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.

Briefings from Walker Morris

  • Luxury fashion items and trademark infringement

    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.

  • Cookies as registered Community designs

    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. 

View more briefings from Walker Morris

Analysis from The Lawyer

View more analysis from The Lawyer


Kings Court
12 King Street

Turnover (£m): 42.00
No. of Lawyers: 181