Member Info for Hosai

Those figures for Rev B are also not taking into account the recent 60% increase in shares for Q1.

Trading4good, there could def be other takers of the founders shares before August 7th. Look at some of the large beauty companies for example.

I've written before I mentioned before how NYX cosmetics was bought out by L'oreal in 2014 for $500 million on $120 million revenues so a 4.16 revenue multiple.

In 2021 Deciam, who are the parent company of the ordinary, had a large investment from Estee Lauder that valued them at $2.2 billion on $460 million revenues, with the intention to fully buy them out by 2024. The ordinary are known for "affordable" products so I imagine similar margins to Rev B. In terms of online following Rev B are slightly bigger on social media.

This was a 4.78 revenue multiple. The same multiple for Rev B would value it at around 308p. Rev B currently around a 0.3 multiple.

The large beauty companies have a lot more £ firepower than boohoo and would be comparing Rev B to the likes of ELF beauty who are valued at circa £4.65 billion verses Rev B £59 million! The founders would sell to the highest bidder.

The fact that Rev B holders want it to re-list and boo don't tells you everything you need to know about boohoo having Rev B shareholders interests at heart.

Hopefully Bob H can win back some voters by late July/early Aug.

If founders are abstaining rather than voting with boo, boos majority may be slimmer than first thought.

Rev B/Schwartz would have looked at what they can do legally, I think their case is there in the RNS. New NED Rachel Maguire is a former head of AIM.

Maybe he was a double agent for Bob?

The new Rev B NED Rachel Maguire is a former head of AIM which can't hurt in terms of re-listing.

Unfortunately in the happiness of realizing boo had been kept out a little longer I forgot that boo voted against all the other resolutions such as ability to allot shares. Unfortunately I guess means Bob can't dilute.

It's not clear what will happen in terms of management incentive shares. They had already been declared so are they bound by this vote or not? Maybe they still stand as declared with previous authority?

Assuming the founders again don't vote boo as far as we know have 38.9% of those who can vote (26.6/68.4). However with Kamani and Moulding on board it's likely more like 40% or more?

May depend on Bob getting one of the holders to vote but perhaps legally they can't. Wonder if the former chairman could vote, he seems sightly less implicated by the fraudulent activities?

It would take a fair while for any legal action to come to be plus Rev B already making their case in the RNS so doesn't look like a clear cut case.

I can imagine boo releasing an rns to this effect tomo though in an attempt to try and dampen the sp opening in which boo will likely be buying more (assuming it does open tomo).

Meaning if sp goes over £1 boo might be debating what to do

The same goes for any new shares bought by any parties who are taking it over with boo such as Kamani/Moulding

Any shares boo buy post suspension, whatever the highest they pay would mean they were bound by that as the lowest price they could offer if they were to make a takeover offer to all shareholders in the following 12 months.

Dream scenario is sp quickly goes to a quid or even higher over coming weeks then Bob dilutes by 5-10% to a friendly equity partner some point in July at a slightly lower price than the new higher sp.

I meant to say boo own 26.6% - which means 38.9% as a percentage of those who can vote if founders don't vote (26.6/68.4).

Assuming the founders don't vote again then maximum as things stand 68.4% can vote at next vote.

Boo own 26.6%, that is 38.9%. However Moulding and Kamani own private shares so it's not clear how big Boos support is?

With management shares diluting us by 3.4% upon re-listing I suppose it must mean around 70.72% can vote by my convuluted calculations (again assuming founders abstain).

This would mean boo in terms of the shares we know about would have 26.6/70.72 = 37.6% of the eligible vote.

Therefore the founders not voting with boo is quite a game changed as they are not as firmly over the 50% line (though depends what private holdings connected individuals have).

We should all send Jeremy Schwartz chocolates and a card.

DNWill you tend to always point out that you are a six figure holder but only ever post bearish posts on Rev B.

How is it going to tank on re-admission after just posting 60% sales growth on Q1? Also is currently priced at just 19p due to lurking fears of 0p going into suspension which have now abated.

The founders abstained. If Bob can find another equity partner by late July/early Aug to take on say 5-10% of Rev B as new shares for a price (hopefully a higher price than here assuming the sp responds well to 60% sales growth q1 etc) then it should be enough to block boo when you also add Bob et al 3.4% management incentive shares.

Realize I contradicted myself as previous post said clearly founders voted with them but hadn't noticed the low number of overall votes.

On the positive side it looks like the founders abstained based on the number of votes, so maybe they are not loyal to boo but perhaps boo with Moulding and Kamanis private stakes still have majority when out of 68.4% (founders hold 31.6%).

This is good because it would mean less dilution is needed by late July/Aug for Bob Holt et al to block them than if founders were with them.

Management incentive shares will dilute by 3.4% will make it harder for boo to get to 75% of votes cast if that is the aim.