On August 2, 2016 the London Stock Exchange (LSE) published an edition of Inside AIM in which it noted that AIM Notice 45 endorsed the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) supervisory approach in respect of closed periods and preliminary results under the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) and confirmed that when the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) provided clarification on this topic, the LSE would review the AIM Rules for Companies (the AIM Rules).
In July 2016, ESMA updated its Q&A on MAR. ESMA’s updated Q&A includes a question on closed periods and preliminary results and mirrors the FCA’s approach. Given the clarification by ESMA, the LSE does not consider it necessary to amend the AIM Rules.
The Inside AIM edition also links to a set of frequently asked questions (FAQ) for AIM companies and their nominated advisers, with regard to the disclosure obligations contained within MAR and the AIM Rules, which were published by the LSE on August 2, 2016.
The specific issues addressed in the FAQ include the following:
- whether an AIM company will have to deal with two regulators, considering there is overlap between the AIM Rules and MAR;
- whether compliance with MAR will automatically satisfy the AIM company's obligations under the AIM Rules and vice versa;
- the definition of a person discharging managerial responsibilities (PDMR) and how a PDMR makes notifications to the FCA;
- the difference between inside information under MAR and price sensitive information under the AIM Rules;
- why an AIM company has to have a dealing policy when premium listed companies do not have to have one; and
- what the LSE considers to be a reasonable and effective dealing policy.
(LSE, Inside AIM: Market Abuse Regulation – Closed periods and preliminary results, 02.08.16)
(LSE, FAQs – The Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), 02.08.16)