The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
I prob do need to chill momajid...though I wouldn't argue that Boo having access to more debt is the most impressive thing to shout about.
Rev B have £18 million net debt (£14 million cash, £32 million debt), Boohoo have £5.9 million net cash, hardly that much difference.
Warpaint only have £7.5 million cash. Maybe someone should try and rob their shareholders too.
Technically speaking Mike Ashley and Kamani and a few others could agree to "take control" of boohoo (once they make up more than 50%), vote in a frasers board, make some purposively bad decisions, get the share price down and then offer the under 50% share holders a pittance.
Kamani would be given Frasers shares. The majority shareholders could rob the shareholders the under 50%.
That's pretty the scenario we are discussing for Rev B. Why couldn't it happen for any company including boohoo? Boohoo have worse revenue growth prospects this year than Rev B and both companies predicting EBITDA margin around 4%.
Deathshares the phrases such as immiment seemed more saying where it would be without boos management change rns.
"Derek Zissman - " Boohoo's actions are a clear attempt to destabilise the business at a crucial juncture in its recovery. This will only serve to delay further the lifting of the suspension of trading in Revolution Beauty's shares."
What would have been interesting to know is why the boo aspect is stopping it from being un-suspended which they don't detail.
He's still clearly attached to Rev B...I can't see him selling his stake at 19p to boo when it is down from 160p. Not also with news such as the launch into Walmart. If I was him I would do nothing, wait for years then start slowly selling the odd shares when needed, by then people will have moved on so to speak.
Meanwhile if boo team up with him in order to have control then Boo will need to be working with Minto from now on, and Minto has obv just had step down due to the fraudulent issues. Personally I don't think it was a "terrible fraud" (as frauds go), for example the revenues aspect was £9 million out of £185 million odd genuine revenues.
Overall he still deserves credit for building a huge brand and business. However clearly he did have to go and I struggle to see how boo can gain control with him and work with him if he's literally just stepped down for all these issues.
However if they don't offer him some kind of position and pay him handsomely via boo shares (if he is to sacrifice his Rev B holding in an intentional low takeover scenario then he'll want payment for it) then I don't see why he would sell to them either.
Neither option makes sense to me, the best would be to do nothing.
Not that it means much but Minto is still quite active on linked in, liking or "loving" most rev B posts.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-minto-5ba08b25/recent-activity/
His title on there is still - "Founder & CEO at REVOLUTION BEAUTY"
Obv the Rev B rns painted a very dim picture of boo gaining management control. However the Rachel Horseheath appointment did make it sound more legit though. Not because she is some incredible leader however it made a bit more sense as an appointment and also not sure she would want to preside over some kind of intentional failure considering presumably these proposed directors all have career aspirations.
MHL what incentive would Bob have had to do that? It's not unheard of to be in a 9-10 month suspension I posted an example of such as stock...as I said before stock was released from suspension 3 weeks after the delayed interims which for Rev B would be tomo.
Another scenario is that the founders don't vote at all...perhaps legally they shouldn't?
This would mean Boohoo have 38.8% of the rest of the eligible vote (26.6/68.4 - founders own 31.6% together 100-31.6 = 68.4).
But they may have found other backers plus Kamani has a private holding to add?
It did seem like Rev B were taken aback that boo would have the support to try this, meaning Rev B hadn't been suspicious of for example the founders voting against them.
Very hard to say because the rns gave mixed messages on re-listing:
Positive sounding:
"The board of Revolution Beauty is focussed on ensuring value creation at this critical time for the Company, which is on the cusp of having trading in its shares on AIM restored."
"At a time when, thanks to current management's tireless efforts, the Company's fortunes are finally looking up, with business back on track and re-admission to trading on AIM being potentially imminent...."
Sort of positive but ambiguous:
"The current directors are also confident that, in isolation from any adverse effects resulting from boohoo's recent disruptive actions, the suspension of trading in the Company's shares could potentially be lifted in a matter of days."
Less positive:
"The current directors believe that boohoo's actions create considerable risk to the prompt restoration of trading in the Company's shares and its stakeholder relationships, and appear calculated to destablise rather than support the business"
"As noted above, Revolution Beauty's current directors have, with the support of the Group's lenders and advisers, made good progress in working towards lifting the suspension in the trading of the Company's shares.......Against that backdrop, the fundamental changes to the Company's board proposed by boohoo risk de-railing both of these well-advanced processes, which would be to the significant detriment of shareholders as a whole, and appears to be a strategy to destroy value. The Company will continue to work towards lifting the suspension of the Company's shares from trading on AIM and will keep shareholders updated on this progress."
Derek Zissman - " Boohoo's actions are a clear attempt to destabilise the business at a crucial juncture in its recovery. This will only serve to delay further the lifting of the suspension of trading in Revolution Beauty's shares."
Hopefully you're right Oculus, perhaps I've become overly paranoid.
I do agree the idea of boo willingly losing their own £15 million and convincing the Rev B founders to also lose their own holdings (which would surely mean having to compensate them quite handsomely) to then cause all the rest of us to lose our holdings (risking legal issues) does seem quite an extreme move if it were true.
As I said before, if it's this easy or such a good move why doesnt this happen in nearly all companies? Why aren't holders making up over 50% of companies not robbing holders who are lower than 50% all the time? Pretty much every company the majority could rob the minority.
Has nothing to do with current management or future outlook and the accounts have been adjusted to reflect the findings in investigation so not really relevant anymore.
Boohoo hasn't been suspended for 10 months no but it did have investigation in regards to modern slavery though which isn't wonderful.
If Bob thinks some kind of defense is viable then the best thing would not to re-list at this point. However if not, the best thing would be to re-list. IMO the sp should open up high (just look at it verses peers), and any Boohoo buy at a higher price point they would be bound by the takeover rule to then offer that price as the lowest price in a takeover.
Momajid, the lenders aren't concerned about their £ though as things stand.
Obv if boo management take over and the lenders believe they want to intentionally run it badly then obv they would be concerned.
This was the last we heard about them:
"The business continues to enjoy the support of its banking partners who share the Boards view that the business is now well placed to deliver on the next phase of its potential. The global demand for our products continues to grow at a pace."
" The lenders have also confirmed their present intention to waive any further Event of Default which might occur as a result of the audit report to be issued by the Parent's Auditor in respect of the financial year of the Group ending 28 February 2023 containing qualifications which are substantially the same as qualifications in the financial statements for the year ended 28 February 2022."