The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I've seen a suspension RNS for a different share that says the company asked to be suspended. IMHO the nomad probably asked for the EUA suspension, because the EUA RNS does not state 'at the request of the company' or something similar.
(btw i meant the 19:01 by ian, not 19:51, apols for typo)
... and of course, the EUA RNS did *not* state
that the suspension is “due to a technicality”.
i do understand the *assumption* that you are making.
i am simply pointing out that it is not what the RNS states.
there has been no public statement at all about who asked
for the suspension to take place. things can sometimes be
a bit more complicated than they seem, & it can take a long
time for the truth to emerge. - e.g. worthington (WRN) was
an interesting case in point on the (non-premium) section
of the main market; when its shares went into suspension
several years ago after a spectacular price rise, fuelled by
various upbeat updates put out by the company, WRN put
out an RNS saying that the company had asked for trading
in their own shares to be suspended... that seemed clear
enough at the time... but a long while later (i think about a
year & a half into their loooong suspension, though i might
be misremembering by a few months either way) another
RNS referred back to the origination of the suspension,
but stated that the company had asked for shares
to be suspended **at the instruction of the FCA**, an
important detail that the the original RNS had left out.
i am not suggesting that the FCA has ordered this particular
suspension, just highlighting that it can sometimes be too
easy for people to read into an RNS what they want to read.
Not sure if this will have much relevence to Eurasia but it would seem Moscow have just implmented lockdown to an extent.
" Moscow, where the number of coronavirus cases now exceeds 1,000, has introduced a tough self-isolation regime. From Monday, residents of the Russian capital will be only allowed to leave their homes in cases of absolute necessity.
Under the new rules, Muscovites can go outside if they need urgent medical help or to purchase food or medicine, for which they must use their nearest stores. They may also throw out trash and pet owners will be permitted to walk animals, inside a radius of 100 metres from their buildings."
The effects of Covid-19 are going to be felt for quite some time...
Hi Mr Ed, I totally agree with the point in your post that the tweet by Hammond (I think that was his name) would have done the company NO harm at all and investors on hearing the good news may have invested on that good news and that would have initiated the NOMAD to act due to as you say the "protection of investors" rule, which is as the RNS states the cause of the suspension...
The Company confirms that, following social media speculation, trading in its ordinary shares has been suspended (at 7.45am today) pending clarification of its relationship with CITIC.
The point again, The company never asked to be suspended, the NOMAD had to act and the NOMAD suspended trading due to the protection of investors' rule.
You take care and stay safe
All the best to you
Spikey, in my view it does, as why would they direct all queries about the situation back to the NOMAD if that was not the case... that is exactly my point. if we were suspended by LSE then all queries would be directed back to them...
I feel you may be trying to be nitpicking and so we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
Good evening to you.
The replacement just changes London Stock Exchange to company`s Nominated advisor but still gives the same phone number!
Anyway it would seem it was the company that asked for the share to be suspended and the LSE agreed on the "protection of investors" rule, although we`ll probably never know.
I haven`t got a clue who the guy who tweeted the "issue" is, has he any connection to the company, the tweet sounds like good news to me.
p.s. Thx for the response and your point of view...stay safe and take care.
Ian_ 19:51: “The point is, the second and correct RNS is simply stating that due to a technicality the Nomad has deemed it prudent to suspend trading in this stock ...”
ian, the second RNS does *not* say that it was the
nomad who asked for trading to be suspended.
(it does direct queries about the situation to
the nomad, but that is not the same thing.)
Hi again DWF, and that is my point, there is no ambiguity in my mind if you actually read and digest what has been written, the only point is that it does not state the actual specific point but uses an umbrella excuse as it were, it is not specific, but it does not need to be as a valid point has been used in the wording and that is sufficient for the time being... the news will come soon do not fear..
Prior to the virus 99%.... since the virus 77% ..we could start a new game .... :-)
Evening DWF, I do not disagree, but people will find comfort if they know that the suspension is due to a minor rather than a major issue and that is the only point I'm trying to make.
Have a good evening.
is there anything you don't know.
Hi again MrEd, sorry for the delay in responding, the point I'm trying to make is this -
The first RNS states contact the LSE for further information ..... ( all RNS will have LSE info on the bottom as they run the RNS system ) and should have "The information contained within this announcement is deemed by the Company to constitute inside information under the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014 "
The second and replacement RNS states contact the NOMAD (as the first RNS was issued incorrectly and attributed to the wrong issuer ) and again ( all RNS will have LSE info on the bottom as they run the RNS system ) and should have "The information contained within this announcement is deemed by the Company to constitute inside information under the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014 "
The point is, the second and correct RNS is simply stating that due to a technicality the NOMAD has deemed it prudent to suspend trading in this stock, presumably to protect YOU the investor from the leaked insider information during this time of company sale discussions, this is in my view a very minor suspension reason performed by the NOMAD.
If we take your view that the company was suspended by the LSE, that would imply a much grater misdemeanor had been carried out by the company and would carry a greater penalty, can you see the point I trying to make, yes we are suspended on both counts but one is more severe than the other, and that is my point, not trying to be argumentative on this, just trying to be clear on a point which although may be seen as trivial puts a whole different light on the situation.
All the best and stay safe.
Ian
Lockdown sickness, go walk the block get some air away from 4 walls
It does seem to be on quite a few but not all...my bad, the whole episode is confusing [but intriguing] for someone trying to learn!
"The information contained within this announcement is deemed by the Company to constitute inside information under the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014"
I'm pretty sure that text is on every RNS.
The LSE must have suspended the stock, otherwise it wouldn`t be suspended, surely! The first RNS [6050C] was a notification from the LSE that the share had been suspended this was subsequently amended by RNS 6053C which adds "the company nominated advisor" then states the full amended text is below, but that text is axactly the same as 6050C, the second [6696c] was a statement explaining why from the company.
I find this quite interesting at the bottom of 6696C
"The information contained within this announcement is deemed by the Company to constitute inside information under the Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014"
So from that text we can ascertain that the company asked the LSE to suspend its shares because of the tweet. The LSE agreed and suspended the shares...what happens now is anyones guess!
Afternoon Mr Ed, may I ask why you think that the LSE suspended this stock?
genuine question, where are you obtaining this information from, is it from the 1st RNS which was subsequently amended by the totally new replacement 2nd RNS 25 minutes later.. which states it was the NOMAD... as I say a genuine question?
Thanks
You know this how? All Iv`e been able to glean from RNSs is this...
"Trading on AIM for the under-mentioned securities has been temporarily suspended from 11/02/2020 7:45am pending an announcement." RNS 6050C issued by LSE.
Then:
"The Company confirms that, following social media speculation, trading in its ordinary shares has been suspended (at 7.45am today) pending clarification of its relationship with CITIC.
The Company's AIM securities remain suspended. Further updates will be made shortly." RNS6696C
Nowhere do I see that the company asked for the suspension and granted I don`t see the opposite, either way the company didn`t suspend the shares the LSE did [that is where the`re listed] maybe with guidance from the nomad or company!
lamtree: No I havn't.
Then why use this as a point to criticise EUA? If they all did interviews and EUA didn’t you’d have a small point. All you’ve done is made a pointless point.
LSE didnt suspend the shares. The company asked the shares to be suspended and its up to the company when they return.
Lamtree, you’ve not answered my question. Have you got links to interviews conducted with other miners ‘on the same stand’ ?
For the record, I am not invested in EUA. This has been more of a case study if you will.
Iv`e been reading the board on and off for a while [just curious as to what happens] and see one thing I can`t get my head round, maybe I`m a bit dim!
From what Iv`e gathered it was the LSE that suspended trading in EUA shares and I keep reading it`s a good thing at the moment [it probably is]. I also read posts that give the impression it is up to the company when to re-list...surely that isn`t right, don`t the LSE have the authority here? They don`t/shouldn`t care if its a good time to re-list, they order the stock to be re-listed possibly on information from the nomad.
Hopefully there is a resolutin to this and the people invested come out with some lolly :) The tweet didn`t seem to say that much, but what do I know!
Lamtree, you made the comment below about Eurasia not being interviewed. Can you post any links to interviews by the other miners on the same stand?
‘Its just little things as you go along Alex,it all starts to build up.
PDAC,for example they had no stand and no recordings of a speech of which all stand owners normally give out.’