Member Info for Corryvreckan1

Agreed it should not take them that long to update/fix, but not uncommon. Similar example is a retail broker I won’t name not applying SD to ASOS for a long time after they moved to main market earlier this year (fixed now I think).

I think you are right that ii will have to take the hit (but only if HMRC find out – sssshhhh!), this from HMRC website:

“You’re responsible for paying the SDRT if you’re a stockbroker or a similarly qualified person buying shares for someone else.
If you’re buying shares for yourself you’re responsible for paying the SDRT you owe.”

I think that as your trades are conducted through a broker then it’s up to them to charge you correctly at point of trade, IMO, although that may come down to their terms of service with their customers as to how far back they think they can charge you for errors they have identified, reputational damage also being considered.

While I recover from being prodded in the ribs by that joust from our notsuretheyarehuman co-contributor ;), may I point you all in the direction of slide 20 in the latest presentation – Short Term Strategy – which includes the following little nugget:

• Provided a structured and accretive share buyback program
• Will augment returns to shareholders with quarterly and or special dividends that can be maintained through lower pricing cycle points with lower share count

“quarterly and or special dividends”

Delirante? Moi?

-¿-

Transfer from AIM to Main Market was effective 18 May 2020.

Not uncommon for some retail brokers to be a bit late with updating their systems for regulatory changes and the like, sometimes takes another party coming in and doing an audit to find the omissions, as per the Aberdeen/II example.

Agreed, and that may also partly explain the difference in the number of shares transferred if some were sold on open market to cover the fees involved - c.£850k not unrealistic on that size of transaction.

Good forensic detail on the SL Assurance sale Porshefund, that is curious. The second part was just a (horrendous) name change from SL Aberdeen plc to abrdn last summer, the initial merger was in 2017.

I wonder if it’s an off-book trade/transfer then? They must maintain close contacts with SL Assurance and if they wanted to shift that volume of shares they might punt it around with a bit of networking first. Aberdeen plc (sic) reduced 4.47% (58.3m shares) and SL Assurance took on 4.2% (54.9m), both sides completing on the exact same day, is too much of a coincidence to not be linked in some way.

Yup, per previous holdings notification on 10/11 abrdn reduced by a slightly higher amount on same date 4/11, Standard Life appear to have reported their side a bit late.

I’m not sure what to make of the roadside announcement :/ I’ve never seen the attraction myself, and they are moving a little outside their success lane, but if they've identified a market gap to fill then I trust this management team to make the most of it. Also, starting with just a few venues rather than trying to take over a larger enterprise gives them time to see if their model will work outside of the town venues. If they get some traction from the first few then push on. Agree I would also prefer to see them stay independent.

Regarding the SP, I suspect the market may be waiting to see the results at the end of the month. Their October TU hailed the sales growth and the success of the roll-out programme but also noted the inflationary pressures without giving any guidance on earnings/margin. Rising costs and outlook will be key in the results IMO; it may now even need a successful start to Brightside reflected in the FY results (due in July; poss. TU in April) or even later before any decent re-rate?

DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK IN MY POST BELOW

Apologies, I didn't realise that the post would make that a valid link. Do not click on it! I will ask LSE admin to delete the post.

My browser showing a red Not Secure warning:

Your connection is not private
Attackers might be trying to steal your information from www.iconiclabs.co.uk (for example, passwords, messages or credit cards).
NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID

So be very careful what you click on until they get a valid certificate.

RT003
I did see your earlier post and I completely disagree with your opinion on this matter, in both your posts.

HL may not have ‘suddenly’ realised anything - they are perhaps not even obliged to inform their customers of the results of that GM, it depends on what their terms of service are. Neither HSBC nor interactive investor have informed their customers to date either, I don’t know about any other Brokers.

Perhaps a customer complained to HL about not being informed and they decided to issue a message retrospectively. The only people who actually know why they did it are HL themselves, so if anyone receiving that message is concerned that it took them 7 weeks to notify then they can contact HL customer support to ask about it.

I already pointed to the RNS dated 22/9, available above, which includes exactly the same information that HL issued today regarding SH approval of the CVA. Everyone can check that fact for themselves. There is absolutely nothing in HL’s message that indicates an imminent re-listing.

Regarding your second post today – it would be illegal for HL to be notified of re-listing before anyone else. As per my post below, I’m sure that the Directors will not wish to upset the FCA by ignoring the regulations.

Something has changed and I agreed that the CVA indicates some progress towards re-listing, but CVA is still an Administration process until complete and until the Administrators notify that they are releasing the company.

Per RNS issued by the Administrators 30/8:
“If the CVA is approved, it is anticipated that the Administration will be brought to an end as soon as is practically possible.”

It will be notified by RNS when it does happen. The conditions under which this can happen are set out in the CVA - they haven’t been fully met yet.

Furthermore, Iconic issued an RNS on 1st November, just last week.
The first line states “Iconic Labs Plc ("Iconic") In Administration”.

Elfish – on companies house, you’re right it was changed to Voluntary Arrangement, on the Overview tab, it was done on 29 September. But click on the Insolvency tab - both cases are still open.

AS BV points out they haven’t filed their overdue accounts yet and they can’t do that until they get them audited, and that will not be a straightforward audit. The shares can’t be re-listed until the accounts are filed, a new prospectus is prepared outlining the future of the company, and then the FCA convinced that Iconic are in a fit and proper state to be re-listed. These things take time.

Regarding them being able to reply by email – please be very clear that they cannot tell you anything that is significant, or market sensitive, by email that is not already known and in the public domain. It would be a breach of market regulations for them to do so, and given that they have still to convince the FCA to let them be re-listed then I’m sure that the Directors will not wish to upset them by ignoring the regulations.

Is 96 going to hold, or is that gap to 90 actually going to get filled?

Tick, follows tock, follows...

Sorry to burst the bubble here, but I’m doing it now so that you can get over it today and not spoil your weekend.

As Lanks indicated below, that message from HL is not new information. The Administrators already advised the whole market, by an RNS on 22/9 – the day of the General Meeting, that shareholders had approved the CVA. You can see it via the RNS link at the top of this page. The note from HL looks like it may just be very belated housekeeping by them, but it doesn’t change anything.

If you are waiting for any further news about Iconic re-listing then I would never rely on just a broker telling you as some of them don’t do so at all, and others, as you can see, tell you things weeks after the event. Better to set up RNS alerts on whatever finance channels you use IMHO – the RNS will be the best reliable source of information on how things are progressing.

Best wishes for whatever everyone is holding out for, still a way to go and more steps to go through before re-listing.

Profit taking from lots of buying opportunity in the 70s and 80s this year. Decent results but already trailed in TU.
Effectively a 3 month ‘delay’ in the interim dividend so opportunities elsewhere in the short term then maybe a return here in Q1.

There’s also a gap to fill on the chart back to 90 (from 30/9, the dip on 11/10 didn’t make it) but that’s also the covid low so not sure it will get that far as it would also need to break support at 96, so 100 seems about likely IMO.

Or any other analysis/assessment of your own choosing...

Agreed, and I believe that any share buyback would need the distributable reserves in place first as well so can't just do that to reduce capital straight off, hence not specifically mentioned in the RNS.

Following link to recent similar from another company, NIOX, offered here purely as it describes the process and not to be taken literally as what HURR might do:
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NIOX/proposed-capital-reduction-scheme-and-notice-of-gm-urah3pmh6hslvta.html

NIOX too had share premium in excess of accumulated losses and needed this process for give the BOD options to return capital to shareholders going forward.

That's my reading of it, please don't birch me if I'm wrong!

Thanks for the SEPL example, that’s a good comparative, although Sustainable are non-UK as well as SEPL so doesn’t support the domicile of the holder being important? Agreed I would expect 5 + 5 to apply there so not clear why Sustainable have gone with 1% threshold intervals, unless they are uncertain of the rules and are following the tighter levels, as you say “just in case”.

I suspect the answer to all of these contradictions is indeed in your last statement about the forms sometimes being incorrect, and my early draft of my first post included the same point but it didn’t make the final edit. I also suspect some of these forms are system generated, particularly in BlackRock’s case where they must produce 100s of these every month across the board, and therefore subject to ‘gremlins’.

I maintain that the Co. Secretary’s office should be monitoring TR-1s on receipt, before they issue them to the Market, and advising holders accordingly if they believe they have prepared them incorrectly in a way that could be [inadvertently] misleading.

©

Hi Trek, I've read that but my point was that it's the UK / Non-UK status of the Issuer that determines whether 3% or 5% is relevant, the domicile of the Holder is irrelevant. DTR 5.1.1 (1) & (2) apply first. Taking Pelham’s TR-1 on 9 May again - they are registered in Bermuda but reported exact values in the 3 and 4% range as required because DEC is a UK issuer.
IMO, etc.
Corry

Couple of thoughts on this TR-1 issue, if I may:

Trek – just to clarify your OP, when you said “Being a UK holder they have to declare at each 1% integer above 3%”, I suspect that’s just a typo and you meant “Being a UK issuer...” (i.e. DEC) as per the Handbook?

All TR-1s issued by GLG partners, abrdn, BlackRock, AXA and Pelham Capital have all stated or indicated “UK” for the issuer in section 1. (MJ – for GLG they haven’t put an X in the box to indicate Non-UK so it doesn’t apply, easy to overlook that. They seem to be using the new format issued by the FCA and the other companies haven’t updated their forms yet.)

Confusingly, abrdn and BlackRock have sometimes, but not always, just reported “Below 5%” rather than an actual value, while AXA and Pelham Capital have stated an exact % when between 3-5% (Pelham’s TR-1 on 9 May is a good example). There may be some other reason for allowing the ‘above/below 5%’ reporting that BR in particular have used, rather than the exact %, but I can’t figure it out and I’m not convinced it’s correct. BR and GLG do seem to be trading/adjusting around a core >5% on a regular basis so I can’t see that they are going below 3%, and they should state below 3% rather than below 5% if they were.

The Holder generating a TR-1 has to submit a copy to the FCA as well as the issuing company, although I suspect the FCA just file these without review, until there is a query to investigate. It’s really up to the Company Secretary and their Investor Relations team to challenge any incorrect forms if they think there is a problem.

That’s my reading of the situation, but happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood any of the (often confusing) regulations.

Looks like a possible off-book transfer of 6.5m shares. Also looks like there was a 4.7m part of it misposted at the wrong trade price and then immediately cancelled, possibly leading to another rogue 4.7m recorded that I suspect may still be wrong. (6.5m x 2) + 4.7m = 17.7m.

You can see the breakdown in the Share Trades link above, doesn't look like anything concerning, maybe just housekeeping between funds.