I realize companies have to correlate a number of

I realize companies have to correlate a number of real world issues and so on that score I am usually defending them
OTC etc would have to notify all the no info and limited info companies affected by the new rule and I have to believe OTC and or more official stock agencies have already notified the affected companies for some time

and thus I have been expecting NNLX to address the issue in a PR either as a stand alone topic or as part of a broader group email.
Almost ay communication by a no info company is a risk because otc etc does not allow non-current co's to have a promotion, which includes almost anything that can substantially raise the share price ,including a PR. Thus many non-current co's find themselves blacklisted with a skull and bones ce -I've personally witnessed and been affected by such things.

The bigger picture I've been trying to paint is that the new rule is just the culmination of a long process since 2009 to eliminate non-current companies-that is the purpose for the reasons I've explained.

So the rule is saying ante up to current status or you will largely be shut out of the market.

There are many grey stocks but i dont remember seeing any meaningful movement in such and under the new rule at a minimum-and this is only if the SEC accepts otc's suggestion to allow accredited investors to trade such stocks - but the vast majority of low penny investors dont qualify as accredited investors- and from etrades missive -one i fully expect to be followed by several if not most other major brokers (who dont want to mess with such distinctions or loopholes bc it cuts into their bottom line and many brokers already hate penny stocks even though the online trading commission is the same) the brokers will shut out nonaccredited investors in such stocks-they will be forced to. And if the SEC does not allow accredited investors to trade non-current stocks the stock might as well be a grey stock which is effectively shut out of the market.

One long has mentioned that it may not be necessary if NNLX makes a deal and thus uplists. The problem with that as we've all seen here is it usually takes a long time to make a game changing deal and the SEC has set firm short term timelines.
Plus the changes NNLX needs to make in its reporting to satisfy the new SEC rule are a mere subset of the larger changes NNLX will have to make to uplist to the otcqb or otcqx or a big board (hard to think of that in the short term because the annual fees alone for a big board are ca 150- 185k and an initial minimum bid price of ca 2-4 dollars) plus usually an initial market cap of 40M plus etc .

Another way to put it- they are making the cost to be a noncurrent company a lot higher than the cost to be a current company!!! That reality has been growing for years and now it is here. This would include defending against possible lawsuits by parties affected by a pps decline resulting from a failure to upgrade to current info.

I've pointed out those tangible and intangible costs several times-one of those costs is defending against the whistle blower complaint- no info co's are more susceptible to such and essentially have a higher burden of proof (in broad terms) in defending against in the eyes of the stock agencies.

Thus I would expect NNLX to upgrade IF they are aware of these things. One of the reasons I've been elaborating is that this is such a very very very specialized subset of the law that most companies and super lawyers are not aware of these things-so I'm making sure via these posts they are aware and thus can make decisions in light of all the facts and the changing no info landscape.