Boohoo slams Revolution for ‘lack of transparency’ and demands it publishes share options after heated AGM
Boohoo slammed Revolution Beauty for “a lack of transparency” this morning, while demanding the troubled makeup brand publishes full details of its share options.
It claimed Revolution was burying details of its free share awards – a scheme which gives shares to employees of a listed company – as it laid out a set of demands for the retailer.
The fast fashion firm called for three directors it attempted to fire yesterday at a heated AGM to publish the terms of its share awards. It also demanded it admit the grant of the award was not public knowledge when Boohoo revealed plans to oust the directors on 19 June.
Boohoo believes that the share scheme was buried in five sentences in a document Revolution Beauty published in May and shareholders were not consulted.
This comes after Boohoo’s bid to oust three key directors, Bob Holt, chairman Derek Zissman and chief financial officer Elizabeth Lake, won the backing of shareholders at the AGM this week by a majority of 75 per cent.
In a moment of controversy however, the trio were then allowed to be reinstated by independent director Jeremy Schwartz. as he was the last remaining director – and in order for the company to operate, and relist its shares on the AIM, it needed to have a board of directors in place.
Yesterday was the first time Revolution Beauty shares were traded since they were suspended back in September after auditors raised concerns about its financial accounts and the company failed to publish its 2022 annual results.
Its share price soared 58.8 per cent when markets opened.
Boohoo said: “The only disclosure Revolution Beauty has made around the terms of the Free Share Awards prior to today’s announcement is five sentences hidden in its annual report for the period ended 28 February 2022 published on 26 May 2023.
“They were not referred to in any public announcement prior to yesterday morning. This all demonstrates a lack of transparency and actions which are self-serving and not in the best interests of shareholders.”
Revolution Beauty has been approached for comment.