UK 19:28 Tuesday, 27 October 2026
Breaking news and expert analysis on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
I was taking a look at what happened to ex-AIM listed and Filthy Forty constituent Sorbic International (SORB) after it was booted off the AIM Casino earlier this year. Can we draw some lessons? Are there some clues as to why so many of the Filthy Forty have shown that they should never have been allowed near the world’s most successful growth market? We need look no further than its interims, released on 30 June 2015 where all is laid bare, plain for all to see. It is utterly shocking. It shows that there can be no corporate governance which can be relied upon.
Already a member? Sign in
• All premium articles
• Tom Winnifrith’s Bearcast
• Access to all the entire nearly 13 year archive
• ShareProphets Daily Newsletter
Cancel any time
This area of the ShareProphets.com site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ShareProphets.com. ShareProphets.com does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at ShareProphets.com is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ShareProphets.com and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.
Comments
Daniel Victor
Yes,okay,but isn’t this attitude just a trifle defeatist ? If we make a big enough fuss about this deplorable state of affairs,the Chinese authorities might just be motivated to change things,at a time when they could do with some outside investment. Good work,though.
Nigel Somerville
Daniel – I don’t disagree at all. But the point is that this should all have been sorted out BEFORE any of these companies were allowed anywhere near the Casino. Or did nobody check?
Daniel Victor
Actually,Nigel,it’s a bit unfair to single out AIM regarding problems with Chinese law..Baidu and Alibaba trade in the USA in ADR form.In practice,the rights conferred by the ADRs to the companies and their assets are tenuous at best.They have to be,in order to avoid a contravention of Chinese law,which makes it tricky for foreign investors.See http://knowledge.ckgsb.edu.cn/2015/06/25/finance-and-investment/rules-of-the-game-changes-in-chinas-foreign-investment-law/