UK 13:58 Monday, 26 October 2026
Breaking news and expert analysis on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares
We have received not one but two MORE bullyboy lawyers letters from Canaccord. The adviser to Quenron’s abortive move to the main market and until last week co-broker to the fraud that is Quindell does not even want us to quote from its recent volte face note on Quenron. You will no doubt have seen Canaccord notes on other matters quoted verbatim widely all over the media. So why is it so ashamed of this research report?
Already a member? Sign in
• All premium articles
• Tom Winnifrith’s Bearcast
• Access to all the entire nearly 13 year archive
• ShareProphets Daily Newsletter
Cancel any time
This area of the ShareProphets.com site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ShareProphets.com. ShareProphets.com does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at ShareProphets.com is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ShareProphets.com and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.
Comments
G
“Studying documents from Sergei Kurzin-promoted mining companies, some patterns are worth noting. In each case the UK arm of Canaccord handled the float and many early-stage investors were the same. Aran Asset Mgmt, Barham Investment Group, and various offshore trusts managed by Pinnacle Trustees.
The UK press reported that Aran Asset Management and Barham Investment Group sold their shares in Oriel Resources within a week of its IPO for windfall profits. The Mail on Sunday speculated that the two were linked to senior Canaccord execs. A trust managed by Pinnacle Trustees also sold soon after IPO. The trusts were called Pamir, Malta and Vnukam – that last word meaning “for the grandsons.” Aran, Barham and the Kurzin-linked trusts had all taken shares at 1p and the Canaccord assisted float was priced at 65p.”
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/17/clinton-sergei-kurzin-opinions-contributors-sidorov.html
david
They’re employing lawyers to claim copyright over that note!
Don’t understand. Why don’t they claim a big boy did it and ran off, and it was nothing to do with them.
wildrides
Oh what a shame ………. I so enjoyed reading Arun and Bobs unmitigated shite , err sorry ….. original literary works. I laughed until I cried . No doubt wrists will benefit from the ensuing self imposed rest and retail investors will be protected from another assault by an avalanche of unmitigated garbage , not to mention their “hard earned” protected from miss appropriation due to un researched “research”
turbograndad
TOM, just give them a great big CRONY FUCK OFF, score one.
Jonathan
On this one Tom, and I don’t say this often, you are quite wrong. Copyright is an internationally respected thing and you voluntarily chose to violate it after having a legal request to respect it. This particular outrage you are expressing is quite contrived, as you absolutely knew that quoting from a document you were legally obliged to remove due to copyright still infringed the copyright.
Now if you wish to make a broader point and campaign that if a broker makes it’s recommendations public then it must also make it’s notes public to improve market transparency I will be all for it and the first to sign your petition. But this isolated incident, targeting Cannacord for rightly upholding their legal rights, is definitely a loss and an own goal by you.
Tom Winnifrith
JB
Canaccord is delighted to have its research quoted ad naeuseam in the press most days. Its notes are cut & pasted in the FT markets chat with Paul Murphy and that wanker Bryce Elder on a regulat basis and it is happy for the PR.
But on this Quenron note it suddenly assets copyright? Hmmm. Why on this 1 note? Becuase it is ashamed and embarrassed of its role in this scandal and wants it hushed up. On the other hand I think its actions over Ashton, over the Rob Terry £30m placing & over ignorng the fraud merit wider discussion.
T
Jonathan
I agree with all of that. But this artice isnt about that, you received letters because of continued copyright infringement. Your articles are misdirected and semi disingenuous because you knew what the outcome of your actions would be.
Write about the general system which allows brokers to publish recommendations without publishing notes, start a campaign of letter writing to mps, ask fca to clarify its position on transparency of markets, etc.
But deliberately continuing to violate copyright and then faking outrage when they dare to do their jobs is not a win for you, in my opinion.
Tom Winnifrith
JB
The FCA are useless. MPs are worse. And so the only way to deal with bastards like Canaccord is to shine a direct light on what they are doing and allow market forces to work. That is to say EVERY fund manager to whom cannacord speaks must be made aware that canaccord tried to palm off £30m of shares owned by Rob Terry onto them whilst it sat on the Ashton dossier.
Every fund manager must be made aware of how shite & compromised its research is. And that is what I am doing. canaccord’s clients do read this website and they will be making their feelings known ( In fact they already are :) )
And I have & will continue to expose other brokers too in the same way. That is the only way to force change. Picking this fight with Canaccord has raised awareness of the whole issue. Good. that is what I wanted.
With respect, your "responsible" way would have achieved nothing so far and if you rely on the MPs etc never will.
Moreover when Canaccord was ramping the shares its buy notes were plastered all over the interweb by QPP Morons and folks bought stock on that basis. Canaccord did not engage lawyers to stamp that out. There is a 100% public interest in allowing the same folks to see what Canaccord says now. My duty lies to poor mug investors hoodwinked by the first ramp notes NOT to the City establishment and sparing their blushes
If you do not like the way I am trying to do what the FCA fails to do and what MPs could not give a flying fuck about write to your MP to complain about me
T
Phil
Jonathan, with the greatest of respect. No
Some rules are for breaking, if you don’t break them you can never win.
To understand that you have to understand why the rules are made in the first place.
The rules for copyright were created to protect an interest, an altruistic interest, that is the overall purpose. Canaccord used that principle for it’s own purpose, to hide something un-altrusic, that broke the spirit and ethic of the law, TW did right. We need to know, it’s our money,
Just because it is legal doesn’t always make it right, and sometimes doing something illegal isn’t wrong.
We would still be in the workhouse if people didn’t kick/break the rules.
My roots are in Malawi, what the politicos do there is legal, sure as fuck isn’t right.
Keeping to the law brings order, doing the right thing keeps us free
alcira16247
Tom
I wonder how many investors piled in Quindell, based on the research and buy recommendation of Canaccord, issued only five weeks ago? The share price at that time was trading in the 145/165 range, to have such a tempting target price as forecast by Canaccord, must have tempted many into buying the confetti. Many of those investors have now sustained substantial losses.
There must be serious concerns to the quality and accuracy of the 21st October, buy note, in light of the current change of stance and subsequent resignation? Could the charge of negligence or misleading be made against the publisher, if they failed to disclose facts, known at the time, that may have adversely impacted on their recommendation?
MISLEADING STATEMENTS AND PRACTICES UNDER THE FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 2012 :-
…… “making a statement, promise or forecast which he knew to be materially misleading, false or deceptive b) by dishonestly concealing material facts; or c) recklessly making (dishonestly or otherwise) a statement, promise or forecast which is materially misleading, false or deceptive……”
“As to the separate offence of creating a misleading impression as to the value of an investment, this was committed when that impression was given for the purposes of inducing another either to buy/sell or to refrain from buying/selling any qualifying investments…..”
People may argue that Canaccord and the authors may have committed offences under the Act. No doubt, many investors will be seeking legal advise exploring avenues of redress.
turbograndad
ALCERIA16247, already on that case, I am one pissed off investor, they all continuely extract the urine, and TOMS letter from con accord is exactly that, Jonathan your PC ness is misplaced get real.
Sweet Karolina
I hope Canaccord and Cenkos face whacking great class actions for their role in allowing Rob Terry to rip off shareholders yet again – that will give their lawyers some proper work to do.
Keep up the good work, push the boundaries, but don’t drop yourself in it. Of course you knew that removing the links and quoting the contents would still be a breach, but their first bully boy letter said remove the links which you did. It might have been better to have not quoted the note in full, but left out a few superfluous words here and there with a … to fill the gap.
They only resort to lawyers when they have something to hide and Canaccord’s complicity in the whole Quindell scandal is well worth hiding, but you can’t his an elephant under a fig leaf.
J P Spaghetti
I agree strongly with Phil. Where the spirit of the law is being treated so contemptuously there is justification for challenging a technicality. Else we have 30s Berlin. Sometimes rules do have to be broken in order to do the right thing. And surely Canaworms are on very shaky ground anyway if there is evidence they were acting fraudulently – i.e., that they did indeed try to prevent Ken Ashton from voicing his own legitimate concerns (this being the case, TW’s actions could be seen as those of one trying to preserve important corroborating evidence of this). That would be in direct violation of their own small print and would show they were WILFULLY acting in a way that contradicted their official stance. That is fraud. Now if I’d invested in QPP on the back of that research note with a £3+ target (and joking aside, perfectly reasonable and sensible people could have been duped) and was now sitting on significant losses, I’d be seriously considering legal action against THEM given recent – erm – developments!
Warun Boofit
Jonathon , I do not want to read about the ‘general system’, the FCA is ineffective and impotent. I wrote to the FCA about an experience with a boiler room , they could not take the time to even an acknowledge me, it would have taken 10 seconds for an FCA inmate to click on ‘reply’ . If you believe your method might work go ahead, write to the FCA and contact your MP but I suspect the reply would be as ‘general’ as the the question, you will probably be fobbed off. My first experience of scamming was around 1986 when I responded to an advert by LHW Futures, fortunately I sensed after receiving a few long phone calls that they were probably criminals but thousands of punters lost money as the positions they had opened were churned until there was nothing left, LHW would then persuade the hapless mugs to send more to cover the margin calls. These type of mugs need protecting from themselves and over the years the ‘general’ situation has got worse not better so what have the FCA , their predecessors and all the MPs done about the ‘general’ situation; nothing as far as I am concerned. By the time the FCA takes action its way too late, the mug punters money has been triple laundered then spent on drugs and prostitutes.