Member Info for Ssccss

Maybe reframe it and provide some evidence? Unfortunately, your post is more rhetorical, than analytical. It sounds like you are trying to turn egitimate shareholder governance into a morality story... good Board/RMD vs bad campaigners. I can't buy into that based on the current information / evidence we have. Also, I'm afraid my own view of the evidence suggests there have been and continues to be conflicts of interest which do need to be investigated in order to protect existing shareholders.

My own view and the simplest view imo is some shareholders distrust the Board and are using ordinary governance and regulatory channels to challenge dilution, control, transparency, and voting rights.

NU, I'm afraid I don't share your view of what is happening. Surely, if it was only "bad actors" who want to bring the company down that are initiating the FCA investigation/court case/Takeover panel investigation, then how can any issues be found with ppp? To be honest, why would they even investigate them at all, the FCA aren't exactly dynamic in other situations. It just doesn't make sense to me personally. Also, these bad actors would be drawing a lot of attention to themselves... So I really don't understand your perspective at all. I really believe there are some holders who are upset with what has happened since suspension (as well as before) and who want it addressed in the correct and legal way. All this attention is is more likely to bring previous directors to account if required. Plus I think it's highly unlikely RMD are going to run out of money. They haven't actually committed that much and the terms are very favourable. I am trying to understand why you see it like this.

Maybe read the rules again Zag.

Well I guess we wait for the next installment of this sorry saga.

Plus the wording insinuates some are not legacy issues.

But ASI the forward looking action is to sort out the legacy issues? So I don't agree they are unrelated.

OK ASI, so why have a vote and ask shareholders to make decisions when there is so much we are not apparently allowed to know. If these investigations are really this serious, then we are all stuck with each other for a long while yet.

OK but what are these issues that need to be dealt with (mainly legacy but not all) ?. I thought it was the return of lent shares? Thats what the company has been prioritising from day 1.

Does anyone know what these issues are ? Don't you think it might be important for us to know, probably would have been good to know before voting imo.

"The outstanding questions that the Company, through Spark, are resolving with the FCA are in the majority, legacy issues which must be dealt with prior to the FCA being satisfied that this Company is suitable for re-admission to trading, rather than the alternative, being cancellation from listing on the Exchange. "

They can't even tolerate users they don't agree with posting. Madness.

I mean look at some of the vitriol thrown on this board on a daily basis. People can't even be civil or listen to alternative perspectives.

Yes Greg, but the company has not tried to unite all shareholders imo. In fact the narrative has been extremely divisive and this is where we end up. There needs to be some compromise on both sides.

UK Corporate Governance Code 2024, Provision 4:

> When 20% or more of votes are cast against the board recommendation, the company should explain what action it will take to consult shareholders, publish an update within six months, and give a final summary in the annual report.

The Investment Association Public Register uses the same 20% or higher vote against the board recommendation threshold to identify shareholder dissent.

So 30% against is clearly not insignificant under UK governance norms as its clearly above the recognised 20% dissent threshold.

How do you know that? Where is this information about negotiations with FCA? Spinks mentioned on a call something but that's not enough. What is being investigated? If the court case, FCA investigation and now Takeover panel investigation are preventing a return to trading then ppp should spell out for all of us what is being investigated and why it will impact a return. They cannot keep shareholders in the continued dark and expect unwavering support.

NU, I don't agree. 30% is not insignificant. The threshold is usually 20% ish apparently in terms of governance. It's a clear message from existing shareholders that there is still an issue IMO.

OK but NU I want to what from ppp, is this true, why not in an RNS and what will be the impact on returning to trading. What are the remaining obstacles. Time for some real transparency, otherwise I don't see how this company can move forward.

That key question can be answered very easily. Just look at the number of votes against the resolutions and look at the last 3 years of ppp. There has been a lot of things people are not happy about and that we still do not have clarity on. Trust is very low. Transparency is low. Conflict of interest isn't low enough imo.

How can it damage ppp if there is no basis to it?

OK but NU, if they company needs to be subject to RTO rules at this stage, then that's what needs to happen? PPP must know what they are doing, RMD must know and now they have Sparks. Between them all, if they don't know how this investigation is going to play out then something is amiss. Imo, either it's a nonsense and it won't prevent ppp from relisting or it's not a nonsense and we have a serious issue. Let's hope for the former.

Spell it out NU. Why do you think this will prevent a return to trading if everything is above board now within ppp? If you don't know then just say. But ppp need to tell us what is going on and what the impacts are likely to be.