Member Info for Woodstein

Whilst it says that shareholders can lodge their interest using the form there is no guidance that I can see on how a shareholder should complete the form.

Sorry for the delayed response, no I am not entirely certain how to complete the form.

Its not it's

Thank you Woody.

I had not heard about this and thought that all shareholders would automatically be contacted by the liquidators. I don't think I have heard anything as yet from them

Does anyone know what the deadline is for submitting the proof of debt form?

Also does anyone know what your debt is if you are a shareholder? Is it what you spent on the shares or is it simply the number of shares that you hold?

Thank you to the D-Group for keeping others in the loop, it is much appreciated. It sounds as if the official receiver has been bombarded with correspondence. I very much hope that they are able to extract all the pertinent information that demonstrates any wrongdoing on the part of the company and it's officers.

Lawyers are very careful to ensure that they are paid promptly and often in advance of carrying out work. It would not surprise me if the sum the claimant based the winding up application on is relatively low and recent.

The solicitors acting for the claimants will be fine. They would not work on this unless they were confident of full payment.

Similarly the liquidators will be fine.

Thank you Dashboom.

I believe this is what the company wanted. I fear that shareholders will only receive a tiny fraction of what they invested or nothing at all.

I understand that liquidators will only look at the previous three years. However, I think that any wrongdoing needs to be brought to light and that the FCA and the police are not limited to looking at the previous three years only where there has been any wrongdoing by a company.

The bundle of documents provided to the Court are generally agreed between the parties. We have no word from WBI as to whether or not they are resisting the application. It may be the case that they are simply leaving it to the applicant's legal advisers to prepare the case bundle. So what is presented to the Court tomorrow may simply be about the applicant carrying out legal work and not getting paid for it.

If there are documents which any shareholders considered to be relevant to the question of whether or not the making of a winding up order is appropriate or not, they may wish to provide a copy of that to the solicitor acting for the applicant.

It is good that the Dashboom message has been copied. The more that I read it the more bizarre it appeared.

If the company has sufficient funding to pursue libel actions then they ought to be able comfortably to settle their solicitor's bill.

It may well be a document that ought to be brought to the attention of the Court looking at the winding up application.

There needs to be full scrutiny of all that has happened, such as what occurred (and did not occur) with the nominated advisers.

If the company did indeed fail to share with shareholders the news of the winding up application then I consider this is not acting transparently and is not sharing pertinent information. If being in receipt of a winding up application is not pertinent then it is difficult to imagine what is.

If there are so many creditors why has a winding up application only occurred now?

The present officers did not update the information regarding major shareholders as far as Rhino were concerned. It would be interesting to know who holds what.

Thank you Dashboom

Just to correct my post from yesterday. It is not the company address that has been switched to the default address by companies house but rather the address of Mr Lucas Marco Kanmé who is listed as the only officer of the company.

If you look at the entry for WBI at the companies house site and then look at filings you can see the filing on the 20th of February with regard to Mr Lucas Marco Kanmé.

Companies house are still listing the London address as the registered address for the company.

I am not signed up to LinkedIn. I have now managed to find the newsletter which refers to you within LinkedIn. I did not realise it was there previously and it took a bit of digging to find it.

Did the company make any announcement about the winding up order? Perhaps I am doing the company a disservice with my understanding that we only learned of this via you and not from the company?

Dashboom and all stakeholders have every right to hold company officers past and present accountable for any failings.

According to the January linked in message, if this is a genuine message from the company, they take the view that previous officers of the company were guilty of serious failures. Again, if this was a genuine message from the company, has the company made all appropriate reports of the alleged wrongdoing and taken all necessary steps in relation to it?

I am not 100% certain that the recent LinkedIn messages from the company are genuine as a consequence of of prior misrepresentation that has been made in relation to this share - such as the bogus article about carbon credits that was circulated when fraudsters took over a defunct online share discussion platform.

I would be interested to hear if there is any news from the discord group as to what steps they are considering taking.

I am confused by the Harri message which partly appears to be coming from a contributor to the message board who also posts on other shares and in other parts appears to be coming from the company. On balance it appears to have a rather personal slant which seems at odds with a company communication.

I note that there is a posting on WBI LinkedIn relating to historical LinkedIn posts which among other things says that the company is committed to transparency. If that is the case why did we hear about the winding up order from Dashboom and not from WBI ?

The most recent accounts indicated that WBI had significant assets which exceeded liabilities. As I understand it each share was valued at four cents based on the positive balance . As far as I am aware only one winding up order has been raised from one creditor. It would be interesting to know what the value of that claim is and - if WBI is asset rich - whether the proposed winding up is proportionate. Are the company negotiating with the creditor?

The previous posting on LinkedIn in January struck a positive note. In all the circumstances shareholders could be forgiven for anticipating that the company will resist the winding up order.

There has been another recent development, which as far as I can gather Is that an application has been made by someone who owns the London address at which WBI was registered to the effect that WBI do not have a claim to this address. Resulting in WBI being given a default address of Company's House in Cardiff instead of the London address. This reflects negatively on the company and if Woodbois has any form of rebuttal shareholders would expect the company to act on this.

I have written to AIM and to the Guernsey Registry. It is not clear to me what AIM can do. They advise that their investigators are confidential and so we will never know. They advised that if misconduct is suspected that this should be raised with the FCA. AIM advised that they would not act on apparent breaches of AIM rules by past company officials as alleged by the present company officials. They said this is because the present company officials are commenting with the company no longer regulated by AIM.

I think this is extremely poor on the part of AIM because the allegations relate to a period when the company was regulated by AIM and have apparently from company officials with crucial knowledge of the company.

But then, AIM are one of the parties who are in favour of changes coming in which include NOMADs scaling down their regulatory responsibilities and focussing on financial dealings. These are changes which will water down the protection for private shareholders. So it does not seem to me that AIM are in the private shareholders' corner.

There is also the possibility that if too much mud is thrown at WBI that could make it harder for the present management team to steady the ship. It is tricky.

Having read a little about Discord they seem to have attracted some controversy and so I am not sure about joining the Discord group and would be grateful if the group could continue to update any key news here - many thanks.

From Offler on 4 August

"Actually Woodstein, it gets better than that. Valsen justifies his research on using OSINT methods to deep dive for data. I am an OSINT, Home Office and COLP approved and have been for 10 years although part retired 5 years ago at 50. His vague descriptions of OSINT processes was total nonsense."

To correct an earlier post of mine Valsen did not say it was illegal or export Okoume. V said on 15 January that it was illegal to sell it in Gabon. V was even more erroneous than I thought. It is like saying you cannot sell whisky in Scotland.

I believe that V and Breaking New are part of the movement to destabilise the share that Guido referred to.

V's monogamous attack on WBI with voluminous stream of consciousness tirades has clearly been designed to damage the company.

V began by saying he or she knew one former Dane from the company. This has ballooned into to V knowing half the company. To such an extent that V presents themselves as a fly on the wall of a company - which at the same time V states is opaque. It is not plausible that V has any knowledge of the company bank balance.

We may or may not discover there has been improper conduct on the part of WBI. Their silence is not helping them. But V's contributions are not made in the good faith claimed.i

V may be in Nigeria. More likely in the UK. But certainly not in Gabon.

I

From the 22 October 2024 RNS

"In common with other companies, Woodbois has seen numerous false, fake and misleading postings across various unregulated social media platforms, The Company cannot react to all of these. Woodbois can confirm that it is working successfully, hand in hand, with the Gabonese Government and other authorities to resolve such destabilising actions."

We do not know who holds what shares. The website is at least almost a year out of date on the holdings of major investors. It does not show, for example, the Pelham shares correctly as they are still listed as non voting but we know they were converted.

I recall that Guido referred to a major holder failing to declare a notifiable change of holding. So even the January information on the website may be incorrect.

It may be the case that all the major holders have sold their shares.

There is much which ideally needs to be brought to light. In my view this includes exploration of price manipulation via forums such as this one. I believe the share has been both ramped and de-ramped and this has been to a much greater degree than the usual either way flannel on forums and it may well amount to criminality. For example the faked share advice website.

Just to add, a citation is how court cases are identified. The construction may be something along the following lines;

R v Scammer 2026

Mafia, I believe that certain postings have been beyond unfair.

Valsen maintained that it was illegal to export Gabon's major timber export. He later withdrew this statement, however, as I have stated before his initial comment was the equivalent of maintaining that Scotland cannot export whiskey.

Assertions that Valsen is in or has ever been to Gabon are not consistent with such a fundamental error of fact.

BreakingNew distributes what are claimed to be witness statements given to police. However, there is no evidence of their veracity.

Both accuse various parties connected with WBI of criminality.

Valsen claims that his/her prolonged and often vitriolic campaign waged against WBI is merely to assist others.

But if one takes the view that criminal activity has occurred, the way forward is to report this to the police. Similarly, if the aim was to help and protect others, the right thing to do would be to report alleged crimes to the authorities. Neither Valsen Breaking New have stated that they have made a police or FCA report. Evidently no one has made any credible report of criminal conduct as there is no evidence of any criminal proceedings.

Instead Valsen and BreakingNew turn their attention to at least one share forum to seek to influence shareholders and potential shareholders of a company.

WBI forums have previously been targeted by fraudsters seeking to manipulate the share price. To seek do so is to commit a criminal offence.

The allegations that there has been criminality on the part of WBI officers and investors have been set out in forums over a long period of time now. If there is any truth to the allegations, where are the details of criminal court proceedings?

I await with interest what the company has to say about the AIM cancellation. If there are any subsequent investigations, these would need to extend to incorporate the conduct of those contributing to share forums.

A sustained and concerted effort to damage the reputation of a company can cause a company great harm and if false allegations have been made that have thereby caused or contributed to loss to bona fide shareholders, then the potential defendants in any class action may be those who have made any such false statements.

BreakingNew, to establish your credibility;

Please provide the citations for the financial legal proceedings that you have alleged that Sebastiaan Rijckaert is presently faced with.

Please provide citations for any cases which have resulted in a criminal conviction at any time for anyone connected with Woodbois whether an officer of the company or an investor

Please provide the citation for any legal proceedings pursuant to the documents that you posted on the forum that are claimed to be the witness statements of former officers of the company alleging that they were coerced into signing documents.

Thank you for your assistance.

When Valsen stated on 15 January 2025 at 9.30 a.m. that Okoumé was banned from sale in Gabon they lost all credibility.

They clearly have no knowledge of the timber business in Gabon. Okoumé from Gabon is very much for sale and legally so.

The wood database is an easily accessible resource. If you look at their page about Okoumé below under the headings "Common uses" and "Comments" you will see how commercially important Okoumé is to Gabon and that it has many uses including for veneer, boat-building and furniture.

https://www.wood-database.com/okoume/

It may be that Valsen looked at this or a similar site and saw a reference to the IUCN Red list and wrongly concluded that this meant that Okumé was banned from sale in Gabon.

They would not have made this mistake if they were at all acquainted with the Gabon timber business or had a basic knowledge of Gabon.

Over a third of all trees in the world are on the Red list. Being on the Red list does not mean there is a ban on sale. A Red listing is an advisory mark of concern graded at various levels. It is not a ban.

Further, Gabon authorities maintain that the Red listing for Okoumé as "vulnerable" is based on the position in 1998, that the listing is not warranted and that the IUCN need to factor in a quarter of a century of progress on public policies that are now in place for the management of forestry in Gabon.

On allergies and toxicity it is interesting to note that a very large number indeed of commercial types of wood are associated with instances of allergies and/or toxicity - as can be seen via the link below. So Okoumé is not unusual in this regard and it is very good to see that severe reactions are quite uncommon with Okoumé.

https://www.wood-database.com/wood-articles/wood-allergies-and-toxicity/