. However, no NASDAQ or
SEC administrative procedure permits CleanTech to seek an interim stay of the delisting.
25
I
37. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Against All Defendants)
VIOLATION OF SECTION 19(g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
109. CleanTech incorporates the preceding allegations of this Complaint in paragraphs 1
through 108 as if fully set forth herein.
110. By arbitrarily and capriciously attempting to delist CleanTech from its stock exchange,
Defendants have violated Section 19(g) of the Act and the Rules promulgated thereunder by the
SEC. Section 19(g) mandates that stock exchanges like the NASDAQ maintain compliance with
their own rules.
111. NASDAQ's effort to delist CleanTech has been marred by procedural deficiencies,
arbitrary and capricious fact findings, and a rush to judgment - all of which have violated
NASDAQ Rules.
112. These violations of NASDAQ Rules have irreparably harmed CleanTech and pushed it to
the brink of insolvency.
113. Only injunctive relief preventing CleanTech's delisting pending the SEC appeal can
prevent further violation of these Rules and the Act.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against All Defendants)
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE U.S. CONST. AMEND. V.
114. CleanTech incorporates the preceding allegations of this Complaint in paragraphs 1
through 113 as if fully set forth herein.
115. Defendants, acting in their role as a quasi-governmental and regulatory body, have
arbitrarily and capriciously pushed to delist CleanTech from the NASDAQ. This effort does not
afford CleanTech the due process to which it is entitled under the U.S. Constitution when faced
with a regulatory action.
26
38. 116. NASDAQ Rules maintain a procedural and due process dead zone in which an issuer's
appeal to the SEC may still be pending even as NASDAQ files its Form 25 Delisting Notice and
effectuates delisting.
117. By NASDAQ's own admission, "Nasdaq's rules do not provide a procedure by which the
Board of Directors may call a decision for review after the decision becomes the final action of
Nasdaq." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 23.
118. NASDAQ's process has not afforded CleanTech due process to contest the Staffs initial
delisting determination.
119. Because it is possible for NASDAQ to delist CleanTech and then CleanTech to prevail in
its appeal before the SEC of the NASDAQ action, Defendants have denied CleanTech the due
process owed to it under the U.S. Constitution.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Against All Defendants)
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE N.Y. CONST. ART. I S 6
120. CleanTech incorporates the preceding allegations of this Complaint in paragraphs 1
through 119 as if fully set forth herein.
121. Defendants, acting in their role as a quasi-governmental and regulatory body, have
arbitrarily and capriciously pushed to delist CleanTech from the NASDAQ. This effort does not
afford CleanTech the due process to which it is entitled under the Constitution of the State of
New York when faced with a regulatory action.
122. NASDAQ Rules maintain a procedural and due process dead zone in which an issuer's
appeal to the SEC may still be pending even as NASDAQ files its Form 25 Delisting Notice and
effectuates delisting.
27
39. I
I 123. By NASDAQ's own admission, "Nasdaq's rules do not provide a procedure by which the
I Board of Directors may call a decision for review after the decision becomes the final action of
Nasdaq." Fensterstock Aff. Ex. 23.
I 124. NASDAQ's process has not afforded CleanTech due process to contest the Staffs initial
I delisting determination.
125. Because it is possible for NASDAQ to delist CleanTech and then CleanTech to prevail in
I its appeal before the SEC of the NASDAQ action, Defendants have denied CleanTech the due
• process owed to it under the Constitution of the State of New York.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
I WHEREFORE, CleanTech prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
I A. As and for its First Cause of Action, a stay pending its hearing on the preliminary
injunction enjoining Defendants from delisting CleanTech from the NASDAQ Capital Market
I and/or otherwise effectuating the Form 25 Delisting Notice filed with the SEC on December 16,
I 2011 until such a time as the SEC makes a determination on CleanTech's appeal of NASDAQ's
delisting determination;
I B. As and for its Second Cause of Action for a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants
I from delisting CleanTech from the NASDAQ Capital Market and/or otherwise effectuating the
Form 25 Delisting Notice filed with the SEC on December 16, 2011 until such a time as the SEC
I makes a determination on CleanTech's appeal of NASDAQ's delisting determination;
C. As and for it Third Cause of Action for violation of Section 19(g) of the Securities
I
Exchange Act for an Order enjoining the effectiveness of that decision and ordering expedited
I discovery relating to the NASDAQ Board of Directors' decisions not to call for review the
I
I 28
I
40. NASDAQ Listing and Hearing Review Council's decision to affirm the Hearing Panel's
determination to delist CleanTech;
D. As and for its Fourth Cause of Action for violation of due process guaranteed under the
Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution an Order enjoining the effectiveness of the NASDAQ
decision and ordering expedited discovery relating to the NASDAQ Board of Directors'
decisions not to call for review the NASDAQ Listing and Hearing Review Council's decision to
affirm the Hearing Panel's determination to delist CleanTech;
E. As and for its Fifth Cause of Action for violation of due process guaranteed under Article
I, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of New York an Order enjoining the effectiveness of
the NASDAQ decision and ordering expedited discovery relating to the NASDAQ Board of
Directors' decisions not to call for review of the NASDAQ Listing and Hearing Review
Council's decision to affirm the Hearing Panel's determination to delist CleanTech; and
29
41. For any other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: December 19, 2011
FENSTERSTOCK & PARTNERS LLP
4$& 6W^)
Blair C. Fensterstock
Thomas A. Brown II
Eugene D. Kublanovsky
Michael T. Phillips II
Kristen M. Madison
100 Broadway
New York, New York 10005
(212) 785-4100
Counselfor PlaintiffCleanTech
Innovations, Inc.
ARLEN SPECTER
Attorney-at-Law
1525 Locust Street, Nineteenth Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
(215 735-4200
Counselfor PlaintiffCleanTech
Innovations, Inc.
30