RE: Profit to the brave12 Jan 2026 20:04
Whilst I have been bullish with few trades on this share, following WeShop tanking I’ve had a deeper look. The cynic in me is telling me this listing is a means for some of the founders to create some hype and dump their shares. See below entities of John Foley & Paul Teasdale which are not subject to the 365 day lock in which most retail punters won’t be fully aware of.
**None of John Foley or Paul Teasdale's shares were registered for immediate resale in their personal names.** However, entities affiliated with them (as disclosed in the final prospectus filed November 14, 2025, Form 424B4) were among the registered selling stockholders. These entities could sell their shares publicly post-listing without the full company-imposed 365-day transfer restriction applying in the same way (though affiliate rules under Rule 144 may still limit volumes).
The registered resale covered a total of **3,980,128 Class A ordinary shares**. The relevant affiliated entities and their registered shares are:
- **FFIH Limited** (controlled by John Foley and his spouse June Foley; John Foley exercises dispositive voting control): **1,003,938 shares**
- **Hallco 1766 Limited** (controlled by Paul Teasdale; he exercises sole dispositive power): **527,914 shares**
- **Max Capital Limited** (shared dispositive power exercised by majority vote, including both John Foley and Paul Teasdale): **751,072 shares**
These affiliations mean John Foley beneficially controls or shares control over the FFIH and Max Capital shares (totaling ~1,755,010 shares across those entities). Paul Teasdale beneficially controls or shares control over the Hallco and Max Capital shares (totaling ~1,278,986 shares across those entities). The exact beneficial attribution for the shared Max Capital shares isn't split precisely in the filings, as it's jointly controlled.
The remaining registered shares (~1,697,204) belong to unaffiliated parties (e.g., Hawk Investment Holdings Limited, Mr. Robert W. Morton, Mr. Dennis Lavin, and others).
This setup provided immediate liquidity for these non-insider or partially insider-affiliated holders, distinguishing them from fully locked insider shares. Earlier F-1 drafts proposed higher amounts (~15.8 million shares with larger allocations to similar entities), but the effective registration reduced it to ~4 million.
Therefore through the guise of liquidity allows these directors to cash in early. I ask myself why WeShop didn’t raise money when their accounts show virtually nothing and I can’t see anywhere else where they’ve raised. How are they funding the business?
I’ve decided to hold out for the time being until I have clarity on these concerns as I can see WeShop absolutely tanking when any figures come out - longer term I can see it doing well and good concept but they’ve just started from scratch and a 100m valuation is being generous at this stage with the little cash and comparing with other budiness on Nasdaq. T
Sign In
Follow the stocks
