Member Info for Fountains

On the contrary these accounts will not be "particularly simple". The situation will have left the company in a precarious financial position until this latest fundraise, and its balance sheet in question until settlement was reached. I too have worked in the industry for many years and auditors are getting worse and worse to deal with. He will not be the one setting a sign off target in circumstances where the audit couldn't be completed by its statutory deadline last July. You're right it is not impressive but to write off what has happened as not having influenced this delay is to ignore the facts.

But it's not a simple set of accounts is it. It's accounts after an absolutely extraordinary episode where the company's main asset was taken and the business had to sue to get it back.

Yes the original ones seem to be gone now before the ban on 1 June

I'm mostly checked out these days but they did give an update on that in their last announcement? 24 April, raising funds with commitments in by 8 May and 2024 audited accounts out in mid May with interim shortly after. They wouldn't be able to apply to have the suspension lifted without those.

No, they raised in January 2024. Announcement was 26 January 2024.

It's a CLN with 10% annual interest. So the question is not where the share price goes on relisting, it's where it'll be in a year, two years, three years. Interest plus growth in value if they pull themselves together and do well.

Go direct to the CEO his is callum @ chill . com

Openheimer two things to correct:

1) This did not happen under Callum's watch. They suspended him on false allegations so they could get him out of the way to be able to do this while he wasn't able to stop them.

2) More directors are not being fired. Eric Schrader has resigned, I wonder if he is involved with Russo and Taylor?

CE mark already on the box I've got!

Your comments have been that the share price has dropped and that sentiment is bad. Factual and true, yes I don't think anyone would argue against that.

Beyond that I'm not sure there's much to respond to.

Do you have any substantive comments to make other than goading people holding the stock?

Neil I agree that sentiment is bad but aside from that what argument are looking to be addressed?

The media reports on a vaping tax talk about it relating to nicotine strength and Chill's existing product is nicotine free so I'm not sure that's a problem and could in fact be very positive for the business.

The news on vaping is now out, so the damage is done. The implementation itself will not be a new negative event and looks to be way off in 2025 if the Scottish draft law is correct.

Neil as I've said before, they raised money in January. Announced here: https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/CHLL/equity-fundraising/16305255

So the raise has been and gone. Yes there is bad sentiment around the vaping industry, but they've communicated what they plan to do with the release of their pod devices.

Neil, as I responded in the deleted thread, they had a placing right at the end of January...

I passed through Heathrow airport last week and saw Chill Zero in the WH Smiths there. I thought that it was extremely clear from the packaging that these products have more puffs. To the point someone else made, I also think that the fact it says ZERO NICOTINE in bold rather than "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS NICOTINE WHICH IS EXTREMELY ADDICTIVE" really does make it attractive on the shelf.

DA can you please clarify what exactly you are referring to? What relevance do prior borrowing arrangements from years ago have to the business today that is focused on different products and has delivered in new markets.

David Ash: a major reason Supreme went up is that it is majority owned by one person, its CEO. There is a tiny free float, and they announced a £1m share buy back. That is what drove the movement.

They are different companies entirely. "Too many restarts" is not the reason for the company's share price as it stands. Changing strategies is what has ultimately saved this business and allowed it to remain in operation today. Pivoting does not have to be a costly affair. In this case it has caused the company to generate more revenue than it ever has in the past.

I'm not sure what point exactly you are trying to make, but the comparison to SUP is not a particularly effective one.

Yes they have signalled this before and in the RNS yesterday:

"As part of this range extension, the Company intends to introduce products that will provide users with a means to gradually reduce their nicotine intake. Chill Brands' expansion into the nicotine category is expected to dramatically increase the size of the total addressable market served by the Company's products."

And Supreme are majority owned by their CEO, so less affected by volatility.

I don't think he sounded shaken at all, but rather like somebody who had spent a long time on the phone and was defiantly making his point.

The market won't have reduced at all. What may reduce is competition as some of the overseas led brands that are after a quick and easy buck will just look elsewhere.