Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
This News Analysis considers 171 delisted companies from AIM of the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and highlights the trends found in the periods 2016/7 and 2017/8.
Corporate analysis: Market Tracker reviewed 71 delistings from AIM between 1 February 2017 and 31 January 2018 (2017/8 Period). This analysis examines the reasons cited by these companies for delisting, making comparisons with the 100 companies which
delisted from AIM in the period between 1 February 2016 and 31 January 2017 (2016/7 Period). The statistics used in this analysis are based on the AIM statistics from the LSE website.
2017/8 Period Trends
In the 2017/8 Period, 71 companies cancelled their
shares on AIM. This confirms a decrease of 29% from the 2016/7 Period, compared to the 100 delistings in the 2016/7 Period. The higher number of delistings in the 2016/7 Period may be explained by the uncertainty surrounding the political and
economic climate created by the EU referendum in June 2016. This uncertainty may have lessened in the 2017/8 period, which is indicated by a fall in the number of delistings. Of the 71 companies reviewed during the 2017/8 Period, reasons for delisting
Costs were a factor in over two thirds of companies’ requests
‘The considerable cost, management time and the legal and regulatory burden associated with maintaining the Company’s admission to trading on AIM which, in the directors’ opinion, are disproportionate to the benefits to the Company’
Turbo Power Systems Inc.—19 April 2017
Of the 22 companies which delisted from AIM at the request of the company, over two thirds (68%) cited the costs of maintaining a listing as the primary reason for delisting in their announcements or delisting circulars (although two companies did not
expand on their reasoning). In addition to the costs of maintaining a listing, the legal and regulatory burden of a listing was a factor for 8 companies (53% of companies citing costs) on AIM. Low share liquidity in addition to costs featured for
9 companies (60% of companies citing costs). Insufficient trading in the market and lack of investors were other reasons companies gave for opting to leave AIM. One company, Fusionex International plc, cited the costs of maintaining a listing as disproportionate
because of a disappointing valuation on the market. The company then attributed political uncertainty as a contributing factor which was a rarity for the delisting announcements and circulars in the 2017/8 period.
‘The Directors believe the reasons…specifically include a lack of liquidity, and in part, a lack of in-depth independent research into the Company. It is not possible to attribute this to one single factor however the Directors believe
that the current political uncertainty in Europe is unhelpful, which makes the public markets in the United Kingdom less attractive for Fusionex than at the time of the IPO.’ Fusionex International plc— 26 May 2017
Impact of the removal of the Nominated AdviserAnother reason for delisting, cited by 20% of companies, was pursuant to AIM Rule 1 and the failure to appoint a Nominated Adviser (Nomad).
‘If an AIM company ceases to have a Nominated Adviser the Exchange will suspend trading in its AIM securities. If within one month of that suspension the AIM company has failed to appoint a replacement Nominated Adviser, the admission of its
AIM securities will be cancelled.’ AIM Rule 1
On Wednesday 11 October 2017, it was announced that ZAI Corporate Finance Ltd’s Nomad status was to be removed after it failed to meet eligibility criteria under AIM rules. This gave the companies to whom ZAI was a Nomad until 19 October 2017 to
appoint a new Nomad. The companies which failed to do so had their shares suspended until a new Nomad was appointed. Consequently, these suspended companies had until 20 November 2017 to appoint a new Nomad or have their shares cancelled from trading.
Of the 11 companies that confirmed that they were affected, three companies (Grand Group Investment plc, Northwest Investment Group Limited and Alpha Returns Group plc), failed to meet this deadline and subsequently announced the cancellation of their
shares on AIM.
2016/7 Period Trends
In the 2016/7 Period, 100 companies cancelled their
shares on AIM. The reasons for delisting were:
In comparison to the 2017/8 Period, the proportions are less evenly spread, especially regarding companies that cited reasons relating to an acquisition or cancellations made at the company’s request.
Costs were more frequently cited as the sole reason for delistingOur research indicates that only 27 out of 59 companies which delisted at the company’s request expanded on their reasoning in the 2016/7 Period. Of these 27 companies,
costs were again the primary reason for delisting with 17 companies (63%) citing costs as a reason. This equates to 29% of all the companies that delisted at the request of the company.
Seven of the 17 companies citing costs (41%) also mentioned the legal and regulatory burden of maintaining a listing as a factor in their delisting announcement (compared to 53% in the 2017/8 Period). Low share liquidity in addition to costs also featured
for six companies (35% of companies citing costs compared to 60% in the 2017/8 period). The results indicate that companies in the 2017/8 period gave information as to multiple factors that contributed to the cancellation of shares, in contrast with
the 2016/7 Period where 59% of companies cited costs solely as a reason for cancellation (only 9% of companies did this in the 2017/8 Period).
‘The Company expects that continuation of the decline in proportion of shares held and traded through AIM is likely to lead to a decrease in the liquidity of AIM trading and that it would be advantageous for all GW shareholders to combine trading
volumes from both markets onto a single exchange in one time zone.’ GW Pharmaceuticals plc— 19 October 2016
LiquidationCancellations at the company’s request also saw three companies in the 2016/7 that were forced to delist as a result of the company going into liquidation. This shows a similar figure compared with the 2017/8 Period
for companies delisting for this reason with 11% of companies that expanded on their reasoning in 2016/7 and 10% in 2017/8.
Industry sector trendsThe most common industry sectors for delisting companies in the 2017/8 Period were:
With comparison to the 2016/7 Period:
Both the industry sectors Mining, metals & extraction and the Investment sector featured in the top four for both periods. While this may indicate that companies from these sectors are more likely to cancel their shares on AIM, it may also reflect
that a large proportion of AIM constituents are made up of companies in this sector.
In the Investment sector, the most common reason for delisting was at the request of the company (60% of companies in this sector). More specifically, 35% of the companies in this sector delisting over the two periods cited the costs of maintaining a
listing on AIM as part of their reason. When looking at the Mining, metals & extraction industry sector over the two periods, the most common reason for delisting was pursuant to AIM rule 41 (46% of companies) with only 15% of companies citing
costs as a main reason for delisting. This may hint to a more disappointing performance generally in the Investment sector over the two periods, resulting in companies perceiving the costs of maintaining a listing to be too high.
0330 161 1234