AIM resources

This subtopic highlights relevant commentary, analysis and resources to assist with the interpretation of, and provide practical guidance on the application of, the AIM Rules for Companies, the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules (where applicable to AIM companies), the UK Prospectus Regulation and the UK market abuse regime.

AIM Rules resources

The AIM Rules for Companies are published by the London Stock Exchange and set out the rules and responsibilities in relation to AIM companies. The Resource Notes on the AIM Rules for Companies are split out as follows:

  1. AIM Rules for Companies—Rule 1—Retention and role of a nomad

  2. AIM Rules for Companies—Rules 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6—Applicants for AIM

  3. AIM Rules for Companies—Rules 7, 8 and 9—Special conditions for certain applicants

  4. AIM Rules for Companies—Rules 10 and 11—Principles of disclosure and general disclosure of price sensitive information

  5. AIM Rules for Companies—Rules 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16—disclosure of corporate transactions

  6. AIM Rules for Companies—Rules 17, 18 and 19—Disclosure of miscellaneous information, half-yearly reports and annual accounts

  7. AIM Rules for Companies—Rules 20 to 26—Publication of documents, dealing policy,

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Corporate News

High Court clarifies position of sole directors under Model Articles and the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and in-court appointment of administrators (Re KRF Services (UK) Ltd and others)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This High Court case (which addresses two important issues in UK company law and sanctions regulations) will be of interest to insolvency practitioners, corporate and restructuring lawyers, sanctions lawyers, and businesses and individuals which are affected by sanctions. Firstly, it clarifies the position of sole directors under the Model Articles for private limited companies. The court ruled that a sole director can validly pass board resolutions and bind the company, regardless of whether they have always been the sole director or were previously part of a multi-member board. This interpretation resolves conflicts between Article 7(2) and Article 11(2) of the Model Articles, with the court favouring Article 7(2)'s provisions. Secondly, the case examines the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and the in-court appointment of administrators. The court determined that making an administration application and order does not breach asset-freezing sanctions, even when the company is designated or controlled by a sanctioned person. While an Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) license is typically required for administrators to act, the court retains discretion to make immediate appointments in urgent situations. Written by Joshua Ray and Duncan Henderson, partners at CANDEY, which acted for the First and Second Applicants on this matter.

View Corporate by content type :

Popular documents