We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?