Member Info for shychap

Belugawhale, this may come as a disappointment to you but the key drivers for the SP rise are:

1. Ashman believers adding in anticipation of the bumper Q1 trading update he touted last month.

2. Shareholders pulling out of OPTI and transferring the proceeds to SBTX.

3. MD relentlessly adding.

Unsurprisingly, when the SP rises, PIs feel happier and moan less. Some also posted last month to say that they were going to respond to Ashman's appeal for moderation.

Alyson Levett may be a long shot, mol42, but she is the only prospect of reform from within so I made contact with her a week before the AGM to appraise her of the governance concerns. It is part of her role to engage with shareholders and she assured me that as Chair of Audit and Risk, she would be taking the associated governance oversight responsibility very seriously. Time will tell on that but she is at least fresh eyes and ears and she has a growing reputation as an independent director to protect.

You're right insofar as it will likely take more than an ethical new NED to convince Hunt and Ashman of the error of their ways. The new nomad may not be much help either since corporate governance doesn't have much to do with regulatory compliance; but Singer too have been informed of my concerns.

But the best hope for change lies with the major shareholders who might be prepared to demand that the BoD toe the governance line, if only to meet their own rules on investment criteria – and that could come about in private meetings or, if necessary, via an EGM.

Cliostock, she is only communicating with me on AGM procedure (as she is bound to do) and on the contrived reasons why the company hasn't answered my legitimate questions. I fear they are so arrogant that they must think all PIs are idiots and can be easily led up the garden path by the smarties up there.

I'm sure you're right about them digging themselves ever deeper into a hole of their own making. But it needs to be stopped.

(part 2)

"…For the record, the company has treated me – and other bona fide shareholders – abominably throughout much of 2025 by refusing to answer, or even acknowledge, legitimate questions which were politely asked. While I understand that Stuart Ashman may have received some abusive emails from a small minority of shareholders, that would not justify an abrogation of the company’s duty to engage with shareholders’ genuine concerns as they arise. Worse, this lack of engagement can lead to complaints being escalated to the regulators which, if investigated, can incur avoidable costs. If this arrogant attitude towards shareholders continues then it is very likely that some will requisition an EGM in an attempt to right the ship – which will again be an avoidable expense.

I am somewhat perplexed by your explanation of minority shareholder rights since even the owner of a single share can join with other minority shareholders to requisition an EGM (as I have done in the past). However, while I was only able to forward to you letters of representation from two of my brokers, you may be assured that if I held a notifiable percentage of the voting rights, I would have issued a TR-1.

You are of course wrong to misquote a threshold of 20% in relation to the QCA guidance on votes against an AGM resolution. They merely quote 20% as an example ("e.g. 20%") of a significant vote against and it is indefensible to claim this imagined threshold as justification for ignoring three separate resolution votes in excess of 19% against. The man on the Clapham omnibus would also think that the 16.5% vote against the standard resolution #1 (to receive the accounts and annual report) was highly significant given that only 2.7% voted against the same resolution last year. Given your blinkered assessment of these clearly significant protest votes, I will seek advice from the QCA.

Finally, you have twice sought to justify the Board’s actions – or inactivity – by misleadingly misquoting or selectively quoting QCA guidance which in fact does not provide the mandate you claimed. This is symptomatic of what appears to be a deep-rooted policy of evading shareholder accountability which has pervaded your boardroom in 2025 and I fear it will harm the company’s prospects if you allow it to continue into 2026, which I suggest should start with a public apology to shareholders and a commitment from the Board to improved governance."

"No offence was meant to you and thanks for your reply let’s hope his investor meet goes off well is it possible he has learnt something with all the crap he has caused."

=====

None taken, shreksdonkey. Sadly, all the signs up to and including the AGM are that Ashman & Co are doubling down on their governance malpractices. FWIW, here's my 31/12/25 reply to Emily Bertram (it might not fit in one post):

"Dear Ms Bertram,

Thank you for your considered reply to my 30/12/25 email (which mysteriously bounced back to me as “Access Denied” with a 550 5.4.1 error yet appears to have been received by you) – and for the attached AGM minutes (which I had assumed, based on prior history, are routinely published on your website).

Based on a report of the meeting from one of the three shareholders who managed to attend, the chairman made no attempt to answer my questions #3 and #4, presumably deeming them inappropriate despite no such indication being given to me in advance of the meeting; and in response to my questions #1 and #2 he merely referred vaguely to the published Q&A and Articles of Association – none of which contain the answers. For example, I asked what has changed over the past 12 months to cause the Board to abandon its compliance with the QCA Code guidance on the re-election of directors and your answer that some of your peers choose not to hold annual re-elections was also true when you adopted the QCA guidance so fails to address my question.

It would also be reasonable to assume that your Corporate Governance Statement which revealed this re-election policy change on 5 December 2025 would take effect from 2026 and that the 2025 AGM announced on the same day would be held under the auspices of the previous Corporate Governance framework. Indeed, the original agenda for the 2025 AGM which was circulated to certificated members on 5 December 2025 appeared to confirm this since it listed resolutions to re-appoint each of the directors – which were duly voted on by shareholders for an entire week until you re-issued the agenda on 16 December 2025 to delete the re-election resolutions.

Your email doesn’t address the Board’s decision not to require Martin Hunt to stand for re-election at this AGM now that his term of office has extended beyond nine years. And I can find no reference, either in the Articles or the Corporate Governance Statement, to your decisiion not to abide by this QCA principle.

By any standards, this was a disorderly and unprofessional shambles and it concerns me and some other shareholders that the directors appear to be prioritising self-preservation over shareholder accountability and good governance. [more…)

Not sure where you're getting your information from, shreksdonkey but it's quite obvious from my posting history here that I do own SBTX shares (over 0.5m in fact). I have never sold any; in fact I topped up in October at 14p and my average is 16p. I am not, and do not know, this 'Gerbillator'. Nor do I know anyone else on any bulletin board. I do know one of the major shareholders and have corresponded with the others.

I do my own thing, including trying to hold the SBTX BoD to account on governance matters, wherein it is failing in its duties. I am not going to stop doing that even if the SP continues to rise because bad governance is a ticking time bomb and I am not a short-term trader who might not care about it. It has nothing to do with Ashman's pomposity, which I couldn't care less about.

Under proper corporate governance, the company and its directors would command much greater respect and trust which would encourage me, and others, to buy more shares, with the SP benefiting. Under the self-preserving disengagement policies of the current regime, the SP will always be lower than it should be, even if it should reach £1.

None of my complaints has ever been about Croda or the NDA; I only complain about mismanagement and deceptive practices. The only way to stop that is either for the management to change its ways or to step down.

"Well don’t count on much revenue from Superdrug, even after Ashman said sales were going very well indeed."

=====

We will know soon enough – presumably in the next trading update and certainly by the Spring.

"A phased roll-out to the rest of Superdrug's UK store portfolio is scheduled to commence in Spring 2026."

You make a strong case and present it well. Interesting site.

Https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/market-research/natural-cosmetic-ingredients-market.asp

Indeed Gardie, it is sad and suspicious that they should go to such lengths to avoid answering legitimate questions, all of which were directly or indirectly, relevant to the meeting – and none of which could be described as "interfering with the preparation of the meeting" or "involving the disclosure of confidential information", already answered or likely to cause a disturbance amongst the three shareholders in attendance.

Are they hiding something bigger than their self-serving disregard for the principles of the QCA Code? Or is it simply that they are determined not to be accountable to their shareholders, ie a public company?

Of the four questions I asked, two were ignored (requests for hybrid AGMs in future and for a better resourced investor relations desk function) and two were not properly answered in their Shareholder FAQ (asking why the chairman wasn't up for re-election after a 9-year term as per QCA Code guidance and what had changed since last year to cause them to abandon annual re-elections for all directors as recommended by the QCA.

Emily Bertram responded yesterday, saying:

"We refer to note 13 of the Notice of AGM – this replicates section 319A of the Companies Act 2006 and it confirms that any shareholder attending the AGM has the right to ask questions and that the company must cause to be answered any question relating to the business being dealt with at the meeting put by a member attending the meeting. Again, replicating the provisions of section 319A, note 13 clarifies that no such answer need be given (a) if to do so would (i) interfere unduly with the preparation for the meeting, or (ii) involve the disclosure of confidential information, (b) if the answer has already been given on a website in the form of an answer to a question or (c) if it is undesirable in the interests of the company or the good order of the meeting that the question be answered.

You did not appear in person or by proxy but, in spite of our view that your first set of questions had been adequately answered through the Q&A posted on our website prior to the AGM and notwithstanding that none of your questions directly related to the resolutions being proposed at the AGM, you will note from the AGM minutes that your second and third set of questions were duly read out in full at the AGM. None of the answers provided at the AGM constitute price sensitive information and, as such, there is no requirement on the Company to publish a statement regarding the answers provided at the AGM."

I am seeking advice from the QCA.

What's missing?

Farris, you shouldn't claim to speak for everybody. If you are depressed by any poster, you can get instant joy by filtering them. Clearly, not everybody is in the happy-clappy camp and they are entitled to have their say – especially if they are shareholders, as they all seem to be.

Meanwhile, nothing which is said on this BB ever has any impact on the share price.

Kitchentowel, while your PT Barnum stream of consciousness may appeal to rampers and novices, almost none of it is actually factual. But I hope that at least some of it may eventually come to pass, with the right management in place.

But any cash arriving at HQ seems destined to be spent on further acquisitions which in turn will probably require more capex to turn around/make accretive, delaying any prospect of a dividend.

Meanwhile, I am concerned, if not alarmed, by the shutting down of all the research projects at a time when we have cash in the kitty. Our IP is our main asset but it needs to be developed and commercialised, not cut adrift.

The SP will recover in its own time, whatever may be said here (or by TW). And the best/only way to stop the complaints is for the BoD not to cause any. Until then, I don't think the complaints will go away - even if this is the start of a real SP recovery.

Hope so, Cliostock, but she will need exceptional ethical strength to beat sense into the arrogant bullies around that boardroom table. I had hoped that she would turn up at the AGM (as a guest since she doesn't take office until Jan 1) but she didn't so missed a good learning opportunity.

Her first test will be to ensure that SBTX follows the QCA Code concerning significant votes against AGM resolutions:

"Where a significant proportion of votes (e.g. 20% of independent votes) have been cast against a resolution at any general meeting, the company should include [on its website], on a timely basis, an explanation of what actions it intends to take to understand the reasons behind that vote result, and, where appropriate, any different action it has taken, or will take, as a result of the vote."

AquaeSulis01, I can't agree with the notion that an ignorant automated bot represents the market. The resolutions were indeed passed but with uncomfortable numbers voting against. QCA (and FRC) Code guidance is that for a vote against of this magnitude, the Board needs to take material steps to fix an obvious problem. Not very likely with this self-preservation society unfortunately – unless the new independent director can sweep clean.

And of course the market is mostly unaware of this Board's malpractices…for now.

Votes against Resolution #1:

2025 = 17,391,981

2024 = 1,912,516

Any well run company would take steps now to bring shareholders back onside.

Looks like a significant protest vote with an unprecedented 16.5% voting against receiving the annual report and accounts - and almost 20% voting against each of resolutions 4, 5 and 6.

They probably weren't answered properly this morning but these are the questions I asked:

QUESTION IN ADVANCE #01

Given that the chairman has exceeded nine years in post subsequent to his last re-election and that the QCA Corporate Governance Code guides companies not to retain the same independent chairman for longer than nine years without first discussing the decision to extend his term of office with senior investors and also requiring any such director to be re-elected on an annual basis, could the Board please confirm that such a discussion has taken place with senior investors, including our principal shareholder, and explain why the resolution to re-elect the chairman has, in fact, been removed from the AGM agenda earlier this month, thus making it impossible to comply with the guidance to annually re-elect the chairman after he has served nine years in office?

QUESTION IN ADVANCE #02

Given that the Board undertook a year ago to adopt QCA guidelines by re-electing directors annually, what are the changed circumstances which justify the recent decision to abandon this compliance and revert to a three-year re-election cycle?

QUESTION IN ADVANCE #03

Given the considerable barriers, both seasonal and geographical, to shareholder engagement at this and previous AGMs, will the Board undertake to convene future AGMs as hybrid meetings which, in addition to the physical meeting, will afford shareholders the opportunity to engage live with the proceedings via a streaming platform and also provide the functionality to ask questions and vote remotely? The Investor Meet Company has said that its existing annual contract with Skinbiotherapeutics Plc will allow this added functionality to be provided at no additional cost. I raised this question with Mr Ashman a year ago but still await an answer.

QUESTION IN ADVANCE #04

For much of the past year, I have received no acknowledgement of my occasional and legitimate emailed queries or telephone calls to Mr Ashman and the Skinbiotherapeutics Plc Investor Relations Desk – a complaint which has been echoed online by numerous other retail shareholders. If this indicates a lack of resources to process investor enquiries, will the Board undertake to expand this resource so that legitimate shareholder enquiries are answered in a timely fashion?