Collins English Dictionary defines a 'trade' as an act or instance of buying or selling, a buy or a sell. The Exchange recorded 'trades'. When the offer and acceptance has been made, the system records a bargain (the transaction). A trade has taken place.
To say that just because they haven't delivered the share that a bargain/trade has not taken place would be quite absurd. One would have to ask WHY the LSE has then gone to the bother of arranging a settlement offer. It's quite simple, but your smoke screen won't work. The market makers traded shares that were non-existant. They broke the rules of the exchange.
By your own admission”
If this is important to your case then you should take some legal advice and get somebody whom you trust to explain the rules to you. It’s a shame because I can tell you for free that the MMs did not do what you are claiming that they did, but if you want to pay a lawyer to tell you the same then so-be-it.
”on post 554 in reply to Harvester you said, I quote:
‘Of course. But they did nothing wrong, all they did was pre-sell some of the D4E swap shares.’”
The technical term is “icing”, if you look at the FSA’s website you will find that the FSA actually consulted on this very point in the recent past to determine when market participants considered “icing” to be abusive. If you search the FSA’s website you can probably find the consultative document, you may even conclude that it aids your cause.
Again the LSE accept that there are "Investors who entered into bargains" So how do you explain that the LSE is forcing the market makers to offer the compromise. The reason is quite simple. They entered into legally binding contracts for shares that didn't exist.
The investors entered into contracts to deliver shares. The MMs are going to deliver them now albeit a little later than they originally agreed to do so. So where’s the “loss”?
harvester, an interesting summary
They were probably aware that
massive short-selling was taking place but(the shares being so cheap)
thought that they could beat the short-sellers by buying up the
available pool of shares in the market and thereby putting the
short-sellers in a bear-squeeze , forcing them to close their
deals at a higher price to bring instant speculative profit to
the punters/buyers. They were so sure that this tactic would
work (on a level playing field it might !) that they were prepared
to buy shares at prices well above the likely intrinsic or
fundamental value of this company .
The action that you describe is a clear example of market abuse. Ergo the action group are guilty of market abuse.
I do not believe that this part of the story is accurate:
”That’s when the truck of the MM’s started to veer off the road.
The irregularities of the short-selling started to surface and the
shares were suspended on AIM on 22nd October .
The announcement here explains:
“The chairman's statement contained in the preliminary announcement of results
for the year ended 31st December, 2002, referred to a convertible loan of
£100,000 from Chiddingfold Investments Limited. That loan will not now take
place and alternative proposals for refinancing the Company are being
considered.
Accordingly, the directors of Room Service have requested that trading in its
ordinary shares on AIM is temporarily suspended, pending the announcement of
refinancing proposals.”
The shares were suspended because the LSE has particular rules about trading in shares of insolvent companies (which I would remind you that RSV technically was).
Azure Hlgs stock quotes
Azure Hlgs stock charts
Follow this thread
