Private censure and fine for breach of AIM Rules
An unnamed AIM company has been privately censured and fined £90,000 by the AIM Executive Panel. The company failed to notify the market, without delay, of transactions with known related parties, in breach of Rule 13 of the AIM Rules for Companies. It also breached Rule 31 by failing to take into account the advice of its nominated adviser (nomad) and failing to provide the nomad with complete information. Broadly, ‘related party’ under the AIM Rules means any current or recent director or substantial shareholder (or any associate of either). For these purposes ‘recent’ means the 12-month period preceding the transaction and substantial shareholder means anyone who controls the exercise of 10 per cent. or more of the votes able to be cast at a general meeting…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Walker Morris briefing.
News from Walker Morris
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Walker Morris
Intellectual property disputes involving retailers and fashion are all too common; another one to have troubled the courts in recent months is Thomas Pink v Victoria’s Secret UK.
In Biscuits Poult SAS v OHIM, the applicant for invalidity challenged the registration on the basis that the design in question was not new and lacked individual character.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Which firms are cutting it in this era of slimline rosters, and who are the GC new brooms making clean sweeps? The Lawyer can reveal all
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.