Register
Login:
Share:
Email Facebook Twitter




Quick Poll
QUICK POLL >
Do you follow FX markets?




Add Phorm Corporation to quick picks

Phorm Corporation Share Price (PHRM)



Share Price Information for Phorm Corporation (PHRM)


Share Price: 7.875Bid: 7.50Ask: 8.25Change: 0.00 (0.00%)No Movement on Phorm Corp
Spread: 0.75Spread as %: 10.00%Open: 7.875High: 7.875Low: 7.875Yesterday’s Close: 7.875
InfoGet Live Streaming Prices for PHRM - Click here to start your 30 day FREE trial today.


Phorm Corporation Limited Ord Npv (Di)

Phorm Corporation is listed in the FTSE AIM All-Share
Phorm Corporation is part of the Media sector






Share Price SpacerPrice
7.875

Share Price SpacerBid
7.50

Share Price SpacerAsk
8.25

Share Price SpacerChange
0%0.00

Share Price SpacerVolume
5,000

Share Price SpacerOpen
7.875

Share Price SpacerHigh
7.875

Share Price SpacerLow
7.875

Share Price SpacerClose
7.875

Share Price SpacerCurrency
GBX


Currency Issue Country Shares in Issue Market Capitalisation Market Size
GBX GG 843.81m £66.45m 20,000

52 Week High 12.25 52 Week High Date 23-SEP-2014
52 Week Low 7.13 52 Week Low Date 22-APR-2015

# Trades Vol. Sold Vol. Bought PE Ratio Earnings Dividend Yield
1 5,000 0 -0.812 -9.70 0.00 0.00




Date
Time
Trade Prc
Volume
Buy/Sell
Bid
Ask
Value
 

28-Apr-15
12:37:39
7.78
12,699
Sell* 
7.50
8.25
987.98
Trade Type:
Ordinary

28-Apr-15
10:36:43
7.50
5,000
Sell* 
7.50
8.25
375.00
Trade Type:
Ordinary

27-Apr-15
16:12:33
7.80
88,500
Sell* 
7.50
8.25
6,903
Trade Type:
Ordinary


*Buys and Sells are calculated on the difference between the trade price and the current mid price. As such, they can occasionally be incorrect.

View more Phorm Corporation trades >>

Directors Deals for Phorm Corporation (PHRM)
Trade DateActionNotifierPriceCurrencyAmountHolding
22-Apr-15Notification of Holding
Trade Notifier Information for Phorm Corporation Ltd (DI)
Kent Ertugrul held the position of CEO at Phorm Corporation Ltd (DI) at the time of this trade.
 Kent Ertugrul
00652606
07-Jul-10Placing
Trade Notifier Information for Phorm Inc (Reg S)
Stephen Partridge-Hicks held the position of Non-Executive Director at Phorm Inc (Reg S) at the time of this trade.
 Stephen Partridge-Hicks
170GBX11,70023700
15-Nov-06Exercise of option
Trade Notifier Information for Phorm Inc (Reg S)
David Svendsen held the position of Non-Executive Chairman at Phorm Inc (Reg S) at the time of this trade.
 David Svendsen
245GBX38,38467308
View more Phorm Corporation directors dealings >>

Date/Time
Author
Subject
Share Price
Opinion
Fri 07:20
bluecar1
phluidmedia the likely name?
7.75
No Opinion

if you do a bit of digging after coming across the name of fluidmedia elsewhere phluidmedia.net redirects to phluid media.com/privacy phluidmedia.net uses the same IP in phorms US datacentre range as fideo.com 173.240.4.231 A FIDEO.COM, PHLUIDMEDIA.NET and the phluidmedia domain names all registered mid april and if you look at the contatact page it is a regus serviced office in new york :) do they have a new office cat to feed? so looks like they are part of phorm, and likely the name for the US operation this is all publically available information, just doing my own research and sharing it,
Wed 08:54
johnhorb
RE: Operational Update Out
7.13
No Opinion

Well there WAS a dead cat bounce - for approx. 1 minute!
Wed 07:07
Troajan
phrm
7.88
No Opinion

http://www.investegate.co.uk/phorm-corporation--phrm-/rns/equity-fundraising-of--6-0-million-gross/201504220700229267K/
21 Apr '15
johnhorb
RE: Operational Update Out
7.88
No Opinion

Somehow I doubt it. "Latest Exchange Rates: 1 Russian Rouble = 0.0186400 United States Dollar"
21 Apr '15
KNIGELK
Operational Update Out
7.88
No Opinion

..just before the 100001th ("joke") fund raising imo... dead cat bounce possible though....
27 Mar '15
GrandTheftAuto
Full Circle?
9.00
No Opinion

http://itsecurity.co.uk/2015/03/uk-court-of-appeal-issues-game-changing-judgment-in-google-safari-case/ The meaning of damage in section 13 of the DPA, in particular, whether there can be a claim for compensation without pecuniary loss The discussion and decision on this point of the case is without doubt some of the most significant interpretation of law with regards to data protection and privacy that we have ever seen in the UK. Google argued that under the Data Protection Act there was no support for damages as a result of distress (except for some very special circumstances explicitly mentioned in the Act) and that because the plaintiffs had suffered no material damage and did not meet the requirements of the special circumstances for distress that there was no merit in the case and therefore it should be dismissed. However, the Court of Appeal not only disagreed, but rewrote UK law on the grounds that the Data Protection Act was not compatible with the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EU): We cannot, therefore, interpret section 13(2) compatibly with article 23. They went on to explain that despite the fact that Parliament had made very explicit reasons for the types of damage that were covered – they had provided no reasoning for the exclusion of general distress or “moral damage” and as such the Court had no choice than to take the position that the DPA was not compatible and that a judgment must be made in line with Article 23 of Directive 95/46/EC with support from Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The significance of this decision can not be overstated. As a privacy advocate, one of the biggest hurdles I have been faced with when filing complaints with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in the UK has been that of damage. In every single case I have filed with the relevant authorities in the UK the decision to take no action has always hinged on the argument that there was no damage. In cases I have filed with ICO (Google’s WiFi scandal, Phorm and many others) they have always used this argument of damage – the same with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) over a criminal complaint I filed against Phorm for criminal breaches of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) – again the CPS argued it would not be in the public interest to pursue a prosecution because there was no “damage”. With this decision from the Court of Appeal, we now have a precedent that states simply that a misuse of private information is in and of itself a damage – and this is what I have been arguing for nearly a decade. The mere act of abuse of a fundamental right is a damage because whether or not there is any material loss fundamental rights are an essential foundation of our society and any attack on those rights, damages society at a core level.

Share prices shown are taken at time of message posting.
Thread ViewThread View
View more share chat for Phorm Corporation (PHRM) >>
Please Login or Register to post messages






Sign up for Live Prices


CD02WL.001.081313


Home  |  Contact Us  |  About Us  |  Careers  |  Advertise with Us  |  Sitemap  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Cookies  |  Privacy


Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look. While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.