Commentary: Hammonds' cut-price delisting divides war-weary AIM vets
Even for a market that has suffered a torrid 18 months, Hammonds' recent offer to delist companies from London's Alternative Investment Market (AIM) for a £5,000 fee seems awfully symbolic - and not in a good way. After all, this market had not so long ago been one of the most lucrative for mid-market advisers. That is hard to square with Hammonds' recent move to send out flyers to at least 20 nominated advisers offering to delist AIM companies with a market cap of less than £20m for a fixed fee of £5,000.At first glance, it is hard to see how any top 50 law firm can turn a profit on those figures. However, Hammonds' latest initiative is shrewder than it sounds, as it is aiming to use the delisting as a foundation for future relationships along the realms of providing commercial, employment, pensions and tax advice.
April 08, 2009 at 11:02 PM
4 minute read
Hammonds adopts eye-catching strategy to drum up some fresh mid-market business
Even for a market that has suffered a torrid 18 months, Hammonds' recent offer to delist companies from London's Alternative Investment Market (AIM) for a £5,000 fee seems awfully symbolic – and not in a good way. After all, this market had not so long ago been one of the most lucrative for mid-market advisers. That is hard to square with Hammonds' recent move to send out flyers to at least 20 nominated advisers offering to delist AIM companies with a market cap of less than £20m for a fixed fee of £5,000.
At first glance, it is hard to see how any top 50 law firm can turn a profit on those figures. However, Hammonds' latest initiative is shrewder than it sounds, as it is aiming to use the delisting as a foundation for future relationships along the realms of providing commercial, employment, pensions and tax advice.
In addition, the small print will see a number of add-on prices if the company wishes to do anything on top of the delisting, such as share buyback schemes, tender offers and capital reductions – common practice given that 75% shareholder approval is required for a straightforward delisting.
Hammonds corporate partner Giles Distin (pictured) comments: "It would not be appropriate to ask for a high legal fee on a delisting and we hope the fee structure will be attractive to new clients. In this market, relationship-building is as important as fees themselves and we want to put ourselves in as strong as position as possible for when the market improves to conduct not just the corporate work but carry out other legal needs."
In response, AIM lawyers give Hammonds credit for commercial invention, even if not everyone is convinced it is the right road to travel. DLA Piper capital markets head Alex Tamlyn says: "They may find the odd nugget of gold, but there is going to be a lot of gravel to trawl through. Is the time and processing of delisting companies going to be worth it for those few companies that retain them? It is not a foregone conclusion."
Still, it remains a fairly depressing move for the market in general. Since its launch in 1995, 2008 was one of the worst years for AIM with only 114 admissions to market, compared with 284 during 2007 and 462 during 2006. The total number of companies listed on the exchange also fell – dropping from a peak of 1,694 at the end of 2007 to 1,550 in December 2008.
So where does this leave AIM? No-one expects a return to the glory days of 2005-06 for a long time but AIM veterans all maintain London's junior market is still attractive and will remain to be so in the future. Many point to overseas companies maintaining an interest in AIM. The exchange is expected to decrease dramatically in size but others view the drop-off as part of a wider evolution of a maturing exchange, seeing those companies that should not have listed in the first place fade away. The picture portrayed is one of quality as opposed to quantity – even if this end looks to be achieved through a fairly brutal, Darwinian form of evolution. All of which suggests that AIM will be a good place for advisers that stick it out for the long haul, but the emphasis remains on long.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllKPMG's Bid To Practice Law in US On Hold As Arizona Court Exercises Caution
Combative Arguments at EU's Highest Court Over Google's €4.13B Antitrust Fine Emphasize High Stakes and Invoke Trump
4 minute readLaw Firms 'Struggling' With Partner Pay Segmentation, as Top Rainmakers Bring In More Revenue
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250