Apr. 23, 2026
Subject: Formal Comment on File No. SR-NASDAQ-2026-009 – Request for Fairness Amidst Unjustified Asset Freezing and Potential Financial Ruin To: The Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) I am writing this comment as an aggrieved investor to express my strong opposition to the proposed rule change by Nasdaq (SR-NASDAQ-2026-009). This proposal, which seeks to grant Nasdaq discretionary authority to delist securities based on mere "suspicion" or vague "public interest" grounds, poses an existential threat to retail investors. I urge the Commission to consider the following critical points: 1. The Plight of Leveraged Investors: Has the Commission considered that many investors purchased these shares in "good faith" using margin accounts or deferred debt? If this proposal is approved and companies are delisted based on "suspicion," these investors will find themselves legally pursued for debts on assets that were essentially wiped out by an administrative decision. Converting investors into "debt-ridden defendants" due to administrative actions they did not cause is a gross violation of the principle of investor protection. 2. Violation of Section 12(k) Timeframes: Our funds have been frozen under Section 12(k), which is legally intended not to exceed ten business days. We are now in the sixth month of this freeze without any formal charges or proven convictions—only "suspicions." Why has the suspension not been lifted to allow us to liquidate our positions instead of moving toward permanent delisting? 3. Double Financial Hardship (Maintenance Fees): Investors are suffering twice: first, by having our life savings trapped for months, and second, by being forced to pay custody and maintenance fees to brokers for frozen assets we cannot trade. Immediate delisting under these circumstances would mean the total dissipation of our savings while we continue to incur costs for non-functional assets. 4. Erosion of Trust in a "Safe Haven" Market: Nasdaq is a global market that relies on certainty. If delisting becomes an arbitrary process based on subjective interpretations of "public interest," investors will permanently withdraw. No rational investor will risk their future in a market where assets can vanish based on administrative "doubts" rather than proven legal facts. Conclusion: I call upon the Commission to act as the fair arbiter it is meant to be. "Public interest" must start with protecting the rights of individual investors to recover their funds. I request that the Commission reject this proposal or amend it to include a mandatory "liquidation window" to allow good-faith investors to exit their positions before any final delisting occurs. Respectfully submitted, Aseel April 23, 2026