Member Info for Amers

To Fellow Long-Term Shareholders and New Supporters,

There’s still time to influence the direction of our company and how our hard-earned money is being managed. By voting yes, you are effectively endorsing the status quo and the current Board of Directors (BOD).

This is your opportunity to push for real change. We are currently being led down a path by a Board whose decisions many shareholders have begun to question. A shift in direction isn’t just symbolic — it could bring real, tangible benefits for all shareholders.

Please take the time to vote, or change your vote if you've already submitted it. Opportunities to challenge the BOD are rare, but this is one of them. Your vote truly can make a difference.

David has made his voice heard — and may well be here for the long term. Let’s ensure ours is heard too.

Ok I miss understood the RNS. Sorry

I think shares have already been given to those who are likely to votes yes. Allocation doesn't depends on the out of the GM of the 15th

All I have emailed the below

Subject: Concerns Regarding Recent Share Allocation and Treatment of Long-Term Shareholders

Dear [Recipient / Board of Directors / Investor Relations],

I am writing to formally express my concern regarding the recent share placing at £0.20, and the manner in which allocations were handled.

As a long-standing shareholder, I was disappointed to receive only half of the allocation I requested, despite my continued support of the company over time. Based on communications and general expectations around the placing, I had anticipated a more equitable distribution—particularly favouring those shareholders who have remained committed through the company’s various stages.

Instead, it appears that a significant portion of the new shares has been allocated to Peel Hunt/Allenby and associated parties. This raises questions around the fairness and transparency of the process, as well as the board’s stated commitments to rewarding shareholder loyalty.

There is growing sentiment among long-term shareholders that their interests are being overlooked in favour of insiders or advisory relationships. Such practices, if accurate, risk undermining shareholder trust and confidence in the company’s governance.

I would appreciate clarity on the following points:

The criteria used to determine share allocations in the recent placing.

The rationale for allocating significant portions to Peel/Allenby.

What measures the Board has taken to ensure long-term shareholders were treated fairly.

I hope the Board will recognise the importance of transparency and accountability in this matter, and take steps to rebuild confidence among its most loyal investors.

I look forward to your response.

Has any have been allocated new shares yet, mine shows as pending.

Jimi if 22 million is a buy by DN, there be TR1 tomorrow??

@JIMMYCALDERWOOD — fair question. While I’m not sure if David has previous AIM directorship experience, his significant investment suggests he’s taking this seriously and has thought things through.

At the very least, his interests are clearly aligned with shareholders’, which is more than we can say for the current Board.

Jimi, with respect, it’s possible that David was simply seeking clarity from the Board, but they may not have been willing to disclose certain details at that time. It’s understandable that an NDA might have been requested as a standard measure, especially given the sensitivity of Board-level information.

Had David joined the Board, he would have had access to internal discussions, and perhaps he intended to advocate for greater transparency on behalf of shareholders. Of course, we can only speculate for now — but many investors are understandably keen to understand his intentions.

I met David at last month’s meeting and found him to be a thoughtful and reserved individual. It’s entirely possible he’s conducting his own due diligence with support behind the scenes.

Cjinvest — I completely agree with your post. Some of the doom-mongers seem to think it’s all over if the ‘No’ vote wins, but as the saying goes — the fat lady hasn’t sung yet.

Let’s wait to hear what David has to say before jumping to conclusions. This is a pivotal moment: do we want more of the same from the current Board, or do we finally want a chance to see a return on our investment?

Many shareholders have spent years criticising the Board for their lack of honesty and transparency — well, now there’s a real opportunity to push for change.

Let’s be clear: the latest RNS didn’t feel like reconciliation — it felt more like a veiled threat. That alone should raise concerns.

Jimi, I do take on board what you’re saying. However, someone who has invested as significantly as David is unlikely to do so without serious backing or a well-thought-out strategy — especially knowing the risks of administration or delisting.

I’m confident he’s considered those possibilities carefully. And even in a worst-case scenario, he may still have the option to acquire the company or its assets from administration. That level of investment isn’t made lightly — he’s clearly in this with a long-term plan.

Vote NO — and here’s why:

By voting NO, you’re rejecting the following:

Repeatedly missed timelines

Lack of clear and consistent communication

A complete erosion of shareholder trust

Ongoing lack of transparency

Questionable executive lifestyles

More of the same failed strategy

A dismissive and arrogant attitude toward shareholders

Frankly, I struggle to think of a single compelling reason to vote YES.

What you seriously need to consider:

When voting at a General Meeting, ask yourself this:

Would you keep voting for the same political party if they broke every promise and offered you more of the same?

Or would you give someone new a chance — someone with fresh ideas, real investment in the outcome, and skin in the game?

David has committed significant personal funds. He thinks like a shareholder because he is one — a large one. The current Board, on the other hand, seems more concerned about keeping outsiders out of their "club" than fixing the business.

Let’s be honest — if the Board truly wanted a YES vote, they would have provided meaningful updates on:

NHS/NICE progress

Our so-called U.S. partner

A clear business strategy moving forward

Instead, the latest RNS subtly tries to undermine David N, without offering anything of real substance. It’s deflection — not leadership.

In football, managers get sacked within three months if results don’t come. This Board has had five years — and very little to show for it.

To those considering a YES vote:

Please, share what you believe the Board has genuinely achieved in the last year. If your best argument is that revenue doubled from £0.5M to £1M — that’s hardly something to celebrate, given the capital raised and the time spent.

FB2020, I’m quite sure that if David had failed in his attempt to secure a seat on the Board, he wouldn’t be commenting on the RNS at all. The fact that he has spoken suggests there’s more going on behind the scenes.

Gloria, the company is generally only required to pay compensation in line with government guidelines, which typically amounts to one week’s pay for every year of service. Please feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken.

Spantrout, the real question is: what exactly was the Board offering David in return for his funding — a genuine seat at the table, or just empty promises to keep him quiet?

It comes down to trust. Do you believe someone with millions invested and everything to lose, or a Board that’s been economical with the truth for five years and consistently failed to deliver?

Coochie, we can all make assumptions at this stage, as neither party has fully revealed their hand. However, one thing is clear — someone like David wouldn’t be investing significant amounts of his hard-earned money without a strong reason.

It’s also possible that, on the advice of professionals, they’ve been advised to remain quiet for now. That said, I firmly believe that if we deliver a strong NO vote, the full picture will finally come to light.

Stocksaint - It seems the Board may have been caught with their pants down by shareholders — and now they're scrambling to pull them up before the vote exposes even more.

EC, how long do you have access to the laptop this time? Please try to keep the posts constructive — let’s avoid the usual distractions.

Coochie - I can’t comment directly, as I’m focused on helping ensure the “No” vote succeeds — something I genuinely believe will be in the best interests of all shareholders.

A large “No” on the 15th, followed by David and Rob outlining their plans, will lift the share price once clear facts replace the current confused messaging.

Why has the Board of Directors provided no updates whatsoever regarding our U.S. partner? Was the partnership ever genuine, or was it simply a narrative to keep shareholders quiet?

These are the kinds of serious questions that demand clear and transparent answers. As shareholders, we deserve accountability and honesty from those entrusted with leading the company.