Member Info for AquaeSulis01

Shychap, you select the pick up at store option when you buy and then name the store you wish to pick up from. The response will be Nil Stock, Low Stock or Stock and sometimes you are also provided with alternative stores from the rollout list if they are within 5 or so miles of the store you wish to collect from. Try it yourself

Per week not month per store

Mainly b I suspect. Some stores have shown nil throughout but hold the odd box on the shelf tucked away at ankle level (Weston Super Mare case in point). Stock also doesn't appear to have reached the Northern Ireland stores either. There is evidence of some stores moving from Stock to low Stock or low stock to nil stock in addition to stores moving in the other direction but I would be surprised if sales are averaging more than 1 box per month

Shychap, the "early stage" comment about the Superdrug launch combined with my own research showing the number of stores with low or nil stock would indicate we should not expect too much from this deal at this stage. Regarding the £4.1M Gross fundraise, as the Company since the Interims and the BTS full integration, appears to be running at less than £75K per month deficit yet the cash burn is far greater, it indicates a couple of million pounds has been spent on Axisbiotix inventory to stock 200 Superdrug stores probably at the high Singer estimate of 15 box sales of each axis product (30 boxes) per week with enough to last beyond a potential 6 month lead time to reorder in view of the stockout penalties which will be incurred if we run out, and also in upgrading BTS equipment for capsules. The new inventory figure in the upcoming interims will either confirm this or otherwise

Shychap, the difference is the missing axisbiotix revenue not Croda royalties in your calc

Opulentia, I am not quite sure what sham is doing here as he holds no shares and invests a lot of time commenting, but he is correct about the forecast being pulled in the latest RNS. "As a result of the Board's Investigation and the subsequent expected removal of the FY25 Accrued Royalty Income, the Board now anticipates that the results for the year ended 30 June 2026 will be significantly below current market expectations.*"

Thanks for posting that link Toyin, SBTX have certainly created a few thousand customers for zenakine in recent months so ought to ship it free to us all whilst this pot mess is being sorted

Snap, really are on the same page; my own email to IR

As a long term investor with SBTX I am puzzled as to why the Board suspects that no royalty payments were due in FY 2025.

The 19th November 2024 Finalisation of the Commercial Agreement with Croda RNS clearly stated "Following the meetings with Croda, management can confirm that revenues will be received before year end."

If this statement misconstrued the agreement at those meetings why didn't Croda speak up at the time?

I appreciate you will be limited in what you can say at this juncture but grateful if you could at least shed a little bit of light on this matter

Kind Regards

Toyin, better than a reference in the Investor Meets, the following statement appeared in the 19th Nov 2024 Finalisation f the Commercial Agreement RNS

"Following the meetings with Croda, management can confirm that revenues will be received before year end."

Well that's a timely update Lord :)

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/OPTI/statement-skinbiotherapeutics-announcement/17463826

Op loss should read £1.47M and less than £72k per month fat fingers :)

So Toyin, when we piece this altogether, using the re-stated figures, operating loss end FY25 was £1.4M, £1.04M of that had been incurred in the first half of the FY, meaning losses following the benefit of a full 6 months of BTS contributions were less than £71k per month for the second half of the year. The larger drop in the cash balance was down to the initial once off inventory cost of stocking over 180 Superdrug stores with both axisbiotix ac and ps, so the current cash balance really is very robust. Also worth remembering when the Board state FY 26 forecasts now materially lower following the removal of Croda royalties that FY 27 starts in July 26 and the cash from the royalties will drop in by Dec 26.

Lord I don't dispute that, just trying to explain why folks are not piling in to Opti at the current sp. I have cash available in my ISA but will not be buying until I see the cash situation here because the first generation products are not supporting the Business and we have no idea how far away from a launch the second generation products are. Add to that there is no Business Continuity planning should SOH suffer ill health again as evidenced by the Chairman's performance last time around, meaning unfortunately for me, just like SBTX the Company is too high risk to invest in at the moment.

Lord, the issue isn't the selling of SBTX for profit but that the timing has been continually driven by the need for Opti to balance their books rather the optimum time to sell SBTX stocks. As you correctly point out, it does now present opti with a short term funding problem because if they need more cash to avoid a material uncertainty they either have to strike a deal with PBX to sell shares off market at a discount or will be faced with a highly dilutive fund raise at the current sp.

I would not be surprised if Opti push quickly on with a small sweetbiotix launch for their own products to boost the sp before announcing a raise to support the expansion of said launch.

That is not what the RNS says. Zenakine is very much going ahead, the issue lies in the timing of any royalty payments i.e. may not take place until Croda's customers launch rather than pre-launch

What I do not understand is how Croda have remained silent all this time if SBTX were misrepresenting revenue payments from them?

The only obvious candidate for interim, who would quickly steady the ship, is ex CEO Prof Cath O'Neill, if she can be persuaded to take it on short term.

Continued..

The most likely category is behavioural or governance related conduct, such as HR related issues or internal policy breaches.

But to be absolutely clear:

No specific allegation is public, and nothing beyond “conduct” is confirmed.

AI speculation;

Based on everything publicly stated so far, the company has not disclosed the nature of the conduct issue, and every official communication explicitly says “no further comment” while a full investigation is underway. That means we cannot assert a specific cause — but we can map the likely categories of issues that typically trigger a CEO suspension pending investigation in an AIM listed life sciences company.

Below is a structured, evidence based synthesis grounded in what is known and what is not known.

What We Know (from official statements)

All sources consistently state the same facts:

• The CEO, Stuart Ashman, was suspended pending an investigation into matters relating to his conduct.

• He subsequently resigned.

• The company is conducting a full investigation supported by professional advisers.

• The board has provided no further comment on the nature of the conduct.

There is zero public detail about the specific behaviour under investigation.

🔍 What This Usually Implies (Inference, not fact)

When an AIM listed company suspends a CEO pending investigation into conduct, the trigger is typically one of a small number of categories. These are not accusations, just the statistically most common reasons boards take this step:

1. Governance or compliance breaches

Examples in similar AIM cases include:

• Failure to follow internal controls

• Misuse of company resources

• Breach of market sensitive information handling rules

This is the most common category because AIM companies operate under MAR (Market Abuse Regulation), and boards act quickly to contain risk.

2. Behavioural or interpersonal conduct issues

This can include:

• Bullying or inappropriate behaviour toward staff

• HR related complaints

• Breaches of workplace policies

These often require external advisers, which aligns with the company’s statement.

3. Undisclosed conflicts of interest

For example:

• Side engagements

• Undeclared relationships with suppliers or partners

This is another frequent cause of CEO level investigations.

4. Financial irregularities

Less common, but boards will suspend a CEO if:

• Expense claims are questioned

• Contracting or procurement decisions appear irregular

There is no evidence this is the case here — it’s simply one of the standard categories.

🧩 What Seems Less Likely

Based on the tone and structure of the announcements:

• There is no indication of criminal allegations.

• There is no suggestion of regulatory breaches involving external authorities (FCA, MHRA, etc.).

• There is no operational crisis linked to the CEO’s actions.

If any of these were involved, the language would typically be more formal, and the company would be required to disclose more detail.

🎯 Most Probable Category (Inference)

Given:

• AIM governance norms

• The use of “matters relating to his conduct”

• The involvement of professional advisers

• The absence of references to financial misstatements or regulatory breaches

It will be rich old Mark Dixon as he takes full advantage of the panicking sellers. if Martin Hunt and the new Finance Director had been suspended as well I would be panicking too. Anyway think I'll go back to bed and get hammered myself later on