Member Info for Spikeyj

happy enough with that update. sounds like they are doing the right
things to maintain customer loyalty and reputation in asian markets,
which is key from my perspective in terms of long term value. will be
intrigued to hear what they have in mind for Jackson in august, am still
fantasising that they can persuade warren to part with some of that
humongous pile of cash, but suspect sadly that will remain fantasy...

i sold a few about 1740 late yesterday, and then bought
those back around close of business today. but of course
in hindsight, lol, wish I had sold more than a few yesterday.

not a pretty day for anyone who bought into
GSK new at 1740 to scalp that dividend...

14:01 ... because the company is very, very low on cash,
and will go bust unless they can rustle up some very dumb
punters to buy very large number of dilutive new shares to
rescue the BoD’s ongoing excessive renumeration. the big
holders here will all have their eyes very firmly on the exits,
although the longer they can keep ADME going by hook
or by crook, the more paycheques the BoD can still bank.

jmo, of course.

lol, the market giveth &
the market taketh away.

belstaff, i strongly suspect the company will not answer your email...
possible that the company does not know why WHI resigned, because
WHI did not need to give the company a reason. but more probably,
EUA would not want to tell you, as would not want to self-incriminate.

re other recent posts about disclosure of price-sensitive information,
although the share is suspended from trading on the exchange, EUA
shares *can* still be bought & sold privately, so price can still be moved.

sorry GFD, i don’t understand your question.

GFD, one scenario to consider is where a nomad has already resigned,
but is working out its notice period and makes a report while in that
notice period —> continuing to act, during that notice period, is a bit
different from nomad immediately ceasing to act regardless of notice.

no, GFD, not conjecture, simple fact. nomads are not
required to stop acting for an AIM company immediately
simply because a report has been made to the regulator.

ok, £90 it is, one more small slice off the position.

thank you mr market.

indeed, v nice.

i suppose some of it not so much that GSK
is that marvellous, but so much else is dire.

GSK & Astra have been very nice places to hide out.

GFD, perfectly possible that there has been a report to the regulator,
(although i do not know if there was one). if such happens, that does
not automatically mean that a nomad has to cease to act immediately.

depending on the nature & severity of the issue(s), & how easy it can
be rectified, regulator will often prefer nomad to stay on to supervise.

perhaps it would be helpful if EUA could
clarify what its relationship is with rules.

i don’t believe that there is any deliberate attempt by the BoD to
delist. i think they are fighting tooth & nail to try to stay on AIM.

dyor.

goodflyingduck, i was referring to the length of time since WHI
handed in their resignation. i understand that they gave 3 months
notice, which meant EUA had lots of time to look for replacement.

kammy, i don’t understand, why do you think
shorts would be “fooked” if this company delists?

Ian_, you seem to be confusing me with another poster.
as i have not said that there is some “inevitable outcome”.

i do still think it is possible they will secure a new nomad
(as i think there is a genuine underlying business here),
although given that it is now more than 3 months since
WHI’s resigned, i think more likely they delist than not.

seems there are jitters about whether the meeting will approve the
dividends... fair chance ordinary gets agreed, but special cancelled?

Ian_, an AIM company is meant to operate with a nomad in place.
so they are already ‘late’ in appointing one, since they should have
made sure one was in place before WHI left. they are now playing
in v limited extra time, as it were, to rectify the problem of no nomad.

some folk claimed that EUA had chosen to dismiss the nomad,
rather than vice versa. i don’t believe that, but if it were true, then
they were very reckless to dismiss WHI without a new one secured.

yes, important to note that standard main market listing actually
provides *less* regulation in many respects that an AIM listing.
WRN made much in their promotional puff about being a ‘main
market listed company’, but actually that should have made pis
more wary, not less, since it was not premium listed, and it had
no nomad to keep an eye on ‘em. (no nomad would have signed
off the kind of RNSs they put out, imv.) some of the folk involved
with WRN set up an elaborate scheme ‘gifting’ WRN holders with
‘free shares’ ( = bait) in a new company which they tried to list on
NEX so that they could offload insider stakes on unwary pis. — the
potential relevance of this to EUA is that NEX then got cold feet and
decided to refuse them access. that same company then went onto
the britdaq trading platform, who then decided to remove them for
failing to meet britdaq ‘quality standards’. so it’s certainly true that
there are listing and trading opportunities for companies that get
delisted from AIM, but (a) these cost, (b) they offer *very* limited
regulation/ governance compared with AIM, & (c) even they have
quality standards & thresholds — so still would be a bit dependent
on whatever it is that has got poor EUA into this suspended pickle.