Member Info for jansy

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/SBTX/result-of-agm/17391468

This says it all, a significant protest vote!

If MD doubles his stake he will have to make a bid!

Surely Mr Ashman has to at least mention MD's holding at the AGM. Whether the minutes will show anything remains to be seen; I would hope there will be some commentary rather than the usual simple "all resolutions have been passed". I would love to be a fly on the wall this morning.

My filter too has been judiciously applied!

By my calculations SA's "voluntary" salary cut of 20% is effectively about 2.5%; it's amazing what you can do with figures! No doubt he will address this anomaly at the AGM.

Onwards and upwards next year....a happy festive season to you all, and a break from all BBs.

Kitchentowel filtered!

If I lived nearer I would make every effort to attend. As I have said both here and in my emails to Mr Ashman a good CEO would encourage attendance, not actively make it almost impossible.

Besides, it's too cold up North....

An abundance of goodwill already! I thought these chats were meant for grown ups!! Talk about SBTX or have your petty squabbles on X ; pretty please don't do it here.

Is anybody going to the AGM?

Tis the season of goodwill. it would be nice to stop the backbiting!

tis the season of goodwill. it would be nice to stop the ********!

He has already dug a deep hole but keeps on digging........

Shychap - I also have emails about it and asked Mr Ashman about it at a couple of IMs. He is obviously forgetful as well as thoughtless.

I have also been to AGMs as a potential shareholder; I have simply phoned the Company and expressed an interest! As far as I'm aware there is no law that says you have to be a shareholder; quite the opposite, the BoD should encourage as big an attendance as possible. Unless of course they have something to hide!

We seem to have a couple of new posters here. Why am I not going to the AGM? I live in Suffolk, Google maps says it's 275 miles and 4 hours 44 minutes away and I would rather be with my friends and family at this time of year. If you go back to the archives you will find that Mr Ashman has "promised" to ask the regulators if he can move the date of the AGM to something more suitable, he has promised lots of things and done zilch. He has also declined to stream the AGM live.

The Company's own corporate governance states there is to be a re-election of directors every year; it was in the annual report this year and pulled a few days later. I have asked why and if I get a response I will post it here.

I have asked a few questions over the last year; I have all the emails which remain unanswered by a CEO and BoD who have negligible "skin in the game" themselves yet like to inform us they are happy to keep in touch.

As an individual I hold more shares than any single one of them - since you ask I still hold FOMO and for no other reason.

Please do some research on the BoD's years of promises and under delivery of those promises before you post any more

I hope this elicits some kind of response..........

TO: ir@skinbiotix.com

"I am as ever disappointed by the lack of response to my earlier emails, particularly as I have held shares in the Company almost since inception.

The current annual report has asked shareholders to email if they have any questions.

My question is why you appear to have had a change of heart re re-election of directors ?

The current report now says:

"The corporate governance report included in the accounts for the year ended 30 June 2025 reflects the principles applied by the Company during FY25, including the re-election terms of its directors. In respect of the new financial year (FY26) and the 2025 AGM, the Company has chosen to follow the policy as set out it in its Articles of Association (and followed by many of its peers) to put directors up for re-election every three years instead of every year. As required by the AIM Rules, the Company has, in its corporate governance report, specifically made it clear that this is a departure from principle 6(b) of the QCA Code."

However page 19 of the 2024 annual report says

"All directors are subject to reappointment by shareholders at the first Annual General Meeting following their appointment and at each AGM thereafter."

Will you please advise me on this?

HTTps://www.skinbiotherapeutics.com/investor-relations/agm-2025-faq/

Now I understand, the "additional resolutions" were an "administrative oversight"! I'm sorry Mr SA but this beggars belief....all IMO

The full agenda for the AGM was set out in the Notice of AGM and the forms of proxy that accompanied it on 5 December 2025. There are six resolutions that are being proposed to the AGM meeting on Monday 29 December for which shareholders are requested to vote on. Due to an administrative oversight, additional resolutions were added to the voting portal and to CREST, however this was immediately updated on the online voting portal and on CREST to the six resolutions that are being proposed to the AGM. This does not in any way affect the validity of the Notice of AGM or the meeting itself. The agenda has not changed and the date for the AGM, 29 December 2025, remains the same.

Very well said and very politely phrased, as I hope very similar questions I have put in the past have been. Whether you will get answers, or more importantly pertinent honest answers. remains to be see.

Yes, they are paid handsomely to turn up, show their faces and be yes men a couple of times a year. I believed Mr O'Hara over at Optibiotix and I believed Mr Ashman here; I'm double pi55ed off at have fallen for it twice.

Page 22 of the current annual report, so important they have repeated it! Since when is this "more aligned with the market?" The more I read the more this is becoming a disgrace! Perhaps Mr Ashman would like to read previous reports and tell us why he has changed his mind.

"As a board we would like to follow a policy that is more aligned with the market in which we operate and as set out in

our Articles of Association, once a director has been reappointed we will be putting directors up for re-election every

3 yeas instead of every year.

The table on page 26 details the attendance record of each director at board and committee meetings during the

course of the year.

As a board we would like to follow a policy that is more aligned with the market in which we operate and therefore we

have decided to put directors up for re-election every 3 years instead of every year."

How much of the £75k on legal fees was spent on finding out he whether could alter the AGM resolutions?

We must assume Mr Ashman was scared off by something, possibly enough "against" votes about his re-election to worry him about his position as CEO. If the same people take the same action and vote against all the current proposals he will be in trouble. My vote is negligible but others may make a difference. I am all for calling an EGM if there are enough combined votes.

I am assuming that in law they can do this. If so I have lost any little faith I had in the BoD and will be voting against every resolution on principle.

I am with HL and have already voted! I expect my miserly holding to count..

The oft repeated "AIM blame game" again. It's the CEO at fault here not AIM. Do you hold any shares? If not why post?