Member Info for ox123

Hi belgrano, Ashman was suspended by the SBTX Board about "matters relating to his conduct". We have not been told what these "matters" are. Neither Briarwood nor Dixon sit on the Board, so it does not seem to have been prompted by these shareholders (one poster on this Board claims Dixon knew nothing about it in advance - I cannot of course verify this). Ashman resigned when he was suspended for "matters relating to his conduct" but not about the £700k which we are told in the RNS was only raised with him some days AFTER his resignation.

We need to know why Ashman was suspended (and immediately resigned). The conduct may be related to financial matters, or may have nothing to do with the company's finances (e.g. personal misconduct of some sort).

The only positive for now is that at least the Non-Exec Chair of the Audit Committee is not relying on the remaining (now) Executive Directors to investigate since it would be difficult for shareholders to trust their conclusions, most especially as it is hard to see how Hunt and Bertram did not spot something wrong about the claimed royalty income in the 2025 Accounts. Perhaps Bertram knew but was brow-beaten by Ashman (her boss) and only piped up after Ashman resigned over something else...Who knows? but it does speak to a mess rather than an orchestrated conspiracy to remove Ashman.

Thanks Irish, that's encouraging. It seems to me like Newmont were not doing a particularly good job with Telfer and sold a bit cheap? (but perhaps they weren't convinced gold price would rocket as it has?)

Does anyone have a best estimate of the life remaining in the Telfer deposit? (in years hopefully!).

The RNS says first gold from Havieron would be about 2.5 years after FID which may be made later this year but only after environment permits (so we are looking at maybe 3.5. to 4 years from now for Havieron ore to arrive at the Telfer mill). The mill needs to keep running as an idle mill is expensive and I think it is important to keep the existing workforce in these kind of areas. I'm just hoping there is enough material left at Telfer to keep the mill running before Havieron comes on stream?

The RNS on 16th February says the Board believes the incorrect £700k accrual in last year's Accounts is "an isolated incident". But that doesn't tell us the whole story.

If you follow the timeline of events it is clear that Ashman was suspended PRIOR to the Board discovering the £700k issue.

So Ashman was suspended for some other reason (could be financial, could be non-financial - we don't know). The Board will know why but they haven't told the shareholders (at least not in a public forum). Until the reason for the suspension of SA is made public it is difficult to make any meaningful estimate of the value of the shares.

The Non-Exec is right to insist on an independent report. Hunt, Bertram, and the company's external Auditors all have some accountability for the mess, even if Ashman is the immediate culprit. Shareholders were unlikely to trust whatever Hunt, Bertram or the Auditors concluded from any "investigation". Only an entirely independent investigation could have any chance of being trusted by shareholders now.

For shandy (and others).

We have no clear explanation of how the £770k could get past the auditors so anything is possible.

Nevertheless, one likely explanation is that this particular issue is about revenue recognition. What I mean by this is that if you have sold a product, delivered it and invoiced for it, this can go in the Accounts as a "receivable". However you cannot use the same argument for royalties which might be due but not yet received (and yet it seems likely the amount is included in the Cash Flow statement as an increase in "Trade and Other Receivables" in the 2025 Accounts). If both the 2025 Accounts and 2026 forecast were based on counting royalties from information received from Croda (but payment not yet made) that could explain why both the 2025 Accounts and the 2026 forecast have been revised (because, for example, every, likely increasing, expected quarterly payment will be recognised later than previously forecast). Of course it would be worse if Ashman has simply made up the figure based on no evidence whatsoever, but that makes the Board look bad because they should have been asking the obvious questions about the Accounts and I cannot see how they can defend not asking about the Croda royalties (i.e. amount, expected payment date etc. as these royalties are really important to SBTX).

In addition, we don't of course know why Ashman was suspended and, given the timeline of events (and if the remaining management are to be believed), it does seem likely he was suspended for some other reason and then the further issue of the royalties came to light (that is at least what the remaining management seem to be suggesting). So on its own the "missing" £770k may not be catastrophic (depending on whether Croda will be paying the royalties🤣) but we also don't know what else there is.

Last company year (to 30/06/25) a lot was spent on an acquisition plus investment in BTS to manufacture Dermatonics products (about £2m total if this part of last year's Accounts are to be believed 🤣). This will not be repeated in current year.

This company year (runs to 30/06/26), money has been spent on the Superdrug launch (and possibly £250k of final earnout payment for Dermatonics). Again, these will not be repeated (at least I hope so in terms of the Superdrug venture!) .

Going forward, from a trading perspective, if Dermatonics and BTS do not require any cash (as the last RNS asserts) that leaves the loss being made by AxibBiotix (which I am convinced will be a loss at a product level as I have outlined in previous posts, and then more significant once you add in SBTX overhead costs). My best guess based on how it traded previously plus some extra Superdrug costs is this represents an EBITDA of say negative £1m (basically a whole load of overheads for SBTX central plus direct costs for AxisBiotix products which are far from being covered by the relatively small sales). Whilst hardly ideal, that would support the "robust cash position" claim in the RNS and casts doubt on the assertion of a "£4m cash burn" by a poster on this Board.

There are however potential legal issues and costs, plus costs for recruitment of Interim and Permanent CEOs so it would be impossible to prove that any figure quoted is necessarily wrong but I think the above is a better analysis than claiming a £4m cash burn as being a correct figure.

And set against that is the unknown of whether, when, and how much Zenakine royalties may be. So probably the company can limp along until this is clear but the value of the company is (and in some ways always has been) tied up with what investors assess as the value of the Zenakine royalty deal.

The 2025 Accounts are a fraud. Shocking.

Hunt must go as he has been there throughout the period of this shambles and has no defence for allowing this to happen on his watch.

The CFO joined April 2025 (albeit initially a non-Board role until January 2026). Nevertheless she would have been involved in the preparation of the 2025 Final Accounts so it doesn't look good here either.

The company may survive but it will be a long hard road for whoever takes it on given there surely must be legal claims here from shareholders.

Perhaps most concerning though is the RNS is a profit warning for 2026 referencing the removal of the royalty income from 2025 Accounts. This doesn't give a full story since if that Royalty revenue was only deferred from 2025 there would be no need for a profit warning for 2026.

Thanks makingmillions, I think I did say in my first post that this was complex to explain 😵‍💫. Yes you are right that if the same day rule meant claiming the loss immediately in this case MD would have done it all for nothing! My last thought is to say the matching rules and the eligibility for claiming an immediate loss are 2 separate things. I'm reckoning MD's advisers know what they are doing.

I would add that I am not claiming to be the expert here and especially that we do not know the precise details of the transactions. If, for example, Mrs Dixon were involved in the purchase transaction, the outcome is likely somewhat different (and we may see a TR-1) but either way I reckon this was done for a purpose and it is unlikely the advisers would get it wrong.

Time to sign off.

Makingmillions, you've forced me to bore the Board with the information below but I'm always happy to be corrected if you have a trusted source for your view as these things are complex 🤣:

Key Principles

"Bed and Breakfast Rules (30-day rule)

If you sell shares at a loss and buy the same shares back within 30 days, your capital loss cannot be immediately claimed for CGT purposes.

The purpose is to stop taxpayers from realising a loss purely for tax relief while still maintaining the investment.

The loss is instead added to the base cost of the repurchased shares, effectively deferring the relief until those new shares are eventually sold."

I should say "potential" benefit and probably, to be precise, a sale at a profit rather than just at a higher price than today's transaction.

Jansy, if you read my post from 14.33 it outlines the position. You are right that the 30-day rule prevents an immediate claim for a CGT loss but there remains a benefit to this transaction in the long run for a UK taxpayer IF the SBTX shares are sold at a later date at a higher price than the transaction today.

Thanks for this information shychap. If both sale and purchase of 48m shares were in the name of MD then I would not expect a TR-1.

I would like to point to my post at 14.33 and and say I may have got it right for once 😊 (with due credit to shreksdonkey - I wonder if there is any significance in the reference to a four-legged friend? 🤣).

Credit to beaverburger for pointing out SA already removed from the website. It feels like the SA issue has not just blown up in the last 2 days but something that was brewing so someone had a "to do" list if SA resigned and they are working through that list (Companies House will take longer).

Hi Laura, 37% of the 40% of volume is made up of 2 trades of 48m shares within 12 seconds of each other at the same price. I think shreksdonkey this morning may have it right with a post about this to which I add my thoughts below:

From a market maker perspective a likely explanation would be a sell and a buy because I don't think market makers would take the risk on their books. And it is likely the buyer would be the same as the seller or someone closely connected. If the seller and buyer were the same person, I would not expect a TR-1.

From a tax perspective, this is a complex area but may allow a "rebasing" of the share price for the purposes of reducing CGT payable at some future date should the shares appreciate in value by the time of any future sale. That is a bit different form being able to realise any immediate claimable loss for CGT but I think it could still be a useful exercise if the shares were sold at a higher price in the future..

If the share register is correct only one shareholder could have made these trades.

Beaver, if you know SBTX well you may see that most of the customers have no idea that the product or service they buy is related to SBTX. They buy Dermatonics creams, contract manufacturing services from BTS, or Zenakine from Sederma (the latter having no equity link whatsoever to SBTX). In fact the only revenue coming out of Newcastle is the tiny amount of sales of Axis-Biotix 😂.

The travails of the parent company will have little or no impact on sales (and especially not the royalties from Zenakine which are now likely the most important contributor to SBTX bottom line). It may well impact the direction of the company going forward but some of us wanted that to change anyway!

Hi net, previous employee issue. I don't think SBTX directors would have known on Wednesday that SA would definitively resign, and exactly what

day he would resign. And, indeed, I would expect that the issue of equity to satisfy terms of IPO compensation would have been in the works some time before Tuesday, probably some considerable time. In my experience of distress in companies, all sorts of "business as usual" stuff has to just go on whilst the crisis brews along in the background.

Hi net, the RNS on 11th Feb said this was related to "a previous employee" in connection with the original IPO. I don't think on 11th Feb SBTX could have classified SA as a "previous employee".

Interesting Belgrano. But Dixon has reported his last purchase was on Tuesday. The timescale seems too quick for Dixon to have then launched a complaint. And the impression I get is Ashman has been suspended earlier than this week (hence the absence of the IMC end January). It smacks of an investigation into personal misconduct, not necessarily of a financial nature.

If the issue were financial that might involve restatement of accounts, I think the company would have needed to put this in the RNS. Anyone else a view on this?

Where it is more of a "Human Resources" type investigation (e.g. bullying or other personal misconduct) you can't put these accusations (as they would be currently) until the investigation is complete. Makes me think the latter is more likely.

Apparently Tether's gold is stored in a disused nuclear bunker in Switzerland. In the past Switzerland has often been seen as a place to shelter assets from anyone who might take a dislike to what you are doing.

As the French say "the more it changes, the more it stays the same".