Byotrol Share Discussion Threads

[supernumerary] 31/3/2024 18:42

brownson - the 'large shareholders' will already be in on it I expect. What usually happens is that they then have a rights issue, the large insiders all take it up, the small outsiders decline for obvious reasons, and the company ends up controlled by the management and large shareholders who force out any remaining minnows.

I haven't checked the documentation but if there's a vote, it's often 75% of those who are present to vote - I've seen such things go through with much less than 75% of the vote, because there were only 10-20% of shares present at the meeting to be voted. Not saying anything like that applies here, just that one needs to be very careful about how votes are organised.

[brownson] 31/3/2024 11:06

It would be great to vote this down, because it would presumably mean the end of DT, which in my opinion would give the company at least a tiny chance of success. A stronger board would have sacked him a long time ago.However, they will have done the schmoozing, had a count up and will be sure it goes through. What I cant understand is how the large shareholders have allowed this to happen. Delisting will remove a significant level of oversight and give the useless management an even easier ride.

[cliffpeat] 31/3/2024 09:59

@gw / @football / @microscope

And Pinto and wife?

Would 26% defeat the resolution - and to what purpose given the desperate need to change the management?

454m shares in issue

25% = 114m

I hold 300k through Hargreaves Lansdowne in SIPP

hxxps://byotrolplc.com/investor-overview/shareholder-information/ - 38.55% - 175m shares

What plans (if any) have been suggested to the "consulted" holders that may not have been disclosed?

[1gw] 30/3/2024 23:09

As it happens, I contacted the company when the interims came out to express my views on delisting, given it was flagged as a possibility in the report and explicitly talked about in a press article at the time.

I made the point that delisting would cause problems for those who held in an Isa, and probably for some who held in a Sipp. I asked if anyone on the board considered the viewpoint of retail shareholders when discussing the possibility of delisting and asked if consideration could be given to facilitating the practical aspects of retaining shares for those holding in Isas and Sipps.

From memory I was given to understand that that (by implication, near-term delisting) was not what was being said and I shouldn't believe everything I read in the press.

[maxk] 30/3/2024 23:06

Of course the main players have been consulted.

It's a done deal imo!

[football] 30/3/2024 22:49

I'm guessing there is 7% between 3 shareholders here that would vote against it So just need 18.00000001% more

[microscope] 30/3/2024 21:43

Have you been contacted 1gw? Guessing from your comments not. Or indeed anyone else here?

Any chance it fails, or you could get enough other significant holders onside to vote it down if as it sounds that's your leaning....? 75pc is chunky.

[1gw] 30/3/2024 21:27

The board appears to be trying to push this through at breakneck speed despite saying that they have sufficient cash to finance current operations at present.

They have consulted "certain" shareholders and acknowledge that some shareholders may be unwilling or unable to hold shares after cancellation. They suggest those shareholders consider selling.

They state that they believe the cancellation is in the best interests of the Company and the Shareholders as a whole.

So how many shareholders have they consulted? A handful? What proportion of the shares do those shareholders hold? Would any shareholder outside those they have consulted not wish to see a formal sale process run prior to committing to cancellation if finances would allow this to happen? Why is there not an Investor Meet Company presentation or similar being held well ahead of the deadline for proxy voting to allow the vast majority of shareholders to have a say before being forced to commit?


"At present we have sufficient cash to finance current operations and commitments..."

"...the Directors have conducted a careful review of the benefits and drawbacks to the Company and the Shareholders in retaining the Company’s quotation on AIM and believe that the Cancellation is in the best interests of the Company and the Shareholders as a whole."

"In reaching this conclusion, the Board has consulted certain Shareholders"

"The Directors are aware that certain Shareholders may be unable or unwilling to hold Ordinary Shares in the event that the Cancellation is approved and becomes effective. Such Shareholders should consider selling their interests in the market prior to the Cancellation becoming effective."

"Latest time and date for receipt of online proxy votes or completed Forms of Proxy...11.00 a.m. on 18 April 2024"

[microscope] 30/3/2024 12:37

When the Canadian guy (or American, can't rightly recall) said on a results conference call along lines of 'doubled turnover from 5 million to 10 million in ten years' and 'immensely proud' of that, the red flag was raised.

Given Covid was in full swing, they should probably have been doubling turnover in a year.

And they made it clear not that long ago leaving AIM was an option. Anyone still holding after that was doing so on a wing and a prayer, it was already clear cash was tight, at best.

They were in one way taking on industry giants in the sales market, so i understand the search for niche angles such as seaweed etc etc, but they were always odds against to come up with meaningfully better products from near scratch than the ferocious competition they faced, and at profitable pricing, as the venture into Walmart showed, for example.

[cliffpeat] 30/3/2024 11:32

How many account managers for how much £ms in sales p.a. at 44% margin??

[1gw] 30/3/2024 11:28

While some sales in Malta might be nice at the margin, the board appear to have bet the company (or at least the equity in it) on material Solvay commission coming through in FY23 and/or being able to ramp up Anigene sales in France & Germany in a few months starting in FY24 (Apr-Jun 2023). The European ramp-up was critical because the company had chosen to sacrifice revenue elsewhere in an attempt to focus down on key products and market segments. Both key parts of the plan (Solvay revenue and rapid European growth) seem to have failed miserably.

Where is the Solvay commission?
Where are the French and German Anigene (and Chemgene) sales?
Where are the RTU cruise products?

Where was the internal challenge to what appear to have turned out to be such ill-thought-out plans? If the flaws weren't spotted during plan development, why did the wise heads of the board not challenge more effectively before committing the company down this path? When the plans got past the board, why were internal performance management processes not in place to spot the problems earlier and take mitigating action? The company spent the best part of a decade positioning itself for this pivot to growth through roll-out of new platforms across Europe. It's quite incredible how quickly it all imploded.

[loafofbread] 30/3/2024 09:32

Posted about an hour after the RNS.

📢 Our PROCESSUS® instrument decontamination system is now approved for use in Malta and available from our distributor, Hygieia & Co.

🔬 Formulated for animal and human healthcare applications, PROCESSUS®, is a simple three-step system to ensure surgical instruments and equipment are effectively protected, cleaned, and disinfected.

💻 Visit our website for product information and documentation at byotrol.com/products

☎ Ask our account managers Hayley Hunt David Stephens, Lizzie Dodgson BaHons RVN and Vicky West how PROCESSUS® can help your organisation to improve patient care both in the UK and abroad.

[loafofbread] 29/3/2024 18:14

A number of other companies have gone down this route over the past few days.

C4XD
SND Sondrel
Molecular Ind

Bidstack went into admin after spending £25M and then got bought out by the BOD the next day. Pretty shocking even for Aim!

Superdry will collapse on Tuesday.

Never seen anything like it.

[1gw] 29/3/2024 15:30

What's happened here in my opinion is that they got their forecasting and read of the market badly wrong and that was perhaps exacerbated by some poor choices on key hires and ineffective planning and performance management. They overestimated on revenue and overcommitted on expenditure and now fear running out of cash without drastic action such as that proposed yesterday.

If you read the RNS and the circular you might think that AIM was a large part of the problem. I can see no acknowledgement that years of “overpromising” and underdelivering may have made the company uninvestable for many investors under current leadership. That failure to guide conservatively has been particularly evident on the IP side and they outdid themselves yesterday with the comment that they “are not expecting any further IP revenue in the year” having guided through Cavendish as recently as December to £800k IP revenue.

I remained invested largely on the basis of the potential of the IP side of things, feeling that the portfolio of deals provided reasonable protection. It turns out it wasn’t sufficient protection.

I find it difficult to believe that delisting is the best option for the majority of shareholders if there is any prospect of a trade sale. If they have explored that and rejected it as an option I am surprised not to see it stated in the circular. And with the market cap currently around £700k, I also find it difficult to see the proposed £500k fundraise as a “minor” fundraise – it is going to lead to massive dilution, isn’t it?

[bomber13] 29/3/2024 14:44

Hindsight is a painful investment indeed , and , with that in mind , perhaps the lack of director buying after the interims in December , the lack of a post results meeting , and the lack of traction to hiring a new CEO were all red flags that I should have taken better notice of .

My guess is that the process announced yesterday was going on much longer than the Chairman's final comments at the time of the interims -

" The Board regularly reviews whether we can achieve our targets as an independent, listed company and has concluded for the time being that we can. We are now keeping this conclusion under frequent review and will not hesitate to take a different route if it will lead to better returns for shareholders "

I am out now licking my wounds , but I wish all long term sufferers those better returns the Chairman has promised either under the same questionable management or A N Other ?

[loafofbread] 29/3/2024 13:58

The current executive management team will remain in place after the proposed Cancellation and Re-registration process.

Should Cancellation be approved by Shareholders, Dr Trevor Francis, Non-Executive Chairman since April 2023, will step down and return to a Non-Executive Directorship. Dr Francis will be replaced by Ashley Head, currently Non-Executive Director.

My take on this, is DT and the rest of the club have a very comfortable set up at the expense of us share holders. They have failed at every stage to progress this company.

They have obviously decided to look after themselves rather than a formal sale process of the company which would be a better outcome for most shareholders.

£300k. year for the next 3/4/5 years for just turning up. No wonder they want to continue the status quo. Hardly going to be able to get another position with his track record.

[football] 28/3/2024 21:05

How do you have the winning lottery ticket but only end up collecting a lucky dip

[brownson] 28/3/2024 18:37

The current management and BOD are so useless that whatever happens they will fail. If seaweed proves to be the elixir of life, Traynor and crew still couldn’t sell it. How many times did he say the strategy was working despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary?. VP did well to jump ship. I imagine he has a career to think about.

[cliffpeat] 28/3/2024 17:41

Oh dear!

Just been looking at a few other companies where Ashley Head is or has been a director. Small and loss making seems to be a common thread. I thought he was bringing commercial experience of exploiting seaweed technology to the party. But after 4 years as director of Ocean Harvest Technology (UK) Ltd he ceased in March 2022. In the year to 31 December the turnover was £20k and loss £945k!

The Special Resolutions passed in September 2023 should have been a warning sign but I was too lazy to read and understand the possible reasons and insiders' motivations for the changes to the Memo & Arts.

My post #12367 in December is now looking (sadly) prescient:

CliffPeat7 Dec '23 - 10:54 - 12367 of 12616 Edit
0 0 0
Speculation and maybe just a negative state of mind

re: Delisting option

It might explain:

1. Strangely low share price despite hardly any share transactions
2. Possible sale when private - surely that would not already be being negotiated? [Edit - sarcasm]
3. No director buys
4. CEO resignation
5. Resolutions on 25 Sep23
6. NED appointment

Would be very disappointing if this turns out to be anything near what happens.

DYOR

[loafofbread] 28/3/2024 16:44

SONDREL RNS saying the same thing today.

[andymunchkin] 28/3/2024 15:40

andymunchkin20 Feb '20 - 21:23 - 4543 of 12614 Edit
0 1 1
tisPumpd byAfzalValli gang?? noWonder
----
It tOOk a whhile