Nomad fined £90k for assisting an AIM PLC mislead investors – but why so little and which one? Vote now!

Comments

1. ---

   john g

   28 March 2015, 05:55

   Could it by CICC ? (CIC Capital Ltd) and its Nomad Cairn

   CICC kept telling shareholders over C$9m was to be received by 31 Dec 2013.

   http://www.investegate.co.uk/cic-capital-ltd—cicc-/rns/1st-quarter-results/201310311037408644R/

   “ The directors have also considered the recovery of a discrete number of key trade receivables, and based on confirmations received from these companies, the directors expect to recover these trade receivables by December 2013.”

   http://www.investegate.co.uk/cic-capital-ltd—cicc-/rns/final-results/201307310700105276K/

   “Of the remaining revenue earned in 2013, a further CAD$9,117,287 of this is receivable on or before 31 December 2013.”

   But when Dec 31st 2013 came and went…. they never issued anything as to what happened to that money ? The money never arrived. And the company has still NOT told shareholders what has happened to it.

   Broker back then resigned : Cairn Financial Advisers LLP,
   http://www.investegate.co.uk/cic-capital-ltd—cicc-/rns/suspension/201402171115022229A/

   The company was then delisted in May 2014

   I am pretty sure that censure and fine relates to CICC and Cairn

2. ---

   DUCK AND DIVE

   28 March 2015, 07:04

   There will presumably be an RNS on Monday to advise shareholders about the non-arrival of the promised cash.

   Agree that £90k isn’t enough (although it would have been enough to send WHI and a few others to the wall) but I interpret this as the start of better things — thanks largely to the campaigning efforts of this website.

3. ---

   Bob

   28 March 2015, 07:16

   From Page 3)

   “AIM Disciplinary Procedures and Appeals Handbook, Section C2.2

   Under this section, the Exchange retains the right to publish, without disclosing the identity of any party concerned, in part, in summary or in full the findings of the AIM Executive Panel, where the Exchange believes to do so would be of assistance to the market.”

   WTFF!, What The Fucking Fuck! Perhaps they should re-word that…

   “AIM Disciplinary Procedures and Appeals Handbook, Section C2.2

   Under this section, the Exchange retains the right to publish, without disclosing the identity of any party concerned, in part, in summary or in full the findings of the AIM Executive Panel, where the Exchange believes to do so would be detrimental to the market.”

   I would recommend designating London as collateral damage and that we take off and nuke them from orbit.

4. ---

   Tom Winnifrith

   28 March 2015, 07:18

   Stop press: I have an on the record denial from Cairn – it is not Cairn.

   I have added a new name WH Ireland. Its client Verdes certainly lied as to the receipts of sums due. is WH Ireland ( employer of China fraud specialist Paul Shackleton) the name in the frame?

5. ---

   DUCK AND DIVE

   28 March 2015, 07:43

   You should have listed all 42 AIM Nomads on the poll — and then sat back as 41 denials came flooding in…

6. ---

   drunken sailor

   28 March 2015, 09:00

   Inside knowledge on this one chaps coz, unless the exact same situation goes on everywhere, it fits like a glove with the Northland TXO situation.

   As usual AIM regulation have locked the stable door after the horse has bolted. TXO delisted this week because its Nomad – Northland resigned and they claimed they could not find another one in time.

   We know that is also a lie because there was a Nomad lined up, but it was conditional on Tim Baldwin the CEO and Chairman and his mate who was brought in by Tim to be a Non-Exec – Chris Foster resigning.

   TXO shareholders completely screwed now TXO has signed up with JP Jenkins, which averages about 1 trade a week across all the 30 odd companies they have signed up – quite a few ex AIM companies on JPJ including Sheffield United

7. ---

   VINES

   28 March 2015, 11:40

   that doesnt sound like inside knowledge it sounds like a guess

   this’ll be from years ago as it takes years for the regualtors to start an investigation finish it and fine the barstewards.

8. ---

   Tom Winnifrith

   28 March 2015, 13:13

   Breaking: Allenby have also issued an on the record denial – come on WH Ireland, Northland and Fatty Cornish will you do the same?

9. ---

   GheeBhee

   28 March 2015, 14:26

   The Nomad, whoever he is, looks to be taking one for the team (or taking one for the retainer and the loyalty bonus if you prefer). For me, this line in Para 4 of the judgement seals it (my capitals): “The Exchange considers that the Nomad’s performance in providing such advice and guidance to the company and on which THE COMPANY RELIED ON IN GOOD FAITH, in this instance fell below the standard expected.” Yeah, right.

   Hang on though, that phrase rings a bell. On 1 Dec 14 the Chairman of New World Oil and Gas commented on the termination of Niel Petroleum’s lapsed shareholder approved subscription in part as follows: “Niel has acted in good faith in this matter”. Could it be that this rather unnecessary, not to say arguable, assertion came to mind because that was what had just been told in writing to the AIM Regulators regarding an earlier mishandled notification? Right time frame for a judgement just published I think. My vote is therefore for Beaumont Cornish, NEW’s Nomad and also their Broker since the departure of Bill Kelleher from the Board. Retainer? That’ll be a double then, Sir.

10. ---

    Phil

    29 March 2015, 02:40

    This is a better way of doing it

    From the FT
    Macquarie pays $15 million to settle SEC charges: The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Macquarie Capital with backing a U.S. share-sale by a Chinese coalminer, even after obtaining a report showing that the miner was an empty shell without any income-producing assets.

11. ---

    nigel somerville

    29 March 2015, 04:13

    Here’s another one: Beaumont Cornish signed off Placing RNS issued by Angus Forrest’s Digital Learning Marketplace plc issued Aug 2012 which stated that it had raised £276k in a placing. In fact it had only raised £236k (as shown in Companies House filings as well as the annual report).

    Only a bit out, I suppose, but this was intended to meet the then auditor’s (GT) ‘key assumption’ that £300k would be raised when it passed that dog’s breakfast as a going concern (also that Aug), as per 2011 Annual Report also passed by BC.

    Isn’t it shocking how many different transgressions seem to fit the bill? Yet Aim Reg has only had a pop at just one of them.

    LSE: Laughing Stock Exchange.

    Except I’m not laughing.

12. ---

    drunken sailor

    29 March 2015, 05:32

    Nigel,

    Why only take a pop at one of them? The company I believe it was (TXO) and therefore the Nomad (Northland) did exactly the same thing a few months earlier when Tranche 3 of the Bergen facility did not arrive and was only announced about 7 weeks later when the new facility, which then also did not pay everything leading to this occurrence. AIM regulation did sweet FA about that one back then as they have done sweet FA about the other instances people are proposing as candidates. So could there have been some other / higher authority that was asking AIM Regulation the questions this time and AIM regulation were severely embarrassed by the Nomad’s failure?

    Could it be that the material payment that did not arrive meant the company was trading whilst insolvent? Could it have been the insolvency service asking the questions? That would have been really embarrassing for AIM regulation to have fed back a load of BS to the insolvency service only to find they had been spun a yarn and now look completely incompetent!

    Surely having been badly caught out, the Nomad concerned would have resigned. Maybe the day after the market was finally updated that the money had not arrived? Especially when that announcement admitted that there was no certainty it would ever arrive, because it had gone elsewhere and the directors knew it had gone elsewhere and were in fact desperately trying to get another facility in place before they had to announce? Could there have been an emergency placing to related parties (share price was well below nominal so it could not be done with bucket shops) during a close period to get enough money in to put the company back on the brink of insolvency for the time being rather than over it. Crumbs that would have breached a whole load of other rules and AIM regulation would have been fully aware of that but did nothing. The last thing AIM regulation would want is, having screwed up with the insolvency service, for the company to be declared insolvent within days. Much better to turn a blind eye to a load of other rule braking to let the company raise at least some cash to keep the lights on.

    How many recent occurrences fit all that? How far back in history could this really go? How long would it take AIM regulation to sort out a Nomad that had severely embarrassed it, but did hold its hands up and cooperate fully once found out? a month or two, maybe even 3, but not years.

    Could part of the reason why the fine seems so small be that the Nomad is being used as a scapegoat for AIM regulation’s own failures to deal with all the other instances that get regularly reported but they do sweet FA about?

13. ---

    drunken sailor

    2 April 2015, 13:37

    Following my email on Sat to AIM regulation:

    “Dear Nilam Statham,

    I hope you and the rest of AIM Regulation are truly ashamed of how you have dealt with the whole sorry saga of TXO and are learning lessons from it. But judging by the final paragraph where you talk about an isolated incident and the previously good compliance record, that is clearly too much to hope. TXO routinely breached AIM regulations time and time again and the Nomad let them and you let the Nomad let them.

    How about a £900k fine on AIM regulation to be distributed amongst ordinary TXO shareholders who have lost far far more than that thanks to your total failure to act much earlier and much more effectively against the person perpetrating the rule breaking – Mr Timothy Edward Baldwin. When is he going to be banned from ever being a director of an AIM listed company again?”

    I got this wonderfully polite reply:

    Thank you for your e-mail below. We note your previous communications with us regarding TXO plc.

    Please be advised, we publish AIM Notices in respect of certain private sanctions we undertake as part of our work to provide wider education and guidance as to our expectations on compliance with our rules, to the wider market. However, we would note that such AIM Notices do not provide any detail which could identify the parties involved.

    We are unable to comment further.

    Kind regards

    AIM REGULATION

    There are various replies I could send back, but I think I have given them enough grief over the years.

    Funnily enough the CEO of Northland has not responded to this one:

    Bob,

    £90k! It could be argued that you got off lightly when compared to what ordinary investors have lost during your tenure as TXO’s Nomad. You can’t say Northland were not warned repeatedly, I spent 2 and a half hours in Nov 13, shortly after you had taken TXO on, letting Luke and Edward know what they had let themselves in for, perhaps they should have taken it more seriously, especially as the rule breaking then continued unabated for the whole time. However are the people who are really responsible for those losses going to get their comeuppance this time, ie Tim Baldwin and his crony Chris Foster? It would be a complete travesty if they got off scot free yet again!