AIQ Limited Enters Related Party Loan Agreement with Executive Director for Working Capital

AIQ secures an interest-free related party loan for working capital

AIQ Limited has tapped an insider for short-term funding. On 28 January 2026, the Company agreed an interest-free, unsecured loan of £176,000 from Executive Director Li Chun Chung, repayable on demand. The cash is earmarked for working capital – the day-to-day money a business uses to pay suppliers, staff and bills.

This is a straightforward – and very common – way for a small-cap to bridge near-term cash needs without going to the market. It’s also a related party transaction, which means extra governance oversight applies.

Key terms of AIQ’s loan agreement with an Executive Director

Amount	£176,000
Date agreed	28 January 2026
Lender	Li Chun Chung (Executive Director)
Interest	Interest-free
Security	Unsecured
Repayment	Repayable upon demand
Use of proceeds	Working capital
Governance	Independent Non-Executive Chairman and a Non-Executive Director consider the terms fair and reasonable for shareholders

What a related party loan means – and why governance matters

A “related party transaction” is a deal with someone connected to the company, like a director. These need careful handling so minority shareholders are treated fairly. In this case, the independent directors – Chairman Harry Chathli and Non-Executive Director Dwight Mighty – have signed off the loan as fair and reasonable for shareholders.

That sign-off is important. It reassures the market that the terms aren’t sweetheart terms and that the director lender is not gaining at the expense of the company. Interest-free and unsecured are about as shareholder-friendly as it gets.

Why this matters for AIQ shareholders

Positives: quick cash, no interest, no dilution

• Cost-free capital: Interest-free means no ongoing finance cost. That’s better than a pricey short-term facility.
• No security granted: Unsecured avoids encumbering assets. Flexibility preserved.
• No dilution: This is debt, not equity, so there are no new shares from this move.
• Demonstrates insider support: A director putting in money can signal confidence and alignment with shareholders.

Watch-outs: repayable on demand and short-term signal

• Repayable on demand: The lender can call the loan back at any time. That’s a liquidity risk if cash is tight.
• Working capital need: A director loan for working capital often points to near-term funding requirements. It’s a standard tool, but the company has not disclosed current cash, burn rate or runway.
• Concentration risk: Relying on a single insider for funding can work, but it’s not a long-term capital strategy.

What’s disclosed – and what isn’t

The RNS is clean and concise, but there’s limited context. Here’s what we know and don’t know:

• Disclosed: £176,000 interest-free, unsecured, repayable on demand; use is working capital; independent directors deem terms fair and reasonable.
• Not disclosed: Cash balance, monthly cash burn, how long the £176,000 is expected to last, any repayment timetable, covenants (likely none given it’s unsecured), or alternative funding plans.

The absence of detail isn’t unusual for a small related party facility, but it does leave investors guessing about duration and follow-on funding needs.

How to frame this RNS in your investment thinking

Short-term bridge, not a capital solution

This looks like a bridge to keep the lights on operationally while the board works on whatever comes next. Because it’s repayable on demand, it’s best thought of as very short-term. If AIQ needs a durable solution, expect a future update on financing – whether operating cash flow, another loan, or equity. None of that is indicated here.

Governance passes the smell test

Independent oversight and an interest-free unsecured structure are about as fair as it gets in a related party context. That reduces conflict-of-interest worries. The trade-off is the demand feature, which keeps flexibility with the lender and raises liquidity risk if called.

Practical takeaways and questions for management

• Runway: How many months of operating costs does £176,000 cover? Not disclosed.
• Repayment expectations: Is there a target date or trigger for repayment, beyond “on demand”? Not disclosed.
• Next steps: Is the board considering additional facilities or a more permanent funding plan? Not disclosed.
• Operational catalysts: Are there near-term receivables or milestones that could self-fund repayment? Not disclosed.

My view: supportive, but signals near-term funding needs

Net-net, this is a supportive move that avoids dilution and interest costs, and it shows an insider willing to back the company. That’s positive. The unsecured nature is also favourable for existing stakeholders.

The flip side is the “repayable on demand” clause and the lack of visibility on cash runway. It’s sensible as a quick fix, but investors should look for follow-up disclosures that map out the path beyond this £176,000 bridge. Until then, treat this as a short, pragmatic patch rather than a strategic funding solution.