Chris Heminway, Exec-Chair at Time To ACT, explains why now is the right time for the Group to IPO. Watch the video here.
She was recruited by Boohoo, likely as a puppet. Lauren does not currently have experience of running a beauty brand or PLC, which at this stage in the companies recovery is vital. Bob Holt as an experienced business operator was better placed to continue the recovery before handing over the reins. Though he was obviously too outspoken for the Boohoo chairman Mahmud Kamani's ego to handle. However Lauren has many strengths, years of beauty experience and understanding of the UK/US markets, so hopefully she quickly takes to the role of running a beauty brand and delivers on Revolutions potential.
Https://zeuscapital.co.uk/exclusives/0280497336/
Interesting Zeus Capital interview with Bob Holt here. Discusses some of the events during his time at Revolution. Still a shareholder and believes the business should do well.
My guess would be some major shareholders want her gone for highlighting all the previous accounting issues. Frankly they should be thanking her and Bob Holt for correcting this and saving the company and their shareholding.
Good news in my opinion that all resolutions were passed. Gives some stability and continuity at a much needed time. Just need the management team to focus on growing the business now.
It's worth remembering that throughout all of this saga, when news like this has dropped the initial reaction from investors has been to think of the worst case scenarios, but the outcome has always been less severe than first thought. Unfortunately the bad news just seems to keep coming! This investigation was always likely to happen, but the company have done an independent investigation and corrected the issues from the past, which should be seen in a positive light. REVBs credit facility has covenants in place with the bank, which if broken could cause financial hardship, so this could be factored in by the FCA if any fine was to potentially be issued.
It's funny how quick Bob has rolled over after everything been said in RNSs. But not a bad incentive for him to leave, free shares and tax paid. Been a big advocate for him but maybe Boohoos comments about self serving not so inaccurate after all. Not surprised though. As you say all in it for the money.
At least he's steadied the ship and got it back on a good footing, what happens now with Boo, who knows! If they offer I guess now that they have purchased at 32p that is the minimum they can offer for full takeover, if that is their plan and they have the finances to do it.
We need some positive trading updates, and a truer forecast on EBITDA as the high single digit or this year cannot be accurate when we have already done £3.5m in Q1. Some consistent positive news flow should help this along.
Boo have influence but not control. Majority independant board.
Keeping Lake gives stability, which will please banks and customers.
Not keen on Boo, but cosmetics is much more stable than fast fashion. If a beauty industry experienced CEO is appointed then that would be positive, as long as they aren't a puppet for Boo.
I just hope the independant directors get re-elected at the next AGM and the board remains majority independant.
The uncertainty surrounding the founders voting is to do with their contractual obligations as per the 'Relationship Agreement' they signed at IPO.
Two extracts of interest:
"ensure that neither Adam Minto and/or Tom Allsworth or their associates take any action that would have the effect of preventing the Company from complying with its obligations under the AIM Rules for Companies. Further details of the Relationship Agreement are set out in paragraph 11.2 of Part VI of this Document"
"(c) not use his shareholding to requisition a general meeting of the Company for the purpose of proposing, or exercising any voting rights attaching to their shareholding to remove a director or amend the Articles in such a way as might reasonably be expected to adversely effect the independence of the Group"
If the founders vote to remove the current BOD, this could have an adverse effect on the independence of the company, by potentially allowing BOO to gain control of the board which could result in the independence of company being affected by Boohoo acquiring on the cheap/admin or other scenario etc.
The way I am interpreting this, is that the founders 'may' be contractually prevented from voting to remove the current BOD as it could affect the independence of the group, but nothing stopping them to vote with/for the current BOD.
Any thoughts?