Cairns?7 Nov 2024 09:06
Me: "I still think that having a pop at Cairns, the UK NOMAD while Cloudtag was listed would be at least worth investigating. With the amount of unfetttered drivel that Amit issued via RNS while the company was listed, I think it very unlikely that Cairns did its due diligence on checking veracity on the behalf of shareholders to any acceptable standard."
B3ast: "Someone should remind Tim & Cotter about Cairns, they certainly did almost no due diligence as was pointed out at the time by Tom W who many myself included ignored."
Antha: "Yep, Cairns failed in their duty to protect shareholders so by all accounts they should be the first to be sued."
1984Investor: "Theyβve tried that Antha and had to run a mile. When cairns got heavy."
Well hold on here a second...
The primary - and indeed statutory - role of an AIM NOMAD is to protect investors by ensuring that a listed company obeys AIM rules (I know, I know... don't all laugh at once). One set of rules (Rules Section 10, if you're interested) applies to information disclosure, and here's what it states:-
"An AIM company must take reasonable care to ensure that any information it notifies is not misleading, false or deceptive and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information."
...and as with all other AIM rules, this is one that a NOMAD is expected to ensure compliance with, to the best of its abilities.
Therefore there are only three possible scenarios here vis a vis Cairn.
Either a) All the information RNSed by Amit/CTAG while listed was accurate, truthful and not in any way deceptive - ergo no case for Cairns to answer.
Or b) Cairns performed its statutory duties diligently and to the best of its abilities in checking that all the information RNSed by Amit/CTAG while listed was accurate, truthful and not in any way deceptive and can evidence this - ergo again, no case for Cairns to answer.
Or c) Cairns failed to diligently perform its statutory duties to the best of its abilities when checking that all the information RNSed by Amit/CTAG while listed was accurate, truthful and not in any way deceptive - ergo, a matter worth investigating.
1984 says that the CTAG Action Group was scared off when Cairns got heavy - and to be fair, I've heard the same thing.
But again hang on a second... when does "getting heavy" ever mean "having an unassailable defence"? What matter if Cairns has said something like "How very dare you! We have always acted with extreme diligence and to the exact letter of the law - and if you dare suggest otherwise, we shall defend ourselves with the most extreme of robustness!" Surely that's merely the kind of statement that any literally putative target of action would make?
Sign In
Follow the stocks
