Member Info for Lottohopes

@Nolopus: I think today’s news is a positive, regardless of share price action. Going forwards, it is possible sp stagnates here until news arrives. I don’t expect delays for months, more like news within 2-4 weeks. Market likes a developing story: once they update us on the story price will react.

Imho the plan was to issue confetti like new shares at a bargain price: purpose being 3 fold: most importantly to dilute GC. Then to line the pockets of known circles. Thirdly to add to cash pot. We know the cash needed was much less than raised amount. So first 2 more relevant.

New placees face a real dilemma. I think the timing of all this means there have been genuine delays in going into production. So if they intended to sell at a tidy profit, not happening. However holding those shares gives the possibility of warrants too, by voting for them. Hold or sell? The fear/uncertainty created by board has pervaded them too :) Holding shares which go into paper losses will not happen imo. These are trader types so if sp falls below 1.2, I reckon the majority will sell ruthlessly. Infact I think a large chunk have already sold out because that’s the whole idea of 1:1 warrants. You flip your shares and hold the warrant risk free. Except the warrants look unlikely to pass. My hope is anyone buying or holding will take the common sense view: less dilution equals higher value for ALL. In a sense the slight delays in time line, the spat helps LTH in a twisted way imho.

On board composition, if people associated with TB come on board, it would be pointless. We need strong independent thinking, and each of the committees (remuneration for ex) needs strengthening so it’s not just tick boxing. I doubt we will see directors awarded tonnes of options etc straight away. I expect pedigree people from science background and more importantly some integrity (independent of both TB AND GC tbf), experience in RMS sectors would be useful too. These are just my thoughts.

Just a quick post to thank all the posters here, who have persevered in the face of disruption. Well done folks, change is possible even if incremental. Result is irrelevant, we can only focus on effort. We continue to ask for accountability and effort to create share holder value, only fair. Questions about product viability (masks), what else is in the pipeline at P2F, what’s the updates with Cloudveil and Gyro are all pertinent questions. I believe we will have updates on all these if the board does it’s job.

Let’s keep posting sensible debate and opinion. I am still in favour of entire board being replaced if and when the choice presents itself. Good luck all

1509: Fair enough. Fact is RMS was AERO and it was rescued by this board, practically resuscitated. For balance, I have regularly posted the fact that directors put in their own money (nearly £1m) into what was a shell. Indeed directors having proverbial skin in the game must have attracted a lot of investors. For their efforts, they have been richly rewarded financially (remember their financial gain is not just recent sale of shares, it’s all the warrants/options flipped last 3 years, salary claimed in shares, CLNs converted and sold), and hence in my humble opinion they should have gracefully stepped aside. Perhaps this is the intention: to leave with dignity rather than be pushed out. I would like the board and it’s subs to work coherently, towards value.

1509/Bah: ever worked with someone you can’t trust? Bit surprised by your comment. In the interest of balance, TB has a keen eye on cost cutting, and he obviously loves negotiating/deal making. He also knows the AIM terrain better than most. So there are certainly skills that could be useful in a board setting. However, as regards sharing “control”, thinking of the bigger picture, and treating ALL share holders equally, I m not convinced. Yes he is entitled to make money, but he is unlike the rest of us; he is an INSIDER, and selling into inflated sentiment is just plain wrong morally, never mind regulation. The fact we are few weeks from the event doesn’t mean we just get over it. Hundreds of investors lost money. Because they weren’t inside. They didn’t realise delays/funding was going to be milked. Caution advised. If he still sees value here, then I would advise he demonstrates it and shares his wisdom with the board; and can we stop publishing poorly worded passive aggressive RNSs? Thank you.

Today’s news is a step in the correct direction and certainly positive. However, I would like to see firm appointments, given the NOMADs reputation and previous behaviour. I think we still need to vote the warrants out. And any opportunity to encourage TB to leave, needs to be taken with both hands imo.

I think the focus on delivering growth, a strategy to achieve this, reporting key milestones for ALL three subsidiaries, on a board room with better accountability is a good step for all.

Correction: didn’t mean to say only one 4 ply mask failed. But you get the point, selective reporting. If indeed there is a design or material issue (ie issue with the nano material), then we deserve clarity on this. We deserve to know what the remedy might look like, the time frame to work on it and whether the 5 ply is indeed deliverable. If a 5 ply is too ambitious, then we should pull the plug on it for now, and focus on commercialising the cutting edge 4 ply one. After all achieving revenue/self sufficiency is the first goal here, after which further innovation can ensue. There have been hints of more innovation including a compostable/recyclable mask at scale. That would really disrupt the market. All imho only. Please DYOR

Ocanibe: not sure I understand your question. The 4 ply and 5 ply need testing separately for all the same parameters ie bacterial filtration, breathability etc. And hence get certified separately It is perfectly plausible one batch passes all tests, whilst the other doesn’t.

if you read the RNS from 15th Dec (the one that claims one 4 ply mask passed, whilst 2 5 ply masks failed. This is rubbish selective reporting imho. If you read generally on mask testing, they tend to test several (3-5 from same line), in sequence, for obvious reasons. So the question I would ask is-why did we test ONLY one 4 ply mask and two 5 ply masks? My intuitive answer would be that the others passed these tests, and instead of saying only one 4 ply mask failed, they chose to report it with a deramp lens on. Just my guess here.

Continued:
I think we all get a sense of a power struggle. It has been very disappointing to see the board behaving in this manner. A greater sense of purpose behind our actions would drive us towards getting production going, towards supporting the company achieve its ambitions as smoothly as possible. Unfortunately most of us are ego driven in our thinking and action. Age or wealth unfortunately doesn’t appear to be an antidote to this type of thinking. This is actually a superb suite of opportunities-cutting edge digital monitoring tech, fully patented and ready to go (GyroMetric), but failing to commercialise any opportunities for the last 3 years since current board got in. I don’t think too highly of Cloudveil, so if you are reading this, please shock us with a contract even for £50k, I bet there is nothing in the pipeline.

Innovative nano tech company P2F, who incidentally saw an opportunity to make a new kind of mask. The mask represents merely a symbol of the out of box creative thinking. Look at some of the other research projects that the team/Uni is involved in. Helminthic infection in cattle, citrus greening to be dealt via nano zinc, crop fortification and its app in medical hydroponics market, in addressing common nutritional deficiencies such as iron etc, trying to reduce Alzheimer’s plaques using nano hydrogen etc. The most exciting fact is we don’t know where the next big break through is going to be in this company. It should be a matter of pride to be part of a journey that makes us money AND helps so many people in myriad ways. But this journey has become somewhat weary due to this spat.

The pattern remains Ramp—> sell—> deramp—> raise/warrants issue—> ramp—> sell and so on. So what phase are we in? Directors sold 100% of holdings in Nov, take a guess. It is therefore a buy imho. Could we see sub 1p? Possible, anything’s possible here and I have steeled myself for it, even if temporary.

I don’t know if we have lost a bit of time in the ensuing battles, but it will have created some anxieties in all parties including any potential partners, and other scientists potentially considering VC input from BRH etc. There will be all sorts of ripples, not just paper losses for us.

For us, the focus needs to remain on how we reached here, and why are are emboldened to action. Incredible value destruction via dilution and share churn, a culture of encouraging trading rather than holding for value accretion, incestuous transactions, concerns around governance. This board needs to be replaced, its that simple. Whether it happens this week or in 6 months, I don’t see them acting in our best interests. I also don’t see current board leaving of its own accord. It appears intent on disruption. Of course for business continuity and to ensure stability there may be needed a process of “transition” and what may be a devolution of power from few egocentric individuals to a group of people who are capable of being “other centred

Evening folks:) I was trying to read through the posts. Blocked a few more to try and make sense of conversations, then gave up.

Reading today’s RNS, the belligerence is palpable. I think despite GC team conveying a sense of reconciliation, the board is intent to exercise its power to create anxieties and uncertainty in the minds of investors. Perhaps there is deeper sense of purpose in keeping the share price down. I was somewhat surprised to see it, in the sense I believed they would start ramping the news tone, to let our latest “investors” dump placing shares for a nice slice of profit.

In any case, the RNS was downright negative in tone and intent on conveying “delays” in neon lights. The masks getting tested-it appears the 4 ply will fly through and hit production within next 2-3 weeks (assuming machine arrives). These masks are good enough for even medical purposes imho, being a cut above the ones used now. I noted some comments from an A&E doctor that the masks wont be adopted. I m not sure when doctors in the West became overnight experts in infectious diseases. If you look at the information/advice that was being propagated by the Scientific advisory group early on (Jan-Feb 2020), it may shock you. (Minutes of meetings are now published for your amusement). Social distancing unlikely to work. Masks not considered necessary etc. They were clueless and more importantly, largely ignoring what experts in developing countries were saying/advising. (Latter had huge experience in infectious respiratory conditions). It took several months for NHS facilities to revisit ventilation.

I think good quality surgical masks will fetch premium over the mass produced Chinese variety. UK manufacturing/EU manufacturing will always get prioritised over imports, especially as capacity builds. On the topic of whether these masks are a “COVID fashion”, I very much doubt this. Countries in the east have a culture of mask wearing which reduced transmission quite a bit. And these masks will find a place in hospitals, nursing homes, various other establishments. As previous RNSs eluded to, our intention is to support health and social care. But the demand from other sectors is huge. The 7 hour duration of anti viral action is an attractive feature for workers.

My understanding is that action against the influenza virus is more difficult to achieve than COVID, and hence our mask is not just anti Covid, it’s “Anti Flu”. Remember GC spoke about being in touch with the veterinary science dept at Uni, and keeping an eye out on other viruses that are arriving. I have emailed him to consider testing our mask’s action against the latest variant of COVID too-if and when a sample becomes available, this should happen imo.

On the issue of testing, bit puzzled by the comments in todays RNS. My presumption is that given machine is nearly on its way/packed, they will install it in Nottingham, run it to produce the 5 ply mask and then send those masks.

Nolopus: majority are not always correct. I concede that 100%. But the games played here are clear to me, having held from 2016. Ramp-sell-deramp-raise-ramp-sell-deramp-raise.....

I’ll keep it simple as genuinely interested in your view:

1. Do you trust this board? Do you think there are any governance issues? Is there conflict of interest with the incestuous swapping of assets/shares etc between TB/BRH/RMS? If say hypothetically BRH sold Paraytec to RMS, next week, for £3m what would your view be?

2. Do you think there is a case for answering, ref the biggest share holder, who is also the founding director of P2F, not being informed of the size of raise, or indeed what the plans are for the money (not for RMS, I mean the portion of pie for P2F plans).

3. Do you know any other companies where a 50% dilution occurs to acquire a co. Then within 8 weeks, a further 50% dilution occurs. With board holding ZERO. And no inkling of why we raise? What is your opinion on this level of dilution at this price?

Business runs on good relationships and trust. Trust cannot be blind. It is earned. And lost. We all want the same thing here, sustainable value building.

Think about all the other companies and academics and university types currently engaged with current board or remotely considering any transaction/partnership with RMS or BRH or TB. Ask them to carefully consider how Dr Cave is being treated, how his ideas and plans have been mishandled, what has happened in terms of support and commercialisation. News spreads quickly in academic circles, have no doubt. Will these academics be as keen to get into business relationships with this board?

1509: I would advise folks to read through the posts of Nolopus carefully and make up their own minds. My reading is that he/she expects us to just accept any games played by board. I would say he/she potentially participated in the raise. Nuanced posting using words like “mutiny”. How about shareholder activism?

Just to be perfectly clear, no current share holders were informed of the placing or warrants; GC has confirmed this. Indeed there may have been other cornerstone investors who were willing to participate. Instead the Uber cheap placing was offered to trader types who are itching to flip and getting a bit hot under the collar about a brewing conflict.

Being a major share holder (indeed the only one holding the baby whilst the rest conveniently cashed out) one could argue GC provided the stability. I think we can all agree, if GC too had sold, this would be much lower. So who needs the money more? (Needing money there’s an oxymoron). Rich directors who are already millionaires and rich brokers, nomad cronies? Or an academic who created the whole idea, had the vision and team work? The whole lot should be ashamed of how they have treated P2F and GC, and the utter mess created here. Rest assured karmic justice always prevails in its own good time. Our efforts are less relevant.

Nolopus: your comment is at best ignorant, and at worst intentionally disruptive, diverting focus from the duties of a board. A publicly listed co isn’t set up just to look after it’s employees. It is answerable to its share holders. Here the board are employees too. So you could argue (rather tenuously) that they have looked after the employees ;)

Any comments on what the conditions are around remuneration? Why you think they should have got those 77m warrants after selling out? You are really funny, please keep posting :)

JP: the plan was for Volz to incorporate our tech in two separate categories. Firstly a P2F branded mask that they produce, but we sell presumably. Secondly a Volz branded product that incorporates our fabric under licence. I gathered that Volz manufacturing and our own manufacturing needs their own certification process in parallel. Thirdly there would be a P2F mask produced by our OWN machine. I always believed that going into manufacturing was not our primary goal-we may set up one or two lines, but given the costs of manning, logistics of sales etc, it may be easier to incorporate our tech/fabric into a bigger manufacturer’s production line. The mask machines are modular, so I m told they can easily be adapted say for an additional layer or to add a logo etc.

To put it another way, the demand for surgical face masks is barely tapped as of now. If UK based manufacture takes off, or indeed EU manufacturing contributes (Volz type supplier) then the reliance on Chinese imports can be reduced. UK govt PPE strategy states that by Dec 2020, about 70% of the masks were supplied from UK. Not sure I believe that either as P2F stated that there was only one mask maker in the UK until mid year.

Earlier in the year, there was a mad scramble for PPE, and quality got somewhat overlooked. There have been a lot of concerns about the standards/quality of imports (look at the number of imports recalled in different countries inc Canada/USA). This boils down to standard of the melt blown fabric and the way the microscopic fibres criss cross (inconsistent manufacturing process renders the porosity unreliable, so bacterial/viral particle filtration becomes unreliable). A German product with British innovation will fetch a definite premium and interest compared to a Chinese product imho. I have seen numerous enquiries on LinkedIn where PPE is being sought from EU supplier/maker.

Worth remembering that face coverings are being made popular here and factories set up to manufacture them, to explicitly avoid surgical masks demand from overpowering supply/cost implications. Boris was wearing a face covering during Brexit talks, Merkel was wearing a surgical face mask, any guesses who knows better? In other words, if the population was told that surgical masks which are disposable, are probably better, more effective than the reused face coverings, the price would rise astronomically and secondly supply would be squeezed. Health and social care would suffer and PPE strategy would be in tatters. PPE import has been a disaster, I heard rumours over 60,000 23m containers were sitting near ports, with faulty PPE, already paid for.
All just my two pence thoughts, take with a pinch of salt.

JP1959: Unsure, but its entirely possible that the C fold mask is using our material. Interesting that it states bacteria, viruses and fungi and is four ply. The type 2 and 2R aren’t ours.

I was looking at the breathability of the type 2 mask vs the type 2R mask. You may recollect a poster here (sorry I forget their name) kindly posted an email from the Volz redistributor here. The email stated that type 2R were unnecessary for most people and that type 2 is better. Rationale being the average mask doesn’t need significant fluid repellent property and more importantly the fluid repellant barrier significantly increases the resistance to breathing (ie worsens breathability). So I looked at the breathability of the type 2 vs type 2R masks on Volz website. <40 Pa vs <60Pa. Big difference. I am aware that most hospitals tend to stick to type 2R and it is a nightmare to work with these for long periods, thanks to poor breathability and the humidity created behind the mask. So the breathability is a very important issue to sort out. However like the rest of the games played, I don’t believe that the remedy wasn’t worked out before or that this test passing, will take many weeks, or that this puts into question the fundamental viability of the product itself. IMHO we should hear within next 2-3 weeks on the breathability retest. All in my humble opinion only.

I must add I m not a placee, but if I so desired, the opportunity was there to buy in at 1.25p. So what’s the issue? Where I feel aggrieved is that share price should never have reached here and this only occurred thanks to the Machiavellian orchestrations. Secondly the amount of dilution is completely unnecessary. Board has zero interest in a sustainable share price or growth story.

Assume: Machine arrives next week, masks pass the breathability test in another week, then RNS that we produced our first masks. Suddenly a real growth story again. A few lacy RNSs, let the latest placees flip their shares (quick 20/30/40% when MUG PIs like us buy again to facilitate this flipping). Then placees wait risk free with warrants and a six pack of beers. Whilst long term holders had zero visibility on this, there were 800 m shares were being unloaded into a frenzied market. Staggering the proportion of the cash churn.

What do the board bring to the table, ie value? Vs what do GC plus his firm/allied group bring (includes Fortoaks, Flextronix, P2F scientist group etc) . And exactly what is key to unlocking the revenue stage we are at and for future growth. I ll let each person work out the answers to these themselves. There can be no herding for such issues. People have to find their own route. Please read up on the directors, research their other companies. Read up on P2F, find their patents, their research papers, look up Gareth’s Uni profile, publications etc.

Darkhorse: so if it turns into a power struggle between ordinary share holders (nothing ordinary about any of us, but lets call it that) and the current board, with options (completely imagined so all bs, bit like an AIM RNS) being:

1. You vote that current board stays, warrants get issued, we dilute a further 400m shares leading to a staggering 2480m shares. And this risks GC relationship with RMS. RMS may “own” the subsidiary co, but you cannot make GC work under contractual chains for you, if you don’t treat people with respect. And all the IP, relationships with Uni, research groups, Flextronix, Uni scientists, Volz, links via Biocity, marketing/sales links with Fortoaks etc are supportive of GC

2. You vote that current board leaves, so warrants get blocked, presumably some placees don’t want their shares, any more and have a case given the share issue was conditional on the warrants being attached, so shares too get reduced in number; BUT this leads to current board plus NOMAD creating regulatory issues/delays (this time genuine delays).

Which one are you willing to risk more at this point? It is a question for all placees. Just hypothetical but I do think you need to carefully consider these scenarios, like the rest of us.

...transparency and integrity. Very important words so couldn’t leave them out.

If the absence or doubt over warrants raises questions about placees not wanting their shares, maybe they could just be cancelled. Unless share price drops on another negatively worded RNS. Delay in transport, EU regulation needs form translated, machine requires final final (promise this time it is final) hardening.

And we regret to inform you, despite all this fine tuning, we think it will make only 20% of capacity ie 1m masks for first 2 months. We thought we need to realign your optimism with our reality. And we are absolutely fine with that; we have no intention to fix that capacity either. I mean why should we? I know we claimed the machine would make 5m masks a month. But you didn’t ask about the fine print ;). that number was running 24/7, 365 days a year, in optimum conditions at 25 deg and 68% humidity. So either we embellished in previous RNSs or we are understating capacity now. Either way forget that 5m figure. It would only bring in more revenue and we don’t like revenue. Wait a minute surely they wouldn’t do that....

CBrown: indeed they would. Disgraceful that the board lies again and again. RMS P2F circular explicitly stated that BRH intended to hold its RMS shares for the foreseeable future. That future turns out to be 2 weeks! Board settles the share price upwards with reassurances that they don’t need funding (at the point they are selling out). Few weeks later, they create negative news, a vacuum on the same social media they used to drum up sentiment; and then raise at a staggering discount.

This board started with 300m shares when AERO got consolidated from over 6 BILLION shares. Even at that point they had given themselves and others, heavy warrant numbers and flipped them promptly. Now we are at a point where we might soon have 2.5 BILLION shares again. All those people who bought in at 4/5/6-7 p, are now sitting on huge paper losses. To revisit 6p, this co would need a mcap of 150m. Whilst only last week with a share issue of 1.5 b, it took only 90m.

This dilution is value destruction at its finest. But the board does not care. To them it is about diluting out all share holders and therefore influence/control. (Note GC like the rest of us, got diluted from 21% to 18% to current 14%. With full warrant issue, this drops to some 11%!!)

We have a business that is on the verge of revenue, within weeks. Any sensible board would have minimised dilution and created greater value for existing share holders. Except they sold every last share. And very promptly paid themselves a dividend (TB held 24% in BRH).

I would urge the newest share holders to vote for the change of board. Because if they decide to support the current board, it is very possible they too will see paper losses; in some ways it would be fitting justice, given they purchased at a deep discount, in the after math of fear and anxiety-all orchestrated by a well oiled machine-the board plus NOMAD SP Angel. I gather that the newest placees didn’t know that the warrants have to go to vote. Doesn’t surprise me.

What have we been told? Any reason behind the mask failing the tests? No. Any remedial action, or time frame for this? No. Details of Volz agreement? Nope. GyroMetric window for installation with Tarmac-no news. Trial with wind turbine co-imminent for last 2.5 years.....

Please raise concerns and write to any avenues available to yourselves, including the FCA, the LSE reg and to the directors of the NOMAD. They have extracted their pound of flesh-over 18m made within weeks of the transaction (transfer of control of P2F from BRH to RMS. Now it is time for the existing share holders to see some value restored.

The collective anger, energy and will of hundreds of people counts for something. Regardless of where it goes or what games are played here, remember this is not a simple spat between GC and the board. This is about share holders asking for value to be delivered, for news to be communicated with decency and in a straight forward manner, for governance and trans

RR: if a meeting is requisitioned, every share holder will receive detailed instructions on how to vote on the resolutions tabled. The GM to vote on the warrants was mentioned as mid Jan. As others have mentioned, there should be news between now and then, on all fronts.

Elsewhere when I wanted to support resolutions at a company GM, I was given the option of emailing HL or contacting via phone. My understanding is that one can vote as a share holder without necessarily being part of an “action group”.