The SEC has pushed back on Triller's appeal after de-listing the company from the NASDAQ stock exchange on Tuesday.
Triller was de-listed after it had failed to meet a proposed deadline set by a NASDAQ Hearings Panel to submit documents pertaining to the company's financial position. In its filing on the matter, the company argued that it had been unfairly treated and had previously requested an extended deadline prior to the lapse of the existing one. And it declared an intention to appeal the matter to the fullest extent.
However, the SEC filed a response on Wednesday that denied the stay on the de-listing and shed more light on why the decision had been made. According to the response, NASDAQ notified Triller on three occasions between April and August that the company was not in compliance, and subsequently granted an extension until October 13. But Triller was said to have been warned that, if it did not satisfy the terms of the extension, then the company would be de-listed.
NASDAQ determined to de-list Triller effective October 23 if Triller did not appeal. It did appeal, leading to the hearing on November 25 to propose the latest timeline for Triller to regain compliance and continued to list it on the exchange. It was determined with that timeline that there was inclination not to grant further extensions, it being stipulated that "Triller should be held to a strict timeline in light of the amount of time investors have not had access to audited financials."
Thus, when Triller did not meet its latest deadline, it was determined that it had to be de-listed and trading would be suspended. It was deemed by NASDAQ that Triller would not even be able to meet the new deadline it had requested itself.
The SEC's Secretary, Vanessa Countryman, wrote in her denial that Triller would have needed to justify that the "extraordinary" relief action was warranted. It was determined that, for the time being, the company has neither shown a likelihood of success in their appeal or raised a serious legal question on the merits and remaining factors that weigh against the stay.
She wrote that Triller has not disputed that it violated NASDAQ's Periodic Filing Rule or that it has failed to regain compliance, but rather argues that NASDAQ violated Triller's due process rights, and has acknowledged that it is still pursuing relief through NASDAQ's own review process. She further concluded that there is no present evidence to suggest Triller was unfairly treated by the process.
"Triller argues that he Hearing Panel's de-listing decision will harm Triller's plans to raise capital, its reputation, and its existing shareholders. These considerations are outweighed by Triller's failure to show a likelihood of success or to raise a serious legal question on the merits and by the potential harm to investors and public interest," Countryman's ruling continues. "Investors must be able to rely on a company's listing on the exchange as an indication that the company meets certain requirements."
The ruling largely cites the harm to potential shareholders that an improperly regulated company being listed on the exchange can have, and emphasizes that Triller is, by its own admission, operating outside of these regulations. Thus, it is felt that NASDAQ has taken the appropriate action and Triller will be expected to continue its review process with the exchange itself.
