Latest news with #Rule
Business Upturn
7 hours ago
- Business
- Business Upturn
Qualigen Therapeutics Provides Update on Nasdaq Communications and Continued Listing Status
CARLSBAD, Calif., July 28, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Qualigen Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: QLGN) (the 'Company') received two different communications from the staff of the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications office of the Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC. The Company received the first notice from the Nasdaq Listings Qualifications office of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC on July 23, 2025, informing the Company that as reflected in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2025 filed with the SEC on July 21, 2025, the Company failed to comply with the $2.5 million stockholder's equity required under Nasdaq Rule 5550(b)(1) (the 'Equity Rule') or any alternative standard under Nasdaq 5550(b). On June 24, 2025, the Company received a second communication from the Office of the General Counsel of Nasdaq, confirming that Nasdaq had reviewed and accepted the Company's request for an extension with respect to three specific items. First, the Company was required to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2025, by July 21, 2025 — which Nasdaq confirmed has been completed. Second, the Company was required to regain compliance with the minimum stockholders' equity requirement (the 'Equity Rule') by July 28, 2025 — which it has achieved through the successful closing of a $4.5 million private placement of Series A-3 Preferred Stock, prior to customary fees and expenses, as announced earlier today. Third, the Company was required to demonstrate a plan to maintain compliance with all applicable continued listing standards — which Nasdaq acknowledged it has received, including the Company's plan to maintain compliance with the stockholders' equity requirement over the next 12 months. The Company is making every effort to maintain its current Nasdaq listing and will continue to take all necessary actions toward that goal. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to maintain compliance with Nasdaq's continued listing requirements. The Company intends to file a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission later today, which will include a pro forma balance sheet reflecting stockholders' equity in compliance with the applicable requirements, assuming the private placement described above had closed as of March 31, 2025. About Qualigen Therapeutics, Inc. Qualigen Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: QLGN) is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing novel therapeutics for the treatment of cancer and infectious diseases. The Company's pipeline includes QN-302, a selective G-quadruplex inhibitor targeting various tumor types including pancreatic cancer; QN-247, a nucleolin-targeting compound for hematologic malignancies; and a family of small-molecule RAS oncogene protein-protein interaction inhibitors. Each of these programs is designed to address areas of high unmet medical need, with the potential for orphan drug designation. Qualigen is committed to advancing its therapeutic pipeline to improve patient outcomes and create long-term value for shareholders. For more information about Qualigen Therapeutics, Inc., please visit Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains 'forward-looking statements' within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates, assumptions, and projections about future events and involve inherent risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements the filing of a resale registration statement, and the Company's future business plans and strategies. Words such as 'anticipates,' 'expects,' 'intends,' 'plans,' 'believes,' 'seeks,' 'estimates,' 'may,' 'will,' 'could,' 'would,' 'should,' 'continues,' and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from those projected due to a number of factors, including risks related to the Company's ability to successfully develop and commercialize its product candidates, regulatory developments, market conditions, the Company's ability to maintain compliance with Nasdaq listing requirements, and other risks described in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by law. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. This caution is made under the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Contact: Investor Relations [email protected]. Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with GlobeNewswire. Business Upturn takes no editorial responsibility for the same. Ahmedabad Plane Crash
Business Wire
3 days ago
- Business
- Business Wire
Caliber Announces Confidential Submission of Draft Registration Statement for Proposed Initial Public Offering
LEWISVILLE, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Caliber Holdings Inc. ('Caliber') today announced that it has confidentially submitted a draft registration statement on Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 'SEC') relating to the proposed initial public offering of its common stock. The number of shares to be offered and the price range for the proposed offering have not yet been determined. Caliber expects to use the proceeds from the offering for general corporate purposes, which may include the repayment of indebtedness. This news release is being made pursuant to and in accordance with Rule 135 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy securities, and shall not constitute an offer, solicitation or sale in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of that jurisdiction.
Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Orange declines to take a stance on unmasking federal immigration agents
An emotional Orange City Council meeting ended Tuesday with a resolution that would have taken a stance against the use of face coverings by federal immigration agents failing to pass. Councilmembers Arianna Barrios and Ana Gutierrez, the first two Latinas elected to Orange City Council, passionately championed the effort in the wake of masked federal immigration agents making arrests in the city this summer. 'While it is perfectly clear to me that, legally, our council has no jurisdiction when it comes to the federal government's immigration enforcement, we do maintain the right as a sitting council to speak out against injustice,' Barrios said. Despite their own concerns over face masks worn by federal agents, a majority of the council members who voted to table the resolution cited the city's lack of legal authority to override the federal government as a factor in their decision. 'They don't have to listen to the city of Orange,' Councilmember Jon Dumitru said. 'In the end, it's a piece of paper that doesn't matter. Santa Ana even backed away from passing a resolution like this.' The proposed resolution did not mark the first time Orange City Council tried to weigh in on immigration in a non-binding way. In 2010, Dumitru himself introduced a pair of immigration-related resolutions, including one that effectively declared Orange a 'Rule of Law' city and claimed that undocumented immigrants burdened services and resources at the time. A handful of pro-immigrant activists derided the council's approval of that resolution by presenting a satirical 'ruled by clowns' resolution of their own to the city. This time around, critics of roving patrols by masked federal immigration agents packed council chambers after a short march from the Orange Circle. 'I've lived in Orange for 33 years and I'm a proud supporter of our fine law enforcement,' Paul Hudson said during the council meeting. 'I can't imagine any one of them ever wearing a mask and pulling me over. That's unfathomable.' John Reina, the sole resident to speak against the resolution, argued that it missed its unmasking mark. 'The real danger to us is the rioters who shoot firearms, throw rocks, toss fireworks and hurl concrete blocks and other items at our law enforcement, all the while wearing masks,' he said. 'Where is the outrage and resolution banning face coverings from people protesting in our streets?' Barrios argued that masked federal immigration agents set back efforts to build community trust in local law enforcement while opening the door for imposters to act nefariously. To drive home her point, Barrios held up a black vest and cap with 'security' embroidered on it that she bought from Amazon. 'I guarantee you, it's happening,' she said. 'There have been reports and people have been arrested as nearby as in Huntington Park, in terms of people impersonating ICE because of the way they're dressed, because of the masks.' Last month, Huntington Park police arrested a man they suspected of impersonating a Border Patrol agent after finding an unlicensed handgun, copies of U.S. Homeland Security removal notices and a list of U.S. Customs and Border Protection radio codes in his possession. In making her case, Gutierrez focused on a federal immigration sweep that occurred on July 1 near her El Modena neighborhood home. 'It's very hard to watch my community and my [ethnic group] being…racially profiled and treated in this matter,' she said. 'I don't feel safe, my children don't feel safe and many people in my community do not feel safe. This is very important. This is just one little line in the sand that we can draw say that we're here for our community.' Gutierrez also brought Orange Police Chief Adam Jevec into the discussion on policing and masks. 'We police differently,' Jevec said in response to Gutierrez. 'We're part of the community. The expectation of our community is that we are transparent and are held accountable. That's why we wear body-worn cameras, that's why we have reports, that's why we have uniforms, name badges and policies that represent that.' Jevec added that his officers cannot interfere with federal immigration enforcement actions but can report to such scenes to verify that imposters are not kidnapping people. Councilmember John Gyllenhammer supported the idea behind the resolution but had reservations about language outlining law enforcement protocol. Barrios responded by highlighting mask exceptions for SWAT teams and bomb squads. She also signaled a willingness to amend the resolution, but her council colleagues did not take her up on the offer. Mayor Dan Slater feared the resolution in any form would mislead the public into thinking Orange had any kind of authority over federal agencies. 'Regardless of we feel about this issue, I honestly don't think the federal government is going to listen to what the Orange City Council has to say,' he said. 'Santa Ana and L.A. are finding out the hard way that their efforts in this regard are being completely dismissed. In fact, they have been made targets. This issue belongs squarely at the feet of Congress and the courts.' Dumitru moved to table the resolution. Councilmembers Denis Bilodeau, Kathy Tavoularis and Slater voted alongside him in doing so. After the vote, Barrios vented her frustration, especially after a prior effort to put a 'Know Your Rights' page on the city's website did not win support. Two days after the council meeting, masked federal immigration agents appeared in Orange near North Highland Street. Residents sent Barrios photos and videos in alerting her to their presence, which amplified her frustrations. 'This was a Latino neighborhood filled with dense, low-income apartments,' Barrios told TimesOC. 'It underscores exactly what we were talking about at our council meeting.'
Forbes
5 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Information Is Extraordinarily Valuable. How Dangerous To Make It Free
Creative / Feature: Waze und Google Maps-App auf einem iPhone (Photo by Hoch Zwei/Corbis via Getty ... More Images) Google purchased Waze for $1.15 billion in 2013. Why would it pay so much for an app that people can access for free, and that charges them nothing for usage? The answer is that information is incredibly valuable. While Waze once again doesn't charge anyone for usage and directions, how people use it along with when and where people go with it is surely valuable to businesses eager to meet and lead the needs of an acquisitive public. The price paid for Waze back when $1 billion was $1 billion is useful to think about as conservatives get all worked up about the removal of Rule 1033 from the GENIUS Act. The Rule, one whose implementation was initially cheer-led by former CFPB head Rohit Chopra, mandates that banks and other large financial institutions provide outside businesses free access to information gathered about existing bank customers. Something's wrong with this Rule, which is more than an understatement. To understand why, please yet again contemplate the 2013 acquisition of Waze. If the information produced by the latter rated such a high acquisition price, stop and think what large financial institutions could command for databases pregnant with knowledge about the saving, investing, and buying habits of hundreds of millions of clients and depositors. In contemplating the above, stop and think about the shareholders of the largest financial institutions, and their understandable expectation that the institutions they own maximize their profit-making potential. Considered in that way, Rule 1033 quickly becomes much more than a costly regulatory burden foisted on large financial institutions. Worse than that, it becomes a subsidy for the myriad other businesses inside and outside of finance eager to poach some of the most remunerative customers in the world while armed with some of the best information. No business can give away something so valuable for free. From there, just ask why FinTechs and other non-bank entities would be so interested in accessing information about big bank customers in the first place. Rest assured that the interest isn't rooted in staring lovingly at the data. See above. What banks go to great expense to compile and store in highly protective fashion is extraordinarily valuable to businesses outside the banking system for the same reason that it's valuable to the entities compiling it. Translated, they're eager to use the information gathered by the big banks with an eye on courting those same customers with products and services not just tailored to meet their individual needs, but to lead them. Which easily explains why banks and financial institutions have begun charging a fee for access to the information. It's not just that there are substantial costs associated with compilation, it's that there must be compensation for creating crucial knowledge that is so valuable to so many. What's puzzling is that these truths are even being debated. More puzzling is that some of those debating them are conservatives who, at least in the past, would have been the first to defend businesses against price controls foisted on them from the proverbial Commanding Heights. Rule 1033 isn't just wrongheaded and a price control, it's also anti-customer exactly because it mandates giving away what's crucial and valuable for free. If there's no value in producing essential knowledge about customers, what's the point of continuing to create what businesses of all stripes very much require to meet and lead the needs of their customers?
The Herald Scotland
7 days ago
- Automotive
- The Herald Scotland
Can cyclists be fined for speeding on UK roads? All to know
However, there are some rules that you might not be aware of. CyclingMikey BANNED from reporting drivers to the police? — CyclingMikey the Unspeakable (@MikeyCycling) July 18, 2025 What does the law say about speeding cyclists? According to Slater Gordon Lawyers, cyclists share no legal obligation to adhere to the same speed limits as motorists. Speed limits listed in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Rule 124 of the Highway Code apply to motor vehicles, not bicycles. 'It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour. 'A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence.' Despite this, some local bylaws impose a cycling speed limit. Is there a speed limit on a cycle path? According to CouncilClaims, cyclists are not obligated by law to use the cycle lane and cycle track. It is merely seen as a safer option, and you should consider using either the cycle lanes next to public roads or cycle tracks that are separate from the carriageways. These facilities ensure safer passage for cyclists, but ultimately the choice is yours. Although there are no set speed limits for cycle paths, some offroad cycle paths indicate a limit of 15mph. Some speed limits also suggest that any speed above 18mph on a bicycle should instead be done on the road. This is not a law but more of a suggestion. Recommended reading: Is there a cyclist speeding limit? Rule 123 of the Highway Code includes a table that outlines the speed limits for various types of vehicles on different categories of roads. The table does not include bicycles. So no, cyclists in the UK are not legally required to adhere to the same speed limits as motorists. Cyclists who breach the speed limit may not be prosecuted for a speeding offence, but they can, however, be prosecuted for 'cycling furiously' or 'wanton and furious cycling.'
