The rectification of the issue is in making your securities trade above USD 1.00 on a closing basis.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
This is what we wrote for Gogoro in November 2024<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With steady losses comes the problem of a falling share price, and there is a point where you start hitting the barrier called Nasdaq Listing Rule 5450(a)(1). On Oct 29th, Gogoro received a notice from NASDAQ indicating that for the last 30 consecutive business days, the closing bid price of the Company’s ordinary shares was below the minimum bid price of US$1.00 per share requirement outlined in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5450(a)(1). This does not impact share trading for now, and Gogoro has 180 days to rectify the problem. The management stated that they expect a solid financial plan and outlook that will improve Gogoro\u2019s share price. However, they did mention inorganic steps to be taken if the share price does not recover, as the NQ listing is of utmost importance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, in case of Zapp ELectric, Nasdaq has ruled that the company is not eligible for a 180-day grace period under Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), in which to regain compliance, because the Company cured a prior failure to comply with the Minimum Bid Price Rule using a reverse stock split in the previous twelve months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In simple terms, in April 2024, Zapp had undertaken a 1-to-20 reverse stock split<\/strong><\/a>, consolidating its shareholding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With that done, Zapp only has 30 days to get its share price to trade above USD 1.00 on a closing basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Zapp now plans to appeal to the hearing panel Per Listing Rule 5815(a)(5), the Company will submit to the Hearings Panel “a written plan of compliance, including if necessary a commitment to effect a reverse stock split, and request that the Panel grant an exception to the listing standards for a limited time period, as permitted by Rule 5815(c)(1) (A).”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n India-based Ola Electric has paid all the dues of its (ex) vendor Rosmerta Group. From Ola Electric’s media release:<\/p>\n\n\n\n For context, Rosmerta was responsible for running the registration process of Ola scooters. Ola decided to bring the process in-house and let go of its vendor. At the same time, Ola wanted to renegotiate payment for the work the vendor had already done. This work was done under an existing contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is a questionable practice to renegotiate a contract on a retrospective basis for services already delivered. Ola expected a small vendor like Rosmerta to settle for a smaller sum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instead, Rosmerta doubled down and went to the National Company Law Tribunal (\u201cNCLT\u201d), Bengaluru.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was a foregone conclusion that Ola would have to pay up as soon as Rosmerta doubled down and took the case to NCLT. Under the law, if a company fails to pay a vendor, it indicates that it has run out of money and should be liquidated. In Indian law, insolvent companies are referred to the NCLT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now that the matter is settled, the Rosmerta Group has withdrawn the petition from NCLT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the event casts a shadow on Ola’s management practices and judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ‘amicable settlement’ also opens the doors for suppliers with similar grievances to take a similar approach. Rosmerta had a part of Ola’s registration business. Another supplier, Shimnit<\/strong><\/a>, had also been let go and has a similar case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/insightev.com\/content\/images\/2025\/03\/image-34.png\")
\n\n\n\nOla Electric<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/insightev.com\/content\/images\/2025\/03\/image-35-1-1-1.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nImpact<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nArgentina<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/insightev.com\/content\/images\/2025\/03\/image-36.png\")