We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
*write, not right.
Am I right in thinking it went on longer than expected? Focus more on operational issues than governance issues? If it's a big deal, perhaps right to the company.
Sandy - in which case I would have thought the Q&A would have been an ideal place to spoon feed the answer.
Anyway...
Pecten: yes, saw your plural. Was just confirming it was two. My answer was probably just a wordy way of saying that I doubt they're captured by the rules. Not managers. Not dependent. IMO.
As to it being an easy question to answer, they might have felt it was a wooden spoon situation, that could anyway be answered by consulting the regulations.
Sorry - that should gave read - are not related parties
Sandy- indeed two sons - that’s why I used the plural!
Both must be over 18 as they had become directors and shareholders of APMG - thus qualifying for Vast shares.
WRT to where they live - fair point but still wondered whether they would have been covered under the related parties - one of the reasons I asked the Q
If they are related parties it should have been an easy Q to answer
mizman: the discussion is a red herring anyway. The BB today has been like an angry knitting circle. A bit silly when the RNS announces another good appointment.
I'm sure AP's son bought his shares at a higher price than they are worth now.
Pecten: "whether VAST considered the sons holdings to be covered under PDMR".
If memory serves, there were two sons involved. Neither is a manager and, if neither is under 18, they probably won't be "dependent" for these purposes either.
course you wouldn't do that would you....this co is not being run for the benefit of the shareholders...shock huh
Johnny, that was another Q that has been ignored via Investor Meet Q&A as to whether VAST considered the sons holdings to be covered under PDMR
I would suggest that if their appointments are considered worthy of an RNS (and imo, are long overdue), then they must have significant 'managerial responsibilities '
Same goes for Prelea's and Trucker's sons. Big time scam IMO - issuing shares to family members so they can sell just before huge placing which crashed share price.
Piker - not just directors
EU MAR was amended in December 2019 such that when a person discharging managerial responsibilities (PDMR) notifies a dealing in shares to an issuer, the issuer will have two business days to disclose the dealing to the market from the date of notification (rather than the notification by the PDMR to the issuer and the disclosure by the issuer to the market having to be made within the same three days of the dealing). This amendment to EU MAR is effective from 1 January 2021. As this is after the Brexit transition period is scheduled to end, this change would not be automatically incorporated into UK law. The Bill ensures that this change will apply in the UK from 1 January 2021.
The Bill also clarifies that issuers and any person acting on their behalf or on their account are all required to maintain an insider list when in possession of inside information.
According to MAR, the official verbatim definition of a PDMR is a:
“‘person discharging managerial responsibilities’ means a person within an issuer, an emission allowance market participant or another entity referred to in Article 19(10), who is:
(a) a member of the administrative, management or supervisory body of that entity; or
(b) a senior executive who is not a member of the bodies referred to in point (a), who has regular access to inside information relating directly or indirectly to that entity and power to take managerial decisions affecting the future developments and business prospects of that entity;”
Or a closely related person
person discharging managerial responsibilities’ means a person within an issuer, an emission allowance market participant or another entity referred to in Article 19(10), who is:
(a) a member of the administrative, management or supervisory body of that entity; or
(b) a senior executive who is not a member of the bodies referred to in point (a), who has regular access to inside information relating directly or indirectly to that entity and power to take managerial decisions affecting the future developments and business prospects of that entity;” (MAR Article 3(1.25))
This refers to any person employed by an issuer who holds managerial responsibilities that provide insight into trades, financial instruments, and insider information.
Since managerial personnel have the capacity to use this information to illegally gain an advantage over the market, MAR strictly regulates the protocols to prevent PDMR market abuse.
What is a closely associated person?
As defined by MAR:
“‘person closely associated’ means:
(a) a spouse, or a partner considered to be equivalent to a spouse in accordance with national law;
(b) a dependent child, in accordance with national law;
(c) a relative who has shared the same household for at least one year on the date of the transaction concerned; or
(d) a legal person, trust or partnership, the managerial responsibilities of which are discharged by a person
No need to disclose if they trade VAST’s shares as they’re not Directors
Sandy: indeed.
whether the question is considered impertinent or not, the avoidance of it is worse than an answer you may not agree with
Pecten: "i notice that a question I asked via Investor Meet that wasn't answered re whether the holdings (or lack of) of CH, AH and PF reflected their confidence in the company".
It wouldn't have taken much to cite personal circumstances, so I think you have your answer. Unfortunately.
In theory I would say yes, under PDMR.
i notice that a question I asked via Investor Meet that wasn't answered re whether the holdings (or lack of) of CH, AH and PF reflected their confidence in the company
Wasn't the only Q not answered
Does the company have to inform the market if Brewster/ Fernandez purchase any shares in the company? it would instil some further confidence if they were to do so.