Member Info for KJM100K

Share count for EGM threshold is at about 2.5M a few expressions of no votes since last total would you support an EGM request also please confirm with shareholding

Again may come to nothing but let’s chase every angle to add a bit more pressure, generate exposure

Sent Mafuta

My mistake - the rogue a

Getting this error message

- These recipients of your message have been processed by the mail server:

macaleer.james@sky.com; Failed; 5.3.4 (message too big for system)

Remote MTA mx-eu.mail.am0.yahoodns.net: network error

- SMTP protocol diagnostic: 552 1 Requested mail action aborted, mailbox not found

Should be in your inbox now Plasticmac

Very true

Nearly a 1M shares takes us to 2.5M of the 3.5M needed so I’d guess we can make it realistic if we keep pushing - if nothing else to apply pressure to the BOD

That makes 1,524,717

I had a response from Angela Leach at IP Group PLc who hold 3.35% I was asked not to share the response publicly however they are happy for me to share privately a summary or for anyone to contact them.

Out of respect for the fact they have replied twice in a timely manner and our shared situation I will not post publicly. Happy to email response if anyone wants it but would ask you don’t post it publicly.

631,200 so far how many more we got , that nearly 18% of total needed. If nothing else imagine if we could submit a formal EGM requisition notice !!

We would need 3.57M shares to call an EGM

How many we got ? I have 180k

Some great shouts - we have to leave everything out on the pitch - if one institutional investor has 2nd thoughts - you just never know especially if they know there is something to hide. I can’t fathom how Kirsten Lund can be credible and indeed promoted despite being around while the described mismanagement was happening.

Response from Auditor david.punt@rsmuk.com

Thank you for your email of 11 December 2025 (of which two copies were received at 14.42 and 14.47, including via this firm’s queries inbox, Queries@rsmuk.com). I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence and confirm that it will be treated as a formal expression of concern. Your email has been passed to me for reply in accordance with our usual procedures, and I should be grateful if you would address any future correspondence to me.

Your email contains a number of comments and concerns regarding the Group’s Financial Statements, and seeks clarification on several matters.

As regards this firm, we were appointed by the directors of the Group to audit its Financial Statements. Our engagement was accordingly with the Group, rather than with any individual shareholders. In these circumstances, we are bound by professional and contractual duties of confidentiality to the Group as our client, which means that it would not be appropriate for us to respond to the comments you have made as an individual shareholder.

I can confirm that we will pass a copy of your email to our client, the Group, and specifically to the Chair of the Audit Committee.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.

Yours sincerely,

David Punt

I’m definitely not losing focus I’m trying all I can and sharing what I’m doing, be good to see some more shoulders to the wheel and some more action being shared. I agree the vote is focus - really surprised the board is so quiet and not showing the fight I’d have expected.

One thing I didn't ask for AGM was around the statement that Kirsten Lund has returned to TRX as CFO - she never lefts Tissue Regenix but was EMEA Director so when they talk about new Senior Management uncovering the previous teams poor Management whet was Kirsten Lund doing ? What was Brian Phillips doing as Chair of the Audit Committee

If anyone could ask that on AGM question email please

I have received this reply from FRC email complaints@frc.org.uk

Thank you for taking the time to contact the Financial Reporting Council.

I can advise that your concerns have been passed to the relevant team for review and we will be in touch again in due course.

Kind regards

Anna

Anna Cobbett

Central Complaints Manager

Legal Services Team

Financial Reporting Council

I have wrote the below email to RSM UK the Auditor and copied in the Financial Reporting Council

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a long-standing private shareholder in Tissue Regenix and I am writing to formally raise concerns regarding the accuracy of the company’s financial statements and the quality of the audit work performed.

Recent disclosures have revealed that approximately $1 million of inventory (organs) was incorrectly posted to Cost of Goods Sold instead of Goods Received Not Invoiced (GRNI). As you will be aware, this is a material misposting with direct impacts on:

gross margin

inventory valuation

cost of sales

working capital

the true financial position of the company

This type of misclassification is precisely the kind of error that audit procedures are designed to detect through:

cut-off testing

GRNI reconciliations

sampling of large manual postings

analytical review of COGS

inventory valuation and existence testing

Given the size of the error relative to Tissue Regenix’s financial scale, I am seeking clarity on the following:

Did the audit team identify this misposting during the most recent audit?

If yes, why was it not corrected or flagged as a material weakness?

If not, what audit procedures were performed on GRNI, inventory, and COGS that would reasonably have detected an error of this size?

Were any concerns raised with the Audit Committee regarding deficiencies in internal controls, particularly around purchase-to-pay processes, stock valuation, or cost allocations?

Did the auditors consider going-concern risk, given that the company has now moved into a process that leaves private investors with no recoverable value?

Were any related-party risks or governance issues (including board independence and major shareholder influence) discussed as part of the audit risk assessment?

As a private investor who relied on the audited financial statements when making investment decisions, it is deeply concerning that such a large and fundamental accounting error occurred without adequate disclosure or warning.

I would be grateful for your confirmation that this correspondence will be treated as a formal expression of concern, and for a clear response to the points raised above. If these issues fall under the remit of your regulatory affairs or compliance department, please ensure this message is forwarded appropriately.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your response.

Kind regards,

I think you have to do it in writing or using the weblink https://www.fca.org.uk/market-abuse-reporting-form I used the weblink and received an acknowledgment of my complaint - I'm also tagging them in every tweet I post.

I have emailed these questions to alice.woodings@wallbrookpr.com to put to the board at the AGM

1. Board Independence & Conflicts

“Given that 50% of the Board (Jay LeCoque and George Brian Phillips) have clear affiliations with Harwood Capital, how can the Board assert that the decision-making process around this transaction was independent? What safeguards were implemented to ensure Harwood did not unduly influence the outcome?”

⸻

2. Fairness to Minority Shareholders

“What assessment was carried out to ensure the proposed deal is fair to minority shareholders, given that it appears Harwood is the primary beneficiary while private investors are heavily diluted or wiped out?”

⸻

3. Irrevocable Undertakings

“You have stated that irrevocable undertakings were secured from major shareholders before many private investors even had access to the details. How does securing locked-in votes in advance align with principles of fairness and equal treatment?”

⸻

4. Financial Statements & Audit Quality

“Financial statements did not indicate imminent financial distress, yet the proposed deal leaves shareholders with nothing. Can the Board explain whether any material misstatements, control failings, or accounting issues contributed to this position — including the recently identified $1m misposting of inventory to COGS instead of GRNI?”

⸻

5. Auditor Oversight

“Did the external auditors identify the $1m GRNI misposting? If not, why not? And were any concerns raised over internal controls, financial accuracy, or management oversight in the last audit cycle?”

⸻

6. Alternative Financing

“What alternative financing options were explored before deciding on this transaction? Were external investors approached who could have provided capital without erasing minority shareholders?”

⸻

7. Related Party and Harwood-Linked Transactions

“Were any related-party transactions, agreements, or informal arrangements involving Harwood or its affiliates considered in this process? If so, why have these not been clearly disclosed?”

⸻

8. Delisting Rationale

“Why was delisting considered necessary, and how is the Board satisfied that delisting is in the best interests of all shareholders rather than solely aligned with Harwood’s long-term strategy?”

⸻

9. Governance Breakdown

“What steps will the Board take to address the perception that governance has failed minority shareholders and that the Board is no longer acting independently?”

⸻

10. Shareholder Value

“What value does the Board expect Harwood to achieve from this deal — and why was that value not achievable while respecting the equity of existing shareholders?”

RSM UK are the Auditors - I've just tweeted that statement to them and FCA @kev.mchugh