Member Info for Toyin

Jansy, In the IMC on December 10th 2024 @ 11m 12s, SA stated he had conformation from Croda that we would receive royalties in calendar year 2024. Anybody on the BOD, the nomad (Cavendish) and advisors at that point is guilty of a dereliction of duty. How, not one person involved queried that statement is beyond belief.

Going forward the only person who should be left on the BOD from the current crop is Alyson Levett.

Hi Nick, No problem, it was late.

Two scenarios:

(i) We get paid when the IP is used, ergo we get the full payment of a load three months after that run.

(ii) We get paid as and when the load gets sold, this could be in small amounts at different times. They could sell 100 litres one month, 200 litres the next month, etc etc.

If I was Croda, I know which I would be pushing for. This is just an example of what I think might have happened. We all know SA stated in IMC we received our first royalties in Dec 24, I cannot believe, that not one person connected with the company didn’t pull him if that statement was false, I would have pulled him the same day, thats the job of the of the nomad & BOD.

Bazzao, I for one did offer on two occasions to SA, greeted with radio silence. Is is a very good idea and I hope they do implement it going forward.

Morning bel, thanks for the comment earlier.

I think it would be good to let Zenakine run, it has took years to get to this point and I think a sale now would be unwise. Plus I don’t think that’s Croda’s mo, I think they would rather pay more for something that is proven and established.

Morning Aquae, yes, agree with you completely. A lot of turmoil but I think its worth stepping back and taking a breath.

Skid, we dont know who knows what at the moment, obviously there has been catastrophic breakdown in protocol which I'm sure will all come out in the wash.

I'm not saying I lend any weight to what SA said, it was just an e.g. My main point is that Zenakine has launched, the vessel has run, so we will get royalties, its just a matter of timing.

Hi Nick

Look at it this way, accrued revenues for ip can be a tricky one, it all depends on the agreement, for example, with ip royalties it could be accrued at the point at which the ip is used let’s say Croda run a vessel SA thinks royalty is due three months after that point, but he’s dropped the ball and Croda say no the agreement is, 3 months after sale. That could be a difference of many months, and more lumpy. It’s all guesswork. He gave a “misleading account of material information.”

Misleading is technically distinct from a lie. A lie is a direct statement of falsehood believed to be false by the speaker. Misleading involves stating something technically true to imply a false conclusion, allowing the speaker to avoid technical insincerity.

So technically what he said was true, but importantly, I believe he’s made a rookie error and tried to bury it instead of coming clean. The vessel has run, they have used the ip, payment will land. This would also concur with what he told Elric this morning. As I said this is just an example. But remember, if the vessel runs we will get paid.

I’m not getting my knickers in a twist over it.

Well said Clio, that’s why I haven’t posted today, a lot of crazed basement dwellers. Zenakine has launched and royalties will follow. It’s £770k which will come in at a later date, anyone would think Zenakine had flopped and been pulled. Croda need this, they spent six years and have probably now spent over £10m getting it to market and promoting it.

Zenakine is the same as it was last week, a transformational cosmetic ingredient.

https://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/news/event-coverage/news/22959852/which-base-cosmetic-ingredients-will-rise-to-the-top-in-the-2026-ct-alls

as per, sbtx do a half ****ed rns’ the payments are easy to work out, it would take five minutes.

this is just to bizarre for words.

Net, would it be fair to say SA did many very odd things?

On a different note, read into the following what you want.

There is a company called Medik8, a high end cosmetic company, I emailed them after launch last year and asked if they were incorporating Zenakine into any products, they said “currently they had no plans to.” I asked the same question on Thursday, got a totally different reply. Medik8 are a customer of Sederma.

Hi

Thanks for your message.

None of our products currently contain Zenakine. While we are unable to disclose specific details about potential upcoming launches or ingredients before they are officially released, rest assured that our team of scientists are always investigating the next generation of active ingredients to ensure we remain at the forefront of skincare science.

I hope this helps and look forward to any further questions you may have.

Kind regards,

L'Oréal announced its agreement to acquire a majority stake in the British premium skincare brand Medik8 on June 9, 2025. The brand, known for its science-led, anti-ageing products, is joining L'Oréal's LUXE Division, with previous owner Inflexion retaining a minority shareholding.

Bigpunt, I had a conversation with someone at a market makers on Friday, he confirmed SA had never spoken to MD.

Greenas, I think you do yourself a disservice. Yes, we are all responsible for our own investments, but if you have a CEO that lies to you, that is not your responsibility. Hope you enjoyed the Guinness.

Thanks Atlantic.

I get the feeling the rns was a rushed situation, I fully expect an update this week to clear up the situation. The company cannot sit on price sensitive information, so my stance is this is a storm in a teacup.

Thanks Gardie, much appreciated. As you say let’s get back on an even keel and leave this mess behind us.

Net, make what you will of the following. Bear in mind, it’s probably a lot closer to what has happened, rather than the whole world caving in.

So — financial issue or harassment/bullying?

Right now, there is zero public evidence of a financial scandal.

If it were financial misconduct (accounts, cash, insider trading, funding irregularities), UK listed companies normally must disclose much more specific language because:

auditors get involved, NOMAD obligations (AIM rules) kick in, regulators may be notified.

You would typically see wording like:

“accounting irregularities” “financial controls” “misstatement” “related party transactions”

None of that appears. Instead, the company chose the very specific legal phrase:

“matters relating to his conduct.”

In UK listed-company governance language, that phrase almost never refers to company finances.

Net, the house broker cannot do anymore than a finger in the air guess due to the NDA. Dazz is an advisor to the BOD, he isn’t and never has been on the BOD.

The Croda deal was signed over six years ago, then updated over twelve months ago based on the term of the original agreement. As shy points out, both meetings would have involved the BOD, advisers, solicitors, etc, etc. If the problem was Croda there would definitely be more names mentioned in the investigation. This is something SA has done by himself.

Shy, I would agree and I think MD is correct, we need some form of update as a matter of urgency to clear this up. I have also emailed the company to make that point.

Well said mol.

Thanks shy, much appreciated.

Josh, TW is not a stupid man and if he had any inside information he certainly wouldn't put it in to the public domain just to look clever. It's a non event.

Mr Ashman has been resigned due to his conduct, let's not forget that. Thats where the focus of conversation should lie. This is not the time for petty one-upmanship games. People who defended SA to the bitter end need to find a mirror and take a long hard luck, not make excuses of divert the story.

Ds, that is just speculation. You are making assumptions, no one knows what has gone on, other than there is an investigation into his conduct. Lets not sensationalise the situation shall we!

Agreed Aquae, but the co should have issued a TU stating "trading in line" or similar in the rns. Its poor form but we are use to it.