RE: Need 43% rise11 Mar 2020 18:58
SQ320: 'The company have no legal requirement to reassure shareholders'.
I disagree. As Swindon pointed out, this failure to inform us on material matters could be Market Abuse? In my view $66m of unpaid invoices and, according to the article, the letter of demand being the first stage in triggering a default, all this seems pretty material to me. Too, if the guidance on incoming funds is not per the previous RNS, that too is pretty material. More importantly, the non-disclosure of this critical information (since Jan 2019) has allowed a false market in the shares to develop, whereby those in the know have traded at the expense of those not in the know. [Note these possibilities: CEO takes big performance bonus, directors do not buy, bondholders(?) sell down from date of Peterside-Brown's letter, shorts taken out (hedging by ii's?) (and who amended the last Euroclear report?, and what is the true short position?), shareholders like myself sell up immediately on reading article - others short? etcetera. This situation is entirely unsatisfactory. All shareholders (not just those who read this site) need to be properly informed so there is a level playing field.
If it's Market Abuse, then presumably this is a matter for the Aim Regulators:
Aim Regulation:
AIM companies and Nomads are regulated by a dedicated team at the London Stock Exchange -
AIM Regulation is a team of professionals including lawyers, accountants and corporate financiers, responsible for:
- providing advice and guidance on the AIM rules
- monitoring and investigating AIM companies’ compliance with the regulations
- approving and monitoring Nomads
- development of AIM rules.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
