Good afternoon! It's Paul here. I've got the whole afternoon free, so will be updating this article gradually until teatime.


Interquest (LON:ITQ)

Share price: 28p (down 1.8% - back from temporary suspension)
No. shares: 38.7m
Market cap: £10.8m

Appointment of NOMAD and broker - this announcement is particularly important, because Interquest's shares had been suspended due to the company firing its NOMAD. Moreover, management (through a vehicle called Chisbridge Ltd) had attempted to buy out the company's minority shareholders through an offer at 42p. The offer failed to secure enough acceptances to allow the company to delist.

Yet Interquest then announced here on 6 Sep 2017 that it had given 1 month notice to sack its NOMAD on 10 Aug 2017! So this vital information was withheld from the market until just a few days before the 1 month notice was due to expire. This issue has arisen before, with other companies. It seems to me that giving notice to sack your NOMAD is very clearly price sensitive information under AIM rule 11;


59dcbef3f3963Aim_rule_11.PNG


So there's no question that the sacking of a company's NOMAD, leading to the suspension of its shares, is very significantly price sensitive. So a breach of AIM rule 11 has obviously happened, in my view. What will happen - nothing of course, there are rarely any consequences for breaching AIM rules. It only has a very thin veneer of regulation, which are often flouted, unfortunately.

It very much looked as if Interquest was deliberately trying to de-list by the back door, by firing its NOMAD. However, rather suprisingly the company has today announced the appointment of a new NOMAD, Allenby. The shares have therefore come back from suspension, and can be traded once again, as from noon today.

Today's announcement is worth reading, and covers the following points;

A relationship agreement has been enterered into between Interquest & Chisbridge, in order to ensure that Interquest is managed in the interests of all shareholders. I imagine that the NOMAD and broker probably insisted on this before taking on the roles.

A further NED (independent of Chisbridge) is to be appointed. Remember that during the attempted takeover, the only independent Director opposed the deal. I can't help feeling that having to put independent…

Finish reading with a 14 day trial

or Unlock with your email

Already have an account?
Login here