Member Info for Hosai

Also not sure how keen the directors such as Catto and Rachel horseheath would be to be put in charge of a company where they are told they have to make it look like they've gone into admin after Bob Holt has just salvaged it and the business had turned a corner. Not ideal for their individual reputations?

If they can't vote they could for example sell some of their holdings to a party who is friendly to bob (if they were worried about boo). This would then protect their other half of shareholding as Bob et al would be ensured control.

If the founders are going to enable boo to win control think it's more likely they believe boo will want the rev B price to go up rather than down but with a payment via boo shares. The founders will be attached to the company and don't want to see it tarnished.

They would also have to dilute boo to pay off the founders (the only way the founders would be ok with boo damaging rev b is if boo are compensating them for destroying their shares). So they would need to pay the founders £100 million odd either in cash or boo shares.

In terms of balance sheet Rev B prob around £17m net debt, boohoo around £6 million net cash.

There's not a whole lot of difference other than boo have access to much more debt if needed with a large RCF capacity.

Momajid I realize it's a unique situation for Rev B in how much boo was able to accumulate but not sure how that's relevant to the fact that over 50% holders could rob under 50% holders in companies all the time if it's so easy?

How come Boo quickly gaining 26.6% makes them unique to being to able to do this versus say for example Kamani teaming up with over 50% of boo holders, starting another company they own 100% of, and eventually selling boos assets for cheap to their other company?

Boo have a history of buying companies out of admin yes but have they normally bought over 25% of those companies shares before the admin buy?

Rev B is talking about a compromise I doubt the compromise entails boo having control of the board as that would not be a compromise Rev B would just try and win the vote instead which to me is fairly 50/50 as to who would win.

Don't think it's that easy momajid. Could literally happen to any company in theory so you'd have to wonder why over 50% holders don't just keep robbing under 50%?

Could literally happen to boo themselves if it's so easy? Kamani and co could sell boo in a pre-pack to another company they own after intentionally breaching boos RCF.

If true the rumour wouldn't necc mean Bob left completely, could move to chair for example.

Oculus Rev B say in the rns it's an error and they've contacted the relevant stockbroking platforms.

Unless boo have got more ppl on side then it looks like they have 29% support out of 68.4 who may vote (assuming founders abstain again).

Bob basically told shareholder to do nothing last time, however clearly those supporting boo weren't going to "do nothing" as this was meant to be the coup moment and will all have voted.

Not sure it's so impossible as you say for PIs to move a vote when it's quite an important one, I imagine 75% of PIs will be following what has been happening with Rev B.

In terms of me personally I (and family) own 238k rev b shares and voted against boohoo (nothing against boo just don't want them having the whole rev b board, would rather a compromise). I think it's a large position but not that crazy compared to some either.

If PIs own 14% of Rev B then that is around 43.36 million shares 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.

If half the 14% PIs don't vote then boo would have 47.2% (29/61.4) so still not over the line.

Mine is still showing on there under shareholder meetings, though I have already voted. May be that HL is refreshing it to get rid of the "for" recommendation for those who haven't voted?

True peoplepower but a max of 29% out of 100 voted "with boo" for each resolution at the AGM and you would think they'd have rallied everyone who was going to vote with them for that vote.

So considering boo have 26.6% it was likely mostly just boo and some of the other private holdings such as Kamani and maybe Matt Moulding?

Why do you say boo have the numbers of their side 404, if the founders abstain then going by the support boo had at agm they would have around 42.4% support (29/68.4).

Obv would require over 50% of private investors to vote (assuming private investors make up 14%) but that's not impossible for a key vote.

If agreement is indeed reached then "in the coming days" could even be tomo considering rev B have been quite conservative in their short term targets (while obv wildly missing the longer term "end of month" ones).

On May 25th they said - "The Company continues to expect to publish its FY22 accounts during May 2023." then published the results the next day on May 26th.

On May 26th they said the interims would be "within the next two weeks" then published them a week later on 2nd June.

A compromise makes sense considering the vote was/is around 50/50 as to who'd win if the founders don't vote.

If founders abstain boo have around 42.4% based on their support at AGM. Private investors hold around 14% so would/will need half of private investors to vote. Obv that is do-able but the vote wasn't/isn't a guarantee for either party from what I can see but maybe slightly favours/favoured Bob et al.

Rocket I don't think Rev B shareholders have that many problems with boo being on board in some capacity as-long as boo want the rev b share price to go up.

I believe the market will take the potential compromise that could be reached in coming days part well, doubt the board would have put it in if they didn't feel quite confident of it.

Sp is down over 6% on being reminded of the prospect of boo taking control...(that's prob on top of already being surpressed by 50% odd by boos actions in general).

Boo apparently believe they have enough support (if Pis don't vote) even if no share price support.

Well the sky news article said they were considering requsitioning the second general meeting within the next couple of days so didn't sound like were waiting for the 1st general meeting to happen.

If they wait till early Aug to request second meeting then we'd potentially be looking at late Sept before it happens, not sure why they would delay surely they could just cancel the second meeting if they lose the 1st meeting vote in early Aug.