Member Info for Ssccss

Hepran, a lot of what ppp talk about on the calls is because they have to answer questions on here. Otherwise, they seem to be less than forthcoming imo.

NU, how have you come to this conclusion? Is the info available somewhere?

-

"Its also a rubbish case anyway and he will lose."

"orchestrated nonsense" or facts and understanding?

What bullying from me NU? Gosh, please report me cos I'm sure whoever you are reporting me to, is going to love you even more than they already do.

You asked me to explain. I have explained. Now I wait for you to attack me rather than show any gratitude.

Hepran, you are not the only person who is allowed to have an opinion on ppp and you are not in a position to force others to believe the same things you do. So let it go.

There is an important distinction between:

coordinated bad-faith disruption/trolling, and

legitimate shareholder criticism. These can often get conflated on bulletin boards.

Examples of legitimate criticism could include:

-questioning dilution,

-governance,

-disclosure,

-financing terms,

-director history,

-voting issues,

-related-party transactions,

-relisting progress.

Those are normal parts of shareholder oversight.

Key point - Legally and structurally, boards are accountable to shareholders, not the other way around.

Here you go hepran, saved you some time and put your question into chat for you...here is the answer.

You can support the board strongly while holding the stock — and many shareholders do. Your point is essentially the “stability/support” argument:

a suspended or distressed company needs management backing,

repeated attacks on directors can damage confidence,

lenders/advisers/FCA may look for shareholder unity,

and hostile internal conflict can impair recovery.

That is a real argument.

But the counterpoint is that shareholders own the company; the board merely manages it on shareholders’ behalf. So some investors separate:

1. the underlying assets/opportunity, from

2. the current stewards of those assets.

Examples where this distinction commonly happens:

A company may own valuable licences/assets/projects, but shareholders believe management is weak or dilutive.

Shareholders may believe:

the board made poor financing choices,

disclosed information inadequately,

overpaid executives,

mishandled governance,

or destroyed value through dilution, while still believing the business itself could succeed under different leadership.

Activist investing is built on this exact principle: “the company is worth supporting, but the board needs changing.”

This is extremely common in distressed small caps and AIM stocks.

For example, a shareholder might think:

> “I want PPP relisted and successful, but I oppose certain directors, funding structures, or past conduct.”

That is not logically inconsistent.

Equally, another shareholder may think:

> “Public criticism now harms recovery and the board deserves support until relisting.”

Also a coherent position.

The key point: Owning shares does not create a duty of loyalty to directors. Legally and structurally, boards are accountable to shareholders, not the other way around.

Voting rights exist partly because shareholders may:

support management,

oppose management,

selectively support some resolutions,

reject others,

or try to replace directors entirely.

So your view — that the board may currently need strong support — is one governance philosophy. But it is not the only one shareholders can reasonably hold.

For clarity - voting rights matter because shareholders are not expected to be passive supporters of a board. Corporate governance systems are designed around the possibility that shareholders may:

-oppose resolutions,

-requisition meetings,

-challenge directors,

-litigate,

-or campaign for changes while still remaining shareholders.

That's why shareholder power is a fundamental aspect of equity ownership.

Supporting a stock and supporting a BOD are not always the same thing. That's why shareholders have voting rights. I would have thought that much was obvious.

I'd also really love to know by what mechanism you think my posting can stop ppp from coming back from suspension. Please get some perspective.

I don't know any of the other posters. I have no connection to them at all or to ppp (apart from being a shareholder). So you need to rework your theory. Sorry.

I haven't seen any evidence yet that ppp care about me or my money.

So is that an admin issue or something else. Have the appointments been successfully completed?

Same Townman. Let's hope this comes back ASAP and we can get out.

Zag, you are a shareholder in ppp no rmd. So why are you acting like ppp has nothing to offer. It obviously does as otherwise why are there so many people working for 2 years on it while it's suspended. Why are RMD getting involved in such a toxic and embarrassing drama. Stop selling our investment short. Raise your standards.

Yes, that's my opinion too. Interested to see what others think the reasons are for their involvement... I assume all shareholders have wondered the same thing and come to their own conclusions.

Give a flying... NU. none of you can answer my questions so you are of no benefit to me anyway.

Why are RMD interested in PPP? Can anyone answer this simple question? What is in it for RMD? Big successful company. What do they need ppp for? What is attractive about ppp to them? Answers on a postcard.