Voluntary de-listing on NASDAQ

A contributor posted the notification of this filing as a comment under the “New Capital. . . ” post.   I’m not sure what to make of this. Your thoughts?

A contributor also sent in the following related link on de-listing:  http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/032002.asp#axzz1yGO2aRie

Here is a copy of the filing :

  Form 25

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D. C. 20549

FORM 25

NOTIFICATION OF REMOVAL FROM LISTING AND/OR

REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12(b) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.

Commission File Number    0-20050

Issuer: Princeton National Bancorp, Inc.

Exchange: The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC (The Nasdaq Global Market)

(Exact name of Issuer as specified in its charter, and name of Exchange where security is listed and/or registered)

606 South Main Street, Princeton, IL 61356        (815) 875-4444

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of Issuer’s principal executive offices)

Common Stock, $5.00 Par Value

(Description of class of securities)

Please place an X in the box to designate the rule provision relied upon to strike the class of securities from listing and registration:

¨ 17 CFR240.12d2-2(a)(1)

¨ 17 CFR240.12d2-2(a)(2)

¨ 17 CFR240.12d2-2(a)(3)

¨ 17 CFR240.12d2-2(a)(4)

¨ Pursuant to 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(b), the Exchange has complied with its rules to strike the class of securities from listing and/or withdraw registration on the Exchange1.

x Pursuant to 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(c), the Issuer has complied with the rules of the Exchange and the requirements of 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(c) governing the voluntary withdrawal of the class of securities from listing and registration on the Exchange.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Princeton National Bancorp, Inc. (Name of Issuer or Exchange) certifies that it has reasonable grounds to believe that it meets all of the requirements for filing the Form 25 and has caused this notification to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned duly authorized person.

June 19, 2012    By  /s/Thomas D. Ogaard    President and Chief Executive Officer
Date    Name    Title
1 

Form 25 and attached Notice will be considered compliance with the provisions of 17 CFR 240.19d-1 as applicable. See General Instructions.

  SEC1654(03-06) Persons who respond to the collection of information contained in this form are not required to respond unless the form displays a currently valid OMB control number  

Dates Referenced Herein   and   Documents Incorporated By Reference

This 25 Filing Date Other Filings
Filed On / Filed As Of / Effective As Of 6/19/12


35 comments on “Voluntary de-listing on NASDAQ

  1. Wow. Birkey did such a nice job explaining how to vote at the Annual Meeting that now she must be the Company spokesperson. They do such a great job of making it sound like they are in control.

      • Hardly. Where were you 4 years ago when the mismanagement was going on? You’re throwing stones at the cloud of dust instead of the car that caused it.

    • Well, she did a better job than the local brokers who couldn’t explain it to their customers and ended up not getting their customers’ votes counted.

  2. A repected and senior bank employee recently said that this website is full of lies. All bank employees should avoid any criticism of their employer, and defend their company – or else quit.

    I’m sure some of this site’s posts are mistaken or wrong. Some of the problem may result from poor or misleading communications from the bank to its stockholders and to the public. Are there even more lies coming from the bank itself?

    • It seems that if there is an information void, human nature drives people to speculate or fabricate, whatever is necessary, in order to fill in the blanks and round out the story so it makes sense.

    • Thats what happens when you treat employees like they did……Lies (ha)….they cant handle the truth!! My post have ALWAYS been FACTS!!

    • It’s not poor or misleading communication from the bank. Some people can’t understand why they aren’t privy to all of the information. My question to them is what entitles them to it? Because you’re a shareholder? The bank is a publicly traded company, and part of being a publicly traded company requires that you follow a set of pretty stringent rules regarding the dissemination of material information. The integrity of the overall market supersedes the needs of local shareholders of their hometown bank upset by the fact that the stock has lost 95% of its value. What information is the bank withholding that other publicly traded companies disseminate? Please share. Most of the misinformation on this website (and there is a ton of it) comes from people trying to fill in the blanks with no real knowledge of the situation. It amazes me that there seems to be an endless number of critics on this site, but at the annual meeting there were 4 questions asked…4! So maybe instead of asking why the bank isn’t sharing more information, how about asking why with so many ‘Anonymous’ critics on here, there was only 4 people asking questions when it counted? That makes me question the true intention of many of the critics on this site. Perhaps this site has been overtaken by people with an ax to grind with Citizens, and this site, with it’s anonymity, provides perfect cover to those with pent up aggression towards Citizens.

      • This is a perfect example of the kind of comment I comment about. I got seven of these in one night. This comment is very factual and well done, even with the sarcasm, right up until the sentence that begins with, “It amazes me . . .”. Casting of aspersions begins and reason departs. Ruined a very appropriate comment and that is why it almost didn’t get posted, and why it did get posted late. Yep, this is the person who gripes about anonymity, anonymously. Talk about pent up aggression. Probably owned a lot of shares and supported the status quo. Now, I’m just having a little fun with you and making the point that I too, should have stopped the comment with the instruction instead of continuing on with the destruction.

Comments are closed.