Member Info for shychap

No shelf wobblers visible on that aisle.

I couldn't view it as positive in any way since the disclosure of financial guidance with a fundraise is for your benefit and mine who were heavily diluted, not the handful of people who subscribed.

The Zenakine webinar may be just a rehash since it's a marketing initiative and doesn't seem to be targeting the city/analysts (anyone can sign up for it), but time will tell. Logically I would expect some read-across from the results which may mention Zenakine or new Actives generally. We will find out tomorrow; but it's good to see them putting Zenakine centre stage on a big corporate day when they have 600 other products in the stable. However, Mr Market doesn't seem interested in it.

No, bigpunt. You can stop looking. I have complained to the regulator about the lack of financial guidance accompanying the £4.2m fundraise.

AquaeSulis01, it's only an excuse if Superdrug are producing the shelf wobblers.

"I can see 13p by the end of the week unless we get news."

-----

In the hope and belief that there will be something concrete and positive in Croda's imminent Zenakine comms, I have thrown caution to the wind and bought another 100k this morning, FWIW.

"Chances of MD being unhappy with SA for providing the opportunity to purchase such a large holding at bargain prices and therefore supporting Bazzaman; zero"

-----

Mark Dixon may well be grateful to Ashman for cratering the SP but he has been buying since April when the SP was above 25p and even now his average is only just below 20p; so his gratitude won't last long unless there's a big re-rate here, starting this week with Croda's Zenakine news. In short, he is likely to be much more aligned with PIs than IIs going forward.

If Ashman isn't wanted, surely Hunt should get the black spot too. He has obviously been Ashman's accomplice in running the company down and is probably the prime mover in the comms blackout. Looking at his CV and his corporate history at Companies House, I can't see what he brings to the table anyway. He seems to have very little experience of steering Plc's, nor any successes.

"How did the vote go last year Baz - and that was before all the major recent investors joined. How do you think they'll vote?"

-----

No certainty that the placing subscribers will support Ashman with their near 20% paper loss; nor that the long term IIs will endorse him after he sidelined them in the placing; nor that the new principal shareholder is a big fan either (he doesn't even know Ashman). In fact, I know of two significant shareholders who would be prepared to vote against Ashman's re-election unless there is a rapid change in company policy and a seismic re-rating of the share price.

"Public knowledge that Mr Dixon is worth about 1.3B"

-----

Source?

How do you know he's a billionaire?

We're "huge" apparently…

https://www.newcastleworld.com/news/major-milestone-huge-newcastle-skin-health-company-to-have-products-stocked-at-superdrug-5348547

Mol42, give me a link if you've got one. We are discussing the definition of "in public hands" or "free float" - which isn't of huge concern to AIM since they don't require a minimum level of free float to list. AIM do however confirm the aforelinked FCA guidance on the definition, ie:

"Free float - the amount of shares in a company which are in ‘public hands’ i.e. not owned by a director of the company or its subsidiaries, or individuals connected with the company and any person holding five per cent or more of the shares."

https://www.hbcg.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/The-Essential-AIM-Stock-Market-Guide-2013.pdf

So if SBTX chooses to claim a free float figure - which they are not obliged to do - then it should be governed by this definition.

Mol42, the definition of "in public hands" doesn't change. Why would it? AIM Rule 26 applies "from listing" onwards.

Unlikely that an RNS is necessary since he remains a director of the Plc.

FWIW – I suggest you take it with a pinch of salt – I have it on pretty good authority (from a significant shareholder) that Croda will be issuing a Zenakine press release with, or straight after, their quarterly results on 16 October. I have not been told what it's about.

So, Rankamateur55, care to take a guess at Superdrug's initial order size, sales rate and margin?

ELSteve, I doubt we always know what is legal/illegal but SA is certainly guilty of some dubious practices which may have contravened the regulations. I agree that PIs should always report any suspicions to the regulator who has sometimes acted on mine in the past. But SBTX suspicions should also be discussed here imho – so that others can debate/dismiss them. Here is what I wrote to AIM/FCA last month:

"From: xxxxx

Subject: Skinbiotherapeutics Plc improper AIM fundraise

Date: 2 September 2025 at 14:34:29 BST

To: AIM Regulation

Cc: AIM Regulation , AIM Regulation , AIM Regulation

2 September 2025

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write to alert you to what appears to be a breach of regulations by Skinbiotherapeutics Plc (AIM:SBTX) in its communications with the market regarding its equity fundraise of £4.2m gross on 16 June 2025 via a placing and retail offer.

This sudden equity raise came as a complete surprise to shareholders who had previously been assured by Skinbiotherapeutics CEO, Stuart Ashman, that there would be no fundraises in this calendar year. In his RNS dated 16/6/25, the CEO explained that the funds were unexpectedly needed in order to invest in a new retail contract with Superdrug which had been brought forward at Superdrug’s request, having been originally scheduled for 2026.

But the primary tort here was that shareholders were summarily diluted by over 10% without any explanation of the business case for making such a large investment in a trial listing in 200 Superdrug stores, nor any indication of the size of the order. There was no indication of the expected return on investment nor any forward guidance of any sort – which omission I believe was in breach of the guidelines.

The CEO did not state that the agreement with Superdrug was subject to a non-disclosure agreement but even if were, that would not have allowed Skinbiotherapeutics to breach stock market regulations in this way. Shareholders can only see that they have been greatly harmed, not only by the >10% dilution of their stake in the company but also by the impact this announcement has had on the SBTX share price which has fallen almost 20% below the placing price of 17p.

Shareholders are shocked that a small scale retail trial with Superdrug could justify an alleged investment of £4m net and many have demanded a numerical justification for it in the shape of ROI estimates and future revenue guidance. The CEO has not responded to these requests and I trust you will require him to comply with The UK Secondary Capital Raising Review guidance that companies should make adequate disclosure for secondary fundraises which should "focus on the background to and reasons for the fundraise, the amount and use of proceeds and, as relevant, how the transaction will affect the company’s strategy, financial viability and forward-looking guidance”.

Best regard

Agree mostly, ox123 but I wouldn't underestimate the power of TikTok/Youtube/Instagram. Some target customers may not see these channels but they are likely to get directed to them by F&F. A lot also depends on what kind of campaign Superdrug delivers via advertising, press releases, promotions, their own influencers, etc. What works for Superdrug will also benefit Skin direct sales. (This may be a good place to keep an eye on Superdrug campaigns: https://www.superdrug.com/corporate/newsroom .)

But on no account should amateurs like Ashman or any of his colleagues get involved in Skin promotional campaigns without hiring – and deferring to – a marketing professional and good agencies, otherwise it will be recipe for burning cash. And before committing, they should watch and wait to see what kind of volumes Superdrug's marketing machine can shift.

The website is wrong then. Work it out for yourself:

"UKLR 5.5.3

29/07/2024

For the purposes of UKLR 5.5.1R and UKLR 5.5.2R, shares are not held in public hands if they are:

(1) held, directly or indirectly, by:

(a) a director of the applicant or of any of its subsidiary undertakings;

(b) a person connected with a director of the applicant or of any of its subsidiary undertakings;

(c) the trustees of any employees’ share scheme or pension fund established for the benefit of any directors and employees of the applicant and its subsidiary undertakings;

(d) any person who, under any agreement, has a right to nominate a person to the board of directors of the applicant; or

(e) any person or persons in the same group or persons acting in concert who have an interest in 5% or more of the shares of the relevant class…"

https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/uklr5/uklr5s5?timeline=true#p45467