Revolution Beauty shares are restored as spat with Boohoo continues

Revolution Beauty shares recommenced trading on the London Stock Exchange on Wednesday, with the embattled retailer surging more than 55 per cent at the open.

But Revolution Beauty’s public spat with Boohoo, its largest shareholder, has deepened after yesterday’s chaotic annual general meeting, which saw the ousting of top executives immediately followed by their reappointment. 

Boohoo, which has a stake of around 26.6 per cent, said on Wednesday it had ‘serious concerns’ about the AGM conduct of Revolution Beauty’s board, describing its actions as ‘self-serving and not in the best interests of shareholders’. 

It has called for another general meeting to once again remove chief executive Bob Holt, chief financial officer Elizabeth Lake and chairman Derek Zissman.

The comments follow yesterday’s AGM, which saw Zissman attempt, but fail, to postpone the meeting amid a proposed boardroom coup by Boohoo.

Zissman, Holt and Lake were then removed from the board.

That left just one director, Jeremy Schwartz, who appointed a new slate of directors including the three who had just been ousted. 

For now at least, Zissman, Holt and Lakwill remain in their prior roles.

In a stock exchange statement today, Revolution Beauty claimed ‘Boohoo is seeking to stage a board and management control coup without making a general offer, or paying a single penny, to independent shareholders’.

‘The approach taken by Boohoo towards Revolution Beauty is nothing short of value-destructive, opportunistic and self-serving,’ it added.

It also told shareholders that Boohoo’s actions could cause another delay in the publication of the company’s annual results, due at the end of August, resulting in another suspension of Revolution Beauty’s shares.

Revolution Beauty shares jumped 55 per cent to 29.50p in early trade on Wednesday. But even after today’s bounce, they remain well below their IPO price of 160p in July 2021.

The shares had been suspended since the 1 September after auditors refused to sign off its books for the financial year.

Meanwhile, Boohoo said it ‘fails to see how such a board can claim to be acting in the best interests of shareholders, and is instead self-serving, as demonstrated by its actions over the last 24 hours’. 

‘This will likely result in significant remuneration and share awards for members of a self-elected board at the lifting of the suspension of trading in its shares,’ it added. 

‘It is notable that at no point did the remuneration committee seek prior shareholder consultation, or approval in relation to these awards, again contravening best practice in relation to corporate governance.’