Member Info for Toyin

He is in the same boat as us Bazza, late July early August.

bazza, actually at a 10+ year low. foots has been ceo since 2012 and apart from the scamdemic hype croda share price has gone nowhere in a decade, and we are letting this useless **** dictate to us. i wouldn't mind, we had safety and efficacy results in 2018 ffs! i wouldn't put them in charge of an ice cream van! hindsight is a terrible thing, it suggests we should have scaled up ourselves, better use of dilution!

Some serious damage has been done to this company, from expected initial revenues in 2021, four years later, still nothing, then an extensions, then this NDA, which should have been lifted way before now. You can see from both share prices the market doesnt believe either management have done a good job.

The essence of SBTX is black box IP, not acquisitions. At this moment in time the co is all about Croda because we have no other deals. The only thing that will change our fortunes is to release the company from the financial part of the NDA (even though it has zero power over fulfilling regulatory responsibilities). If the TU has no Croda numbers I will be back on to the very helpful lady at the FRC.

Prospector, the “fast" comment was made by the Croda CEO. Yes, I believe the company is in breach of AIM rules and accounting laws. I am currently in discussion with the FRC, but I have to wait until the TU is published before I proceed.

Net, you are correct, legally SA doesnt need to release any rns, but he said he would.

Regarding royalties, seeing as they started last June, I was expecting them in the HY update but they never arrived. Bearing in mind, revenue must be accrued at point of (Croda) sale, not when the cash arrives. So with how royalties are logged and what the law states, I dont see how the TU cannot have the total revenue for the year.

Prospector, SA has already confirmed the Croda CEO’s comments re very fast uptake for a new product was about Zenakine. Regarding a rock and a hard place, the NDA has zero power in the reporting of royalties, the law is the law.

Royalties received by a UK company, including a public limited company (PLC), are treated in accounting primarily based on accrual accounting principles and relevant accounting standards such as IFRS and UK GAAP.

No agreement, including contracts or internal agreements, can legally stop a public limited company (PLC) from conforming to its regulatory requirements. Regulatory compliance is mandatory and imposed by law, meaning that any contractual provision that attempts to prevent or contradict compliance with applicable laws and regulations would be invalid and unenforceable. Contracts and agreements typically include explicit clauses requiring the parties, including PLCs, to comply with all relevant laws and regulatory obligations. For example, standard contract clauses state that the parties must comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, overriding any conflicting provisions in the agreement

If changes in laws or regulatory rulings require amendments or adjustments, parties are expected to comply, and agreements generally allow for such modifications’

To summarise:

Regulatory obligations for PLCs are legally binding and cannot be overridden by private agreements.

Agreements often include compliance clauses explicitly to ensure adherence to applicable laws.

Any agreement that attempts to prevent compliance with legal or regulatory requirements would be invalid.

PLCs must conform to regulatory requirements regardless of any contradictory provisions in contracts or agreements.

This principle ensures that legal and regulatory frameworks have precedence as mandatory rules that govern companies, including PLCs, protecting public and stakeholder interests.

"Toyin, would i be correct in the algo basket project was something you had a hand in? Wasn't the artle front loaded with several caveats, which later concluded it had flaws where you spotted during the testing process?"

Yes, that is correct PG

There you go oleric, just for you.

https://lemminginvestor.substack.com/p/skinbiotherapeutics-plc-54e

Its actually based on amazon data like this:

Dermatonics Fast-Acting Manuka Honey Heel Balm | Nourishing Formula for Rough and Cracked Heels | Hydrates and Softens Dry Feet | Suitable for Diabetics| 70 ml

Visit the Dermatonics Store

4.7 4.7 out of 5 stars (1,422)

| Search this page

Amazon's Choice

2K+ bought in past month

If you want to complain to anyone best contact Amazon.

Keegan agrees seeing as he has contraction in FY26!

Dustbin, "A broker has freedom , it’s his best guess. If I was Ashman I would be fine Start low and build”

I am not as bullish as you on Croda, but I have Singers out by £3m for FY26, if you think that is going in low or ok you need your head feeling!

Net, "I dont think SBTX are late. I dont think they have to legally report anything until FINALS”

In the IMC there was a slide saying we would get an update in July, SA did caveat that with it may be after that. Irrespective Croda have been selling since June 24, over twelve months of revenue unreported, that is not acceptable.

Dustbin you are talking out your ar5e, it's the house broker they have access to management just like Cavendish did. Why are we shareholders paying for utter garbage broker notes. Since we have been at Singers, they have had commission on a £4m fund raise, an initiation note and then they will get more for an upgrade after the TU. Coke and hookers all round I guess!

Shy, I just cant see that, if what you have put out there turned out be true, that is fraud. SA wouldn't only be in trouble with regulators, that would be old bill time!

Shy, agreed. SA has recently confirmed Singers numbers are incorrect, Singers are incompetent. I just dont see SA reiterating guidance then missing, that would not be good for him.

Shy, we know the Singer note is wrong, for the simple fact they have FY26 at £6.2m which I would suggest is about £3m light. As you say lets see what the YE TU says, but whatever the numbers are someone is going to have a problem!

Oldscool, SA said Croda has been selling since June 24 and seeing as royalties are booked under accrual accounting principles and Mr Foots confirmed it has had a very fast uptake, I would suggest informing investors of royalties received thus far isn't unreasonable, also its a PLC’s legal obligation, but lets not let that get in the way!

Parsons, the Singer note was and still is extremely misleading. The revenue number for FY25 is wrong and FY26 is just so off the charts incorrect it's embarrassing, it should have been pulled or corrected, its sloppy and incompetent, if Keegan is an expert, god help us! To leave it in the market with no correction is unacceptable, the market looks ahead and FY26 looks like a disaster, which it clearly isn’t.

Oldscool, nearly six years into a four year agreement, four months after we got told we would have numbers, we have no numbers. How patient would you suggest investors to be?

Listen @ 21 minutes.

https://stream.brrmedia.co.uk/broadcast/680f7199c26db80012472fc7/688879dfdc8dab001395876b

Bazza, it's not as simple as that. Beauty active sales could be down, remember Zenakine replaces 5 or 6 ingredients, so sales could be down, but overall profit margin up.

From this mornings rns:

New product launches included a biotech-derived keratin for the professional hair salon market, and a neuro-cosmetic active that enhances skin's resistance to physical and emotional stress, with a new process also commissioned to enhance our capability in speciality excipients for drug delivery

Renewed customer demand and increasing innovation are reflected in increased sampling activity, with customer requests for samples of our innovative Beauty ingredients up 10% CAGR over the last two years

Shy, the FD said in the presentation, any acquisition would be no more than a few million.

Dire, under what circumstances?

WILLG, read my earlier post, Croda must inform SBTX as soon as they make a sale under accrual accounting principles.