Member Info for Hosai

Founders aren't going to abstain from voting forever. If they became unhappy with boo influence they would eventually vote against that direction if boo tried to increase it.

Also with Bob exercising his options boo are a little more diluted (tho we are too obv)

Some ppl talking like boo have control now. Not sure why, they will have 2 directors out of the 9 (once independant ceo joins). 3 if you counted horseheath as with boo but she only has a connection to thg not boo I believe?

Can't see any of those assets managers voting with boo, (unless they trust boo to get the sp up). Feels like they'd be more friendly to Bob.

The director buys take the PI down to 14%, then Kamani has lets say 1%? He must have voted with boo to get them up to 29%.

So that leaves the rest of the PIs with around 13%.

Therefore assuming asset managers all vote for Bob and boo still with 29% support (they can't have gained much more or would have had to make a mandatory takeover offer) then if half the 13% (6.5%) PIs vote (assuming most in favour of Bob) then boo are at 46.8% (29/61.96) so not enough.

Even if only 20% of PIs vote (assuming voting for Bob) then boo would only be at 49.95% (29/58.06). This message board alone has 11.75% of the PI vote.

The 58.06 I get from the founders not voting which takes denominator down to 68.46, less 80% of 13 (10.4).

Ajc I guess in that scenario you'd wonder why they aren't voting which is enabling boo to have this power.

Either they are happy with boo and believe boo are the best thing for rev b sp or they think boo are bad for rev b sp but boo have offered them a fortune in either cash or boo shares (significantly diluting boo) to make up for their large rev b holdings.

Considering the founders may not even be bullish on boo you'd think would need a lot of boo shares to compensate for where they likely see rev b sp returning to. Plus boo lose their own holding and all the other negatives already discussed.

It's funny how much Boo is influencing this share when they appear have only 26.6% (maybe 29% with Kamani holding etc).

Obv it's mostly an issue due to the founders not voting. However if the founders thought boo were intending to trash the share in some way then the only way they would be enabling boo by not voting if is boo had offered them something. Boo would have to offer them a fortune though to make up for where they likely believe their shareholdings could re-rate to, either in cash or boo shares which would mean significant dilution for boohoo. Also would mean trashing a company they are attached too and their legacy (they would be known as founding a company that collapsed and had to be saved).

In terms of Boo it would also mean trashing their own holding plus having to convince directors such as Rachel Horseheath and Neil Catto to be known as directors who were in charge of a company who went into admin meaning no companies shareholders would trust them to work as directors anymore.

Also would mean any shares boo buy in future in companies would soon tank because no shareholders would trust boohoo anymore. Then there would also be all the legal problems and no guarantee boo get the company at the end as their shares have become worthless, someone like THG could buy it instead.

Therefore there are lots of reasons seemingly against this. Going back to the founders it could be the case they are not allowed to vote and also don't trust boo, however in this case they would surely sell some of their shares to a Bob friendly party who can vote with Bob. They might not want to sell at this price but it would protect the rest of their investment (if they didn't trust boo and weren't allowed to vote).

It did seem quite extreme however at that time the sp was suspended, it was easier to imagine such a thing happening.

It was based on boos previous admin acquisitions however there is a difference you'd think when in this case boo have bought 26.6% of the shares which in the doomish scenario would surely go to waste whereas in their admin acquisitions I believe they owned no part of them before then buying out of admin against competing buyers.

On the other hand Boo could have given a counter narrative as to what their plan was other than a vague reference to "growth" but they haven't yet publicly done so.

To clarify I meant largest within the drugstore sector within Germany. "dm drogerie operates one of the largest drugstore chains in Central and Eastern Europe."

Reb B posted on linked in about DM Drogerie which is Germanys largest retailer with 2096 stores in Germany (3,700 in across Europe as a whole).

Not sure how long they have sold products with them but it does seem Rev B is in all the biggest retailers worldwide.

"Thank you to our key partner dm-drogerie markt Deutschland! Our Revolution Beauty stand at the DM 50th Birthday Event was SO busy. We celebrated YOU! 🇩🇪We are so thankful to all the teams from DM who work so hard to hero our brands.

We showed quick tips and tutorials, showcased our BH Los Angeles icons, with sneak peaks from Revolution 👀

We are so proud to be a part of DM and cant wait for more partnerships ✨"

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/revolutionbeauty_thank-you-to-our-key-partner-dm-drogerie-activity-7085588770179174401-vK5o?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Wolf many of the PIs were able to buy very low (same as boohoo) hence the large holdings imo.

Also not everyone will be "sensibly" diversified, I def have more in here than I should in terms of having a conservative or balanced portfolio.

Silverlight I guess they could but equally Bob Holt et al could be doing the same. I imagine he has good connections?

Also if boo intentions were actually bad you would think it would be hard to encourage third parties to buy to vote with them?

Boo could I suppose pay them back somehow via cash or shares? But if there intentions are bad it does seem they'd have to be paying off a lot of ppl, including obv paying the Rev B founders a fortune to have them onside.

Think Kamani private holding etc would count as part of boo in terms of if they went over 30% as he's connected to boo.

PhatJ from my calculations , assuming PIs are around 14% of the shares, then PIs own around 43.36 million shares.

(obv Kamani will be part of those PIs and voted with boo to get them their 29% support so in a sense the rest of the PI is prob more 13% depending on his holding and other boo private affiliates).

This means with 5 million shares held on his message board we would have 11.5% of the PI vote.

In terms of the vote if founders abstain and boo had 29% support again but everyone voted this time then boo would have 42.36% of the vote (29/68.46).

If half the 14% PIs don't vote (7%) but all other players do then boo would have 47.18% of the vote (29/61.46).

Therefore even half of the PIs voting should be enough (obv with all these assumptions). Boo could have bought more but not much more as a 30% they would have to have made a mandatory offer.

Meaning with us having 11.5% of the PI vote (and if only half PIs voting needed) we are already 23% of the way there just from this message board.

Some joint holders will vote with boo but you'd have to be confident boo actually wanted rev B sp to rise, else you would prob lose more from your rev b shares than you would gain from your boo shares.

We can assume they haven't accumulated (with associates such as Kamani) over 30% else they would have had to have made a legit funded mandatory offer?

Warpaint now at £215 million MC

Elf Beauty at £4.84 billion MC.

Rev B at....£94 million MC.

Look forward to seeing where Rev B will be valued once management saga is hopefully out of the way soon.

As I said 240k odd for me.

Wow Oculus, assuming PIs are around 14% of the shares, so 43.36 million. Your holding alone is worth 4% of the PI total holdings.

From my calculations only need half the PIs to vote so you would be arguably 8% of the PI vote required.

Me, Andrew and Stocktrade together prob make up another 1% of the PI vote, so 2% of the PI vote required (if only half required).

So us 4 would be 5% of the PI vote.

Thinking about it Kamani would have been part of the private investor vote that went with boo, not sure how much he has, but if he has say 1% (which obv may have been what helped them get the 29% with a 26.6% holding) then obv the PI vote outside of Kamani would be more like 13% rather than 14%.

Have just re-voted "against" on HL.

Even if half the 14% PIs don't vote then boo would have 47.18% (29/61.46) so still not over the line (assuming founders don't vote (they own 15.77% each) but all other medium/bigger holders do vote and boos support is again at 29% as it was at AGM).

Me (and family) own 240k odd rev b shares. If PIs own 14% of Rev B then that is around 43.36 million shares for PIs so my shares alone would be worth about 0.5% of the PI vote and we only need 50% of PIs to vote I would say. Meaning I (and family) alone would be 1/100 needed from pis.

The shareholder meeting is still no longer showing on HL, you'd think they would have got it back up by now it it's just to amend the "against" part? Anyone on any other platforms able to check those?

The whole point of the compromise would be to give boo potentially 1-2 seats but Rev B would remain independent else it wouldn't be a compromise and Bob et al would just try and win in the vote? It seems if founders abstain it would be close either way - boo have 42.4% odd if founders abstain (even if half of PIs voted then if all other bigger holders voted boo wouldn't have enough support going by their biggest win at AGM).

Don't think there will be an rns "we have reached a compromise where boohoo take full control of the board."

Rescuing the company? Rev B could just take on more debt if need be, they had £80 million odd debt pre-IPO, only £32 million now.

As I said boohoo net cash £6 million odd, Rev B around £15 million net debt (basically a £20 million swing).

Only difference other than that is boo have access to £300 million debt so a big safety net.

Rev B can hopefully find another debt partner (though would help to still have someone like Holt somewhere on the board).

Outside of this Rev B is the one looking better at the moment, with revenue growth last year and predicting it this year. Boo lost revenue last year and are predicting flat at best this year but prob another fall.

So boo "rescuing" rev b when boos only real advantage over rev b is having access to more debt doesn't seem that appropriate.