Supply@me Capital (LSE:SYME) — Annual General Meeting

0:02 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome you to the annual general meeting of SUPPLY at ME CAPITAL, which has been convened by the notice of the annual general meeting dated 11/05/2025. I am Albert Ganushin, and I will be chairing this annual general meeting, which I shall thereafter refer to as this AGM. Before we move on to the formal business of the AGM, I'd like to introduce my colleagues, the board, and the management team. To my right is Alexandra Galligan, the nonexecutive director of the company, independent nonexecutive director. Just moving on without prioritizing anybody else. So Alessandro, obviously, CEO of the company Amy Benning, CFO and David, the bull, independent nonexecutive director.

1:06 And the as the time for convening the AGM is of 11:00 has passed, and as the quorum is of the members is present, I would like to declare this AGM open. The business of this AGM is set out in the notice of the AGM, which, with your agreement, I propose to take as read. If anyone wishes to object, please raise your hand now. Thank you. The board received a number of questions, quite a lot of questions through the platform in advance of the AGM via the investor meet company platform.

1:59 And we took that on. And prior to opening the floor to further questions, which I'm I'm sure you will have plenty, we would like to take you through a presentation where we try to take the questions that you asked, constructively approach them through a presentation. You know, we'd like to cover the answers and the key themes in that arising from the submitted questions. So I think with this, I'm going to hand over to, I think, Amy first, and we will just run through a few slides. Yeah. Morning, everyone. I'm just going to touch on, to start with, a few points around the Liberu on demand convertible loan facility that we signed up to in 2025.

2:53 We had a few questions about this through the platform, hopefully. I'm sure most of you probably are aware of the ins and outs of the agreement, but I'm just going go over a few key points just to kind of help answer some of those questions. So this was a related party transaction due to Alexandro's connection to Nibiru, which was the company that provided the loan to us, which is a U. S.-listed company. The independent directors chose to approve the transaction due to the challenging sort of financial position the company was in at the time and also the limited funding options that were available to the company. I'm sure you're aware that there were several delays with receiving some of the tranches, but we received the final amount in October 2025. So now the full US5.1 million dollars has been received by the company.

3:45 And on receipt of that final tranche, it allowed the company to release TAG from its shareholder loan that was agreed to in 2023. And Alessandra is going to touch on the current financial position of TAG in a few slides. So they were released from having to provide that shareholder loan and also any sort of late payment interest that arose due to the kind of nonperformance of that. So the next slide covers the repayment of the Nibiru On Demand convertible loan note facility. At this stage, the company's intention is to repay this loan through the conversion mechanisms that are within the agreement. So this allows Nibiru to convert the loan into ordinary shares of the company at a fixed conversion rate of 0.003p per share.

4:40 And at the time that those conversion shares are issued, there's also a requirement for the company to issue warrants to Nibiru at a ratio of one warrant to every two ordinary shares that are issued. There is an excise price associated with those warrants, although Naboori can also elect to excise them on a cashless basis. In order for all the ordinary shares and warrants to be issued, the company does need to obtain various approvals. One of those is from the shareholders, also from the FCA and from the takeover panel. So that process to obtain those approvals has been started, and more information on that will kind of come in the future. Following the full conversion of the on demand facility, it's expected that Nabooru will gain a controlling interest of the company.

5:36 And also another kind of key point just to touch on is if the approvals that I just talked about previously are not obtained by the 06/30/2026, Unibury is able to demand a cash repayment of that loan And then also certain security over IP that exists in the Italian entities will be given to Nibiru under the agreement. I think the final point just to note is that currently interest is occurring daily on that facility at the rate that's in the slides there. And it's expected that any interest that's accrued and outstanding at the date of any conversions will also be repaid through the issue of new ordinary shares. Right. So Alessandra, I'll hand over to you.

6:24 Thank Thank you, and good morning, and thank you to attend also who is in person today that I think that is always important to see in person shareholders together with our shareholders in a virtual, let's say, space. So this slide, I believe that it's important to give an update of TAG because we saw a lot of questions, not only now because there is the shareholder meetings, but also during this year, we received a lot of queries. We are lucky that all this information are on public domain. So we saw some shareholders that correctly, they collected the information from public sources.

7:09 But we believe that this is a good summary where TAG now is so you I think that you are aware that TAG enter in this restructuring process early January of this year. The goal was to manage some creditors' position that TAG should we thought in TAG that was better to enter in this, let's say, restructuring, let's say, framework. Then TAG had an issue on presenting this restructuring plan in the month of June, July. And at the end, under the Italian law, if a company presents or have some, let's say, deficiencies in presenting a plan, the outcome is to enter into the liquidation stage.

8:05 That is a process, is not an immediate liquidation. It's a long process, where also it's possible to argue or try to work in order to get maybe, again, the rights to have a restructuring plan. It's what personally I ask to the attorneys to work on this action in order to allow TAG is possible to go again in, let's say, in the original plan to have a restructuring plan approved, And TAG will have a nearing plan around eighteen of December of this year, so basically a few weeks. On the other hand, in the moment, under the Italian law, TAG is managed by an independent administrator that technically is, you know, like a compliance officer that has just to follow some, let's say, actions or guidelines that the Italian solvency code typically asks to this type of status of companies.

9:13 And long story short, we will see the outcome of the hearing of December 18. So one case is the possibility of target to get back into a restructuring process or to work on a liquidation procedure under gun concern status. So basically, the liquidator will manage the liquidation of assets under, let's say, a customary process that will take typically in Italy four, five years to give you a sense of also the time frame. So as Amy said, at the moment, TAG has, let's say, has not any commitment, no longer commitment to fund the SYME. So I think that from the corporate perspective, this process is not great because TAG was one of the main shareholder of SUPPLY at ME. But on the other hand, on the funding side or the possibility to work with, let's say, strategic partners and be funded, I believe that this process will not have any impact because as Amy said, the company has now a new strategic partner that is new guru that I believe that is positive in considering the, let's say, the trajectory that the company still has.

10:37 So speaking about business, that is what we like to do, right, not speaking just on formalities and other, let's say, unfortunate other type of, let's say, procedures. I have a I have we have prepared a few slides that I hope that are helpful to understand where we are, what we what the company did, what we believe is a potential trajectory or what are still the challenges. And hopefully, in the queries section, we can discuss business and discuss maybe how you as a shareholder, so you see the company trajectory and we are happy to respond. So this slide, it's just, let's say, the takeaway is that in my my opinion, this year or last year, so also in the next years will be not easy, let's say, easy moments for corporates.

11:41 Right? So small, medium enterprises, also large enterprises are facing difficulties, and the the outlook is not great. I'm speaking about Italy, some European countries, and also, I believe, UK. And the important point is that if there is a certainty, typically, an entrepreneur is more maybe focused on restructure the balance sheet, find maybe some way to be more productive, to find a way to survive, right, not to invest and not to maybe do business. And this slide without investing too much time, but is, let's say, the outcome is basically pass this message. So in the European, in the Euro area, the entrepreneurs, let's say, they have a they are thinking about to invest more, to invest in maybe expanding and expansion of this business and maybe to increase the inventory levels, speaking about our business model.

12:53 And the, let's say, the approach of wait and see is an approach that we believe that we are seeing in our potential clients in also discussing with our investors and referring to inventory funders, banks. And so this is an important, let's say, takeaway point. Also, the request of some clients or some corporates are more focused to restructure the debt, the balance sheet, to ask loans to maybe expand, extend the duration of the the of the debt side of the balance sheet and maybe to stay prudent to not, let's say, invest in in business activities. So long story short, we believe that the needs of inventory monetization, inventory funding, financing, receivable financing is still a need, but obviously, we see prudence in our clients.

13:53 Again, not only small, medium enterprise, but also large corporates that technically, you know, they are they are, let's say, observing the outlook and also observing if the inventory funders, the banks, the commercial banks, they have appetite, you know, to to to this type of to support the working capital of of of corporate. We we do hope this slide It's a good slide so we share we can share some names because I believe that, you know, it's also a point that shareholders sometimes ask to improve the transparency of what we are doing, improve transparency of some names that are real names in our business that, in opinion, are also a good signal of, you know, of trust of potential of a potential, let's say, path that we can we can work on. And so we summarized in this slide what also recently with our update in the market, we tried to tell to the market. So at the moment, in our, let's say, portfolio of inventory monetized, we have four corporates.

15:12 One is a Techne that I believe that also because of the Buru publication or communications, the market understood that Techne was in our portfolio and is still in our portfolio of inventory monetized with also potential scalability. We have this company, the name is Marangoni, that is a mid cap distributor of tires. That is a good example of how the inventory monetization can work well. We have this company that is B2C model on, let's say, Close that I don't know if UK there are some point of sales of this brand, but in Italy, there is a well known name of, let's say, close in particular in the sport sector.

16:03 And recently, we got this new client in the, let's say, ENOX sector supply chain that is an interesting supply chain with the pros and cons, but is a poor b to b model. And so these are, let's say, only for clients. If you see, you know, what also from our point of view, it's not our goal to have four clients after multiple years. On the other hand, there are four different business models. One is a b to b model for Italian or, let's say, for governments. So a business model of tech needs based of orders, projects and delivery for governments with a longer cycle, a cash to cash cycle of two hundred days.

16:54 So it is super important needs to have some someone that can fund inventory waiting, let's say, the life cycle of this delivery. A b to b to c model, the tires, that is interesting because, you know, this company, again, the you know, buy, I don't know, tires from Michelin and then sell to b to b or b to b to c, you know, with the need to have, you know, the manage the seasons, the summer, the winter seasons, as you can image. The typical B2C mode, the point of sales for retails that had needs, you know, inventories or stocks, the stocks to have a just in time or to have the right product, in particular, now, for instance, in the winter, near Christmas, they have to sell to have in stock the right goods.

17:41 And a B2B industrial, the ENOC or steel supply chains that are low margins, high volumes, but they need to have the right, let's say, business continuity, time to delivery, that is a big important point. On the funding side, think that maybe some investors, some shareholders with some super investigation powers, they spotted that Azimut is one of our inventory funders. When the company, I think, told it to the market to have institutional investors in the that subscribed the I'm Bond, You see this name that is Azimuth.

18:31 Azimuth is a a very important global asset manager. He's not a a related party. He's not tagged. He's not the buru. He's not, let's say, small a small, let's say, maybe partner, but he's a big asset manager with a big appetite of this type of alternative debt, let's say, opportunities that gave us last year in December, January December 24, January 25, basically, the trust after a long due diligence to, let's say, to try to put a ticket in this innovative structure. Okay? So they subscribed the 3,500,000 of the inventory bond.

19:17 They you know, we consider Assimut an important partner because if you after this meeting, you will see their website, you will see also public announcements. There is a lot of, let's say, potential, let's say, that we can evaluate or we can work with the Azimuth. And we believe that these are super important institutional investors, as we said, in the market through our announcement. Then as we you are aware, we are still working, discussing, working, dealing with Banco BPM despite someone wrote to some departments of the bank asking if they know SUPPLY ME or if they know, you know, us from London or from Italy.

20:09 This is obviously not the right way to think about if SUPPLYME is working with the bank or not, right? Because if a bank with thousands and thousands of, let's say, activities and departments, it's normal that someone can say, we don't know this transaction. But we are we can confirm that we are discussing, we are working with this working group. We invested a lot of money. I mean, every day is telling me how much we invested for this transaction, and we are not getting the outcome. This is true. We invested a lot of time, effort, also the bank, the lawyers, the bank, the lawyers of of of SUPPLY. Me, advisers.

21:01 And so we believe that it's important to have still discussions with Banco BPM that as a bank, the bank was involved in potential takeover from UniCredit in the last, let's say, year and also with a big disputed level European for this golden power tool that the Italian government basically blockage at the takeover of UniCredit on Banco BPM. And long story short, this is an important message that we will continue to work with banks. We know that banks, in particular, Banco BPM, but also other banks have some, let's say, constraints on some regulatory capital rules that the banks have, but it's still for us a potential partner to continue to work and try to deliver this, let's say, white label model.

22:00 Finally, as you are aware, Nuburu invested not only in the for the corporate funding of SUPPLY. Me, you know, by providing roughly 5,000,000 US dollars, but also invested in the transactions, in particular invested into the IIM of Techne. I can tell that it's there is not only the expectation of Nomura to stay alone in this deal with Techne, but they have other investors in order to, let's say, support, let's say, the working capital needs of Techne. But I believe that this is a good signal of, again, another company that, at the end of the day, is listed with independent directors that invested in this inventory monetization model that is, I believe, a signal of trust on this innovative, let's say, model.

22:58 At the right, you see the pipeline trends that, in my opinion, reflects what I was saying in the previous slide. So we have clients, we have, let's say, we have potential clients, we have originators, we have, I believe, opportunities to and we had opportunities to, let's say, discuss with potential client companies. What we observed is that in the last, let's say, few months, at the end, a lot of clients are asking this, let's say, facility to follow that debt restructuring needs that I was saying in the previous slide. So I believe that we refuse a lot of opportunities and not, let's say, make the same mistake of maybe a few years ago that we onboarded a lot of potential clients and then we had maybe issues to find the inventory funder or find the appetite of our inventory funders.

24:02 In this case, our approach is more prudent to have maybe a screening that at the end, we'll have, let's say, a few names, but at least names that are fundable on the inventory, let's say, side. So I believe that we needed to read these numbers in a different way. And obviously, these numbers are can be improved when now SUPPLY ME that is that again released then maybe also from the market public side, the company is still operating with also the, let's say, the restoration of from the listing that was also a problem of, let's say, optical problem to have a business with the problems, firstly, with the auditor, then with accounts not approved, then with the, let's say, the shares suspended, I believe that you can understand the image that was also not easy to speak with inventory funders and try to sell transactions when the corporate the company had issues on the fundamentals point of be funded and have accounts under, let's say, the going concern status.

25:21 But long story short, with this pipeline and also potential opportunities, but in particular, working closely with our inventory funders and also speaking with a more or less, say, precision with some potential inventory funders, you know, this is the direction that we need to we we must follow. Last slide from from me that is, let's say, let's say, is a slide of restructure we already used in previous AGM that I personally like a lot because it tries to summarize in single slide, let's say, a sort of journey. And also give, let's say, the trajectory that I believe that is what our shareholders want to see and also is the trajectory that the Board every day discuss or try to challenge also in order to, let's say, land into a status where this business model can be considered viable and scalable, right? So this is, at the end of the day, the goal, I believe, of the team, the goal of the directors, the goal of, let's say, also our partners.

26:44 And I would like to be focused on the, let's say, the right of the slide, so the '25 and beyond. Right? So what we have been working is to see how, you know, get this business model viable and scalable. From your per se the perception of the shareholders, I I I do agree that the impression is that what you are doing every day, you are doing nothing and so and so forth. At the end, I can say that what we have done is to see from what end the liability on the client company side.

27:37 And I believe that the point to select the right companies that they really use in the right way, the inventory monetization facility is an important factor because some companies, some clients believe that it is just a loan that maybe you can think to not pay, to extend, expand. This is a commercial facility that must be managed like a Swiss clock, right? So they have to think about to have an important planning to see how, let's say, the cash to cash cycle is really factored in by using this facility. On the other hand, it's important to think about how the model will be bankable, fundable.

28:27 And I believe that we had the opportunity to study also benchmark comparables, some, let's say, alternative models, not in the AIM that will remain the same, but in the funding side. And I can tell you that we the Board, me personally, we invest the time to think about what could be an improvement of the model and allow to have, let's say, to be effective vis a vis our inventory funders. And we started some inventory ownership model. And we are making some, let's say, evaluation about how and why this inventory ownership model seems that are working.

29:18 And I believe that someone knows Falcon Procure, that is a UK company, vendor that is a trading business based in Switzerland. And we are doing, let's say, continuous, let's say, evaluations to try to see what will be, let's say, the strategic trajectory that the company must follow for the next year and the next few years. And combined with this, the opportunity to see the AI trend that is not always is not all good, right, because it's also a buzzword. The AI but not seeing the outcome in the productivity or in other, let's say, outcome of the business. So in short, we believe that also with the difficult moments that the company faced in the last year,

30:49 we can define the right capitalized structure with the right people, the right use of technology that maybe sometimes is not needed because we are not in the space of, let's say, you know, high high frequency transactions that we need the automation because we are processing, like, payments, thousand and thousands of transactions every every day or every hour. But we are in more in the, let's say, in the business b to b sector where technology can be used also to, let's say, to alleviate maybe the activity of some analysts or to, let's say, reduce the operational risk in transactions or give the sense of trust of the monitoring to our inventory funders.

31:34 So briefly, I'm still confident that we can work on this model with, let's say, the right resources, with the right partners and move into, let's say, this phase of final business validation and hopefully to start to generate revenue in order, let's say, to get this model viable. So if you ask me the sentiment, my personal sentiment is that the outlook is clear, the inventory monetization needs are still there. There are few, few players in the market because someone is continuing to, you know, work on receivable financing.

32:20 But you saw that every two, three years, there is a big fraud in the market. GreenSeal one time now recently in US, another big fintech receivables that was a big created a big problem. So with this also, let's say, outcome, the direction is to work on what we have, try to, let's say, enhance the relationship with our inventory funders. And let's say this, to maybe find some solutions to to allow our model to be, better bankable and better fundable and continue, let's say, to stay in the market with this innovative and still, I believe, unique inventing business proposition that basically is focused on inventory.

33:15 So this is, I believe, the direction that the Board of Directors want to continue to see. We know that it's not easy. We know that we need to be funded also because the time and the, let's say, the opportunities and the need of funds for a company like like us is still an important factor and the Board is working also on this side. And so I can pass this message that we personally, I still believe that this is a model that worth to invest and try to continue to deliver and find, let's say, the vaccine to allow the inventory monetization, let's say, business proposition to, let's say, really become scalable.

34:09 Thank you for hearing me. And let's Slides, yeah. It's just so just before we open to the rest of the business of the AGM and open the floor to questions, I just wanted to briefly touch on the serious loss of capital issue, which has been an issue that first was brought to the attention of the shareholders back in December 2021. The serious loss of capital as defined under the Companies Act as when the value of the company's net assets is less than half of its caught up share capital. So I'm not sure if you recall, but back in December 2021, there was a general meeting held to discuss this issue and bring it to the attention of the shareholders.

34:56 This issue is actually not a new issue. It's a historical issue that arose back in 2014, actually, when the company was listed on AIM and under the name Imaginetics, so before the reverse takeover and becoming Supply at Me as it is today. Unfortunately, due to a number of factors, including the need for debt funding arrangements, which we've had to undertake in the last few years, the fact that there's been various impairments needed to be recognized in the company's balance sheet, also the sale of the 81% stake in trade flow. And all of this has really kind of been driven by the delays to the revenue and really getting the business model scaled up. So because of all of those factors, this issue continues to kind of arise or continues to exist as of today and on the company's balance sheet.

35:56 And so we just basically bring it to the attention of the shareholders. Because it's not a new issue, there's not a formal need to have another general meeting about this. But it was just really to acknowledge the issue and to explain that, the business does scale up, as Alexandre has talked about in his business slides, then the future revenue generation will be what really will help us to alleviate this issue. Is that in? Yeah. Thanks, Albert. So thank you. I'd just like to thank the presentation team. The board now will be pleased to deal with any questions you have, the general questions about the presentation, the annual report, the resolutions set out in the notice or, frankly, any other points the shareholders or their duly appointed representatives would like to raise at this time.

36:55 So if I can kindly ask the questioners identify themselves. And if you're not a shareholder, please state the name of the shareholder you're representing. And to be fair or unfair to everyone, I will try to regulate a little bit this discussion so that we can get through the questions in as constructive way as possible to get everyone a chance to engage. Any questions from the room, sir? Thank you. Hello. Alessandro, Chris Mead, shareholder. That was a a long speech. Thank you for that. But from my point of view, it told me very little except we've done nothing, we're doing nothing, and we're going to do nothing.

37:47 The pipeline of 87,000,000, I believe, is just two companies, one massive one and one very small one. You say the one in we're doing in '26 is gonna fall off. I think the income, I don't know, is a 100,000, something like that, which is not even half your your own salary, not a respect for anybody else's. And it doesn't seem to be and I think we're giving away about 90% of the company. I mean, I haven't done the exact maths on the warrants and the shares, but, you know, it's gotta be at least 90%, I think, given that the money is coming in. It doesn't leave me feeling at all optimistic that we've achieved anything. I don't know what's behind you, how many employees there are, and how we can be running a platform with, I don't know, a handful with that.

38:37 And, you know, is there really a future for this company? Because where I'm sitting as a shareholder for many years, always seen this dilution, loss of money, no business. We've talked about funders before. We've talked about this last three, four AGMs. It's always been next twelve months, and as Amy said there, it was going to be done by income to get rid of our capital loss situation, which is far from that. It's actually more loss and more loss and more loss every year. And I it just does not look like we're going anywhere. Despite your words again and a lot of them, you know, what has happened, what is happening succinctly because it looks from my point of view that we're dead in the water. Well, thank you. Thank you, Chris, for this frank statement.

39:26 I believe that the point is as I was saying in the last my, let's say, statements is to continue to work to allow this model to be fundable bankable. Right? So this is the the only point if you see because the rest is just a consequence. If we onboard a new inventory fund, let's say, okay, I can fund you, can you 20,000,000 for some transactions, you can image that there is not a problem to find the client, find new people if needed or invest $100,000 in the platform, right? So to be concrete, because I believe that the point is now to be super factual and concrete.

40:13 The other factors are consequences. The big point is how we can allow this inventory model to be fundable from inventory funders. This is the, let's say, only questions, the only, let's say, super important point. To attract talents, to attract partners in technology, you can image that if a company is delisted with not the accounts approved internally, externally is not possible to discuss with new people, new partners or whatever. And so but again, the vaccine, sorry, I use this example that maybe is not super great, but the point is what is the model? What are the actions that the board must improve or implement to allow the inventory transaction to be fundable by a bank, an alternative fund, a crypto fund, whatever, a family office in Switzerland, whatever it is, in order to create traction and allow that this type of funders are not only investing in receivable financing and payable financing in loans, but also in this type of transactions.

41:34 This is the let's say, question and is already a non addressed, let's say, point because we are still working on these. But at least you can understand that like a drug, if we will find finally after a lot of years, not planned the outcome for this, let's say, problem, you can think that you invested in a company that is really a model that no one has. Right? So this is is not an hope. It's something that we have been working. We've been working. We made a lot of meetings in the last few months regarding a strategic trajectory that we are discussing.

42:24 And so I think that in the shoes of an investor, you are you have invested in a company that if we will find this, let's say, final solution is a company that have that has a future, has also a competitive advantage respect to other fintech platforms, receivable financing, whatever platform are in the market. This is, in my opinion, the view that we have. So I'm not concerned about the platform, how many employees we have, right? This is not the problem. We are concerned how we need to fine tune, to change maybe a bit business model to allow someone that can invest in the debt side at the end and not equity to provide capital to us.

43:17 Because the tool, the product regardless is accounting on accounting to sale, at the end of the day is helpful for companies. This is the the important point. When I started this model, I founded this model, I thought about how I can help an entrepreneur in the cash to cash cycle regardless the accounting problem, whatever. This is the problem that we are solving. And these four companies is our, let's say, the proof that the model is helpful. On the other hand, we need we must, as soon as possible, not another year, not another three years, to also have, let's say, the view to maybe to maybe change a bit the model or something that we can accommodate in order to stay in the middle, maybe not to be super radical or maybe what originally we thought.

44:08 At the end, this is our short term goal to work on an improvement and facilitate the capital raise on the transactions, okay? If we will find these, the rest of the other problems will be, in my opinion, addressed easily and also maybe we will avoid for the dilution. We will avoid other, let's say, collateral issues that I agree are not great, right, as a shareholder. So this is my view. Hello again. It's another year. It's actually a year and a half, isn't it? Yeah. So my question is relates around just the fundamentals, really. When you acquired this rule 15 cash shell about back in late twenty nineteen, early twenty twenty, and you did that via effectively a share for share swap, And because of the, or rather via an issue of shares, that then gave it a market cap of 227,000,000, which obviously none of that was around, but that was a real good headline figure.

45:31 And that's from an investor point of view, that's obviously quite sounds quite exciting. But this little company from Italy has that has backed into a cash sale that was going nowhere. And actually, think it had been hadn't it been suspended, I think, once because it didn't do a deal within six months, and I think you just got it just in time to save the listing, which, you know, really good move. But then, the, obviously, the valuation rocketed. Everyone was all excited, hyped up. COVID kicked in, so a lot of us spent a lot more time at home and thinking about, you know, investments, etcetera. And then around August, September time of that year, twenty twenty, five years ago, time flies, but it was just ridiculously great valuation.

46:20 You were saying exactly the same things about them, what you're saying now. All the business models that you mentioned, you mentioned them about them, about captive banks and about Yeah. You you know, you were looking for funders, etcetera. Would there be truth in the, the, suggestion that maybe at this time, because we've got how many shares? About 34,000,000,000, or is it more? 70. 74,000,000,000. Right. So from an up market optics point of view, we're a main market LSE company, and yet we've got that many shares that are worth basically less than, you know, and aren't running around on the floor. Yeah. So wouldn't you consider maybe doing some form of reverse split to make the market optics better?

47:10 And then also, actually, from a point of view of the I and I'm going on. I'm trying to bring about three threads into one, but the IP, the company doesn't own a 100, does it? The IP around the intellectual property around the LS platform. So there's nothing I think it's owned. Is it by a subsidiary? But then you you're also hocking it in the, in the various funding from another related company, which, again, you know, there there must be a question, but did you actually sell into that type your shareholding back then, which is why you can happily fund it and make it loss make import? Is there an opportunity here to, a, do the reverse split and, b, is there an opportunity to maybe actually go back to it being a cash sale and look for another opportunity? Because this one, as a gentleman said, without being blunt, it could well be dead in the water. You've had five years going in it. You'd you'd still, you know, trying to, hawk around the same business model. It's not taken.

48:23 And, you know, crypto's coming that time. It's gone massive. So, you know, why would why would somebody even bother investing in this from a funding and a shareholder point of view? Thank you. So two questions. The reverse split, I believe that is a technical point, right, that we the board can evaluate. My personal view is that the most important point is not to have a penny stock or a company with a reverse split, but to have a business that market analysts or investors can invest, right? Because we can have also sort of a split, but if the business model is still not viable, I believe that is not the, let's say, the holy grail, right, to manage a split just for a market optics, right?

49:14 But it's something that the Board, obviously, is important also the view of shareholders can evaluate, I believe, in terms of technicality. My experience is that when you announce a reverse split, the share price will down 30%, 40%, right? So I don't know what is that what will be the value of a split. But we can take at this point and discuss internally for sure. The second point, again, I would not compare crypto or other, let's say, initiatives. This is an innovative initiative that can work. We believe that can still work. And as I was saying, this will work, I believe that the, let's say, the valuation and the price of this initiative from the market will be adjusted accordingly.

50:09 Because if you have two, three players that are in this space and they are really doing business, I think that you can the market that will see SUPPLY ME as one of the few players in the market that are doing something helpful. And maybe the market will price this, let's say, improvement in, let's say, in the right way. I don't know how much or when and in what manner, but for sure, it will be better than now, right? And in the space of innovation, I we cannot comment again if it's true or not or corrected some evaluation because if you see now how these some startups or some scale ups, the evaluation that are, let's say, pricing in the market, can comment hours and hours if it's correct or not. Let's say, the better is can this innovation be delivered and can scale quickly to generate revenue and have, let's say, a barrier to other competitors and have an interesting value. This is the question.

51:18 I believe that inventory monetization model is still in this category of potential great innovations with a great, let's say, huge market to serve. This is my view still regardless who is funding SUPPLY ME, if it's a related party or not or whatever. The goal is to stay still in this category of super innovations and deliver finally this model. Should we just and I guess just on the point around the IP. So the IP around the supply.me platform is, you're right, owned 100% by one of our Italian subsidiaries. But that subsidiary is 100% owned by SUPPLY IT ME CAPITAL PLC.

52:08 So it's a 100 owned subsidiary of the group. So the IP around the Correct. SupplyMe platform is a 100% owned by this FlyMe group. But is there any kind of charge or lien on that IP through one of these other Yes. So as we touched on in the earlier slides, if the approvals that we need to obtain in order to repay the Nibiru facility through the share of shares are not obtained by the the date, which is the thirtieth of June next year, then the IP will be transferred to Nibiru as part of that. So security is part of the deal. Any other questions from the room? Hello.

52:55 My shares are currently with Interactive Investor, so I'll be talking on behalf of them. I purchased a significant amount of shares from Interactive Investor after those famous words, Alessandro, of the company being ready to fly back in 2021. So I put a significant amount of my life savings into the company on the basis of a lot of the statements and the right notices. So my question is actually to the independent non executive directors because my understanding is that you are here on behalf of shareholders holding the company directors to account. So what I would like to understand is whether you feel like the directors of SUPPLY. Me and the senior management and the business have been acting with ethics and integrity, whether you are happy with the way that they have handled the company over the last five years and what you are doing on behalf of shareholders to challenge and hold the directors to account to ensure we can get our money back to show that this company is a success. Because I want to be clear here that I am significantly invested, so I want this to work. I want this company to go on to be successful, Alessandra. I really did believe in it, and I hope I can continue to believe in your abilities to make this work. It sounds like a great idea, and hence why I did make make my contribution to the company. So please, can you please answer that question?

54:20 Of course. Can I ask your name? What is your name? My name is Karet. I'm I'm happy to start, but I think we should all speak also, you know, together and separately so you'll get an idea. And I appreciate the sentiment, for sure. I've now been doing this for just over three years. You all know the background I came from. Are we doing all the right things as a board in terms of, you know, holding management to account? Basically, what is the standard of our governments, in my opinion, extremely high. It may or may not resonate with you. It's almost, for this kind of size of the business, the level of scrutiny we attach to what they're doing, because, you know, we have the experience, etcetera.

55:12 So I have I would like to assure you, and, you know, there are lots of questions that have been asked around this by all sorts of parties in the past. I am super confident that this company is extremely well managed in terms of conflict of interest and looking into this and into that, etcetera. So it's all done in the best interest of the company. Now, the challenge, quite frankly and we talked about this and it was clear from Chris' question and your question is, how do we get it to the point that the model is irreversibly viable? And that is the prize that we kind of are playing for. It's been a very hard year, you know, and it's not been easy, you know, with you're suspended in this and this.

56:06 I'm not going bore you with our problems. You have your everyone has problems. But looking at the positives, we're still standing, we're still here, Which, given what's kind of gone on, not necessarily was a foregone conclusion a while ago. So, first of all. Second, I appreciate the question about the dilution and etcetera. And I don't think it's 90%, but documents will come around explaining everything we will provide with all the information in due course. I don't think it's going to be that level, but it'd be substantial dilution. But on the other side of this coin is somebody is committing real money. Somebody has put $5,000,000 in this company.

56:55 I'm a finance person, and some of you are. You understand this doesn't happen. You don't put money into something that people do not believe is going to work. I appreciate that some people may lose hope and say, Oh, is it going to work? Is it not going to work? Well, the counterargument to this is the vote in terms of money, which is the most powerful and strong indication one can get when you're not sure. So that's another good news that we are still out there and we're still fighting. The prize remains very significant, but getting there has been a lot more complex and a lot more difficult for all sorts of reasons. So that's kind of all I can say.

57:43 Mean, the other the only other thing I would say to you is just it is a complicated story, and the the road with travel has been a long one. I get all of that. In the latest RMS, when we announced latest monetization, etcetera, I think we did mention that one KPI that is kind of worth looking for at the end of the day is kind of similar to AUM, if you like. What is the amount of inventory that we currently have cycling through? We've released the number and it's gone from zero to some millions, etcetera. And there is, I believe, personally, there is a level that is a multiple of that that we still need to get to, and that is really the objective for this year. And Alessandro explained explained to you a little bit how we can get there. You can try to do the math, mental math, if you like, if you stay positive.

58:38 And if we get to that level, I think we're going to be super close to an industrial bank platform. And what I mean by that is not just trial, but a significant amount of capital being committed. So we've had a pilot. It's taken a while. It is working, there are real clients, there is real money and all of that sort of thing. We now need to further increase it. And remember, these transactions, they are three year facilities. So it's important for funders also to see the end of this, not only the beginning. In other words, the full cycling through of the money. And I think the first one is coming off only now. So yeah, look, it's kind of been a war of attrition and it's not pleasant for you, and it's not, frankly, pleasant for us. And why are we still here? Is another question you may ask.

59:35 Well, again, I think the good news is we're still here because we want to do the right thing by this company and this concept, and we want to give it the best chance of success. And I think if I were to turn around and leave tomorrow, hand on heart, and this is not trying to blow my own horn much, but I think the company would be in a much worse position if I just walked away. And it probably makes sense for me personally, for various reasons, but I think for the company, it is important to keep going. So the opportunity is still there. It's been a hard journey. But objectively, we're moving in the right direction. Sorry.

1:00:20 I think both of you should speak also, you know, your own mind. I agree. Yep. Ladies? Thank you. We hugely sympathize. Are we doing everything that we can? I have to say hand on heart that we are. We have worked a lot more hours than we ever initially contracted for or thought that we would. And we've also been through long periods of time that we haven't been paid for it. And the reason that we've done that is because we wanted to protect your interests to the best of our abilities to work to save the company. We were very determined to get the accounts published, to get the company relisted.

1:01:10 And we have all worked our hardest to try and represent you and your interests. And I hope, as Albert said, that brighter things are on the future, but your interests are very much at our heart. Yeah. Fine. I suppose I've as an independent, I've probably been here the longest out of the three of us. And I would say, sort of, at the board level, and we have a lot of board meetings, as as Andrew has said, there is conflict. Do discuss things, we try and work things out between us, but we are very definitely independent from these two guys, although Amy is not on the board, but very much part of the exec team.

1:02:03 And I go back over the last four years. We very much talked about the I'm pipeline being £300,000,000 big numbers. And we've kind of learnt through this process that the actual defining and restrictive part of this model is the funding side. And it might have taken us a longer time perhaps to realize that. And also, as we said about the IMs, trying to work out which are ones that people want to fund. They're not last ditch kind of funding options because the funders are not going to get their money back. It's more about trying to work out what business we can do both from the I'm side and the funders can match up to it. And it's taken a long time for us to get to this point.

1:02:56 Not reiterating everything that we've already said, but we come back to the fact that we are representing the stakeholders in the company and we try although it's very hard, these decisions we're making, and I know you feel and we feel the pain to some extent too, but we are still keeping this company alive. We're trying to go forward. We're trying to make sure that everyone's interest is kept pure and looked after. Yes, we're in a loss making situation, but we as a board and the independent side do still believe in this model. Hi. Is it is it turned on? Okay.

1:03:46 Paul Paul Cook. We've met before. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Hopefully, speech, but I'd like to have five questions contained within it, so you may need to make notes about what the questions are. Then last last year, and I know this is a SYME SupplyMe meeting. I'm trying to ask a SupplyMe question. Okay? But last year, you talked at some length about the avant garde group and Dominic White and the original buyback management buyout. So several questions. First one is, has Dominic White finally been settled? Yes or no? Don't need a great long debate about it. Has he finally been settled?

1:04:31 Yes or no? Because at the last AGM, we were led to believe that would happen within a couple of months. Okay? The second question is in July, in an eight Capital Partners RNS, Dominic White published that Alessandro has over £80,000,000 in assets. Is this true or false? Simple question. Third question is, did the board know about the £80,000,000 in assets when the 1,500,000 didn't get paid and when the board elected, understandably to have a 9,000,000,000 share placing. Did you know about the 80,000,080 million asset when the 1,500,000 was paid?

1:05:24 Okay? The fourth question is, who did the 9,000,000,000 shares go to? And the fifth question, and I asked this two years ago, so apologies for asking it again. Does the company monitor the trading of SUPPLY and MEES shares? But the answer two years ago was no. So it, again, could be a yes or no answer. So it's five fairly specific questions, hopefully, with very short answers. Okay. So let me a little bit jump in and just regulate this. So question number one, Dominic White. Well, or rather not Dominic White, but a company's control, but let's be precise. Yeah? So because we are on the record and etcetera, and as chair of supply at MidCamp, it's not necessarily the company's business. So just with all of that, addressing the the settlement between, I guess, TAG and Dominic White's companies, what is the status of that briefly?

1:06:32 Yeah. So I think that you are referring to the RNS of a capital, right? So just to give name as your name to this query. First question is, is it No. It's it technically is not a black and white question or reply because it's a complex structure. But in briefly, I can tell that it's not fully settled. And then the other, let's say, the other queries that correctly you raised that follow this point. Right? Also, we don't control the communications or disclosures of a capital partner. So And don't and don't pass judgments of whether they're accurate, not accurate, what's not?

1:07:21 Well very clear. And not Alessandro directly. I thought tag. Yeah? Yeah. Tag. The dentist the dentist would know that Alessandro is buying back his paper. Yeah. So but it is company Well except it's Well, technically, as a is our public information is not a personal debt. Right? Just to be clear. Corporate debt. And as a corporate debt. And I don't remember them because I don't monitor the all the awareness of capital, but I believe that if they put these numbers, I refer it to the Avanger Group balance sheet, right? That's right. Not the personal balance sheet. I don't know if it's clear or not clear a little bit. As you know, a company can have assets but are not monetizable or liquid assets, right? So stay in our inventory model.

1:08:31 We have a there are assets that are inventory, but inventory is not cash, right? So but I cannot comment honestly this statement because I don't remember if they put this number in this RNS. And what is easy for the shareholders, since the balance sheet of the Avanga Group are public, is to download the twenty four and twenty five that is public and see if this number is correct. Okay. So maybe I'll just you know, I I don't wanna get too deep into this because for for reasons you will understand. But just, let's say, from the board perspective, because we obviously would have spent, as you rightly point out, a considerable amount of time asking Alessandra as TAG shareholder.

1:09:19 Know lots of questions because we had the legal agreement to fund the company and all the rest of it. You know, TAG obviously had this liability with these gentlemen's companies of that sort of order you've discussed. And it's totally understandable that this gentleman's company has sought to explain to the market what is the collateral behind the liability, the bond that they held. And that is provide justification to the market from their own perspective, because it's an investment, as far as they're concerned, right? And a liability to tag. Now, the question is, what is within tag? What are the assets in perimeter of tag?

1:10:06 And how they're valued, they're liquid and they're liquid. And so there's a lot of art that goes into this. And some of this art, I guess, must have been utilized by the announcing company. We focused from the SYME perspective. We had a funding agreement with TAG. We focused on the cash that TAG can provide to us within the corporate structure, and it has provided amount of cash that we've disclosed. And it was not able to provide any more for various reasons, including restructuring process and etcetera. And we've agreed another way to fund the company through Nomura, which, again, I know we find painful, but we found we we thought this is the only way to continue fighting.

1:11:05 So it's a bitter pill, but it is is continuing in the game. So that's kind of the answer. Sorry. And so far as identities of the shareholders, I think, is the question. I do not think we Sorry, I have a question. Did the board know there was £80,000,000 in assets? Sorry. Did the board know that there were £80,000,000 in assets when the 1,500,000 did not get paid? So It's a simple I I would like a yes, no question. Did you didn't you know? If there were assets? It's not simple, and I will answer, but I will answer straight. Okay. But I will answer straight. So the straight answer is, somebody says x, it's nothing to do with us.

1:11:52 Did we obtain information from TAG that would inform us as to what the assets are and where we're up to date with their financial position and the situation? Absolutely, yes. So we I can tell you knew the answer as a board. I'm confident of that. And that information was provided to us by TAG to facilitate the board making the decisions. Somebody else says X1, not quite X, or whatever, then we cannot do anything about it. And we cannot take responsibility for other people's announcements, which I'm sure you will understand. Okay? So I think this is the third. And the fourth was about the shares and the shareholders.

1:12:40 I'm not sure we know the identities. No, we don't know the underlying identities, and we've talked about this, I think, last year at the AGM and also it is in the accounts. We dealt with a U. K. Investment firm at that time. They kind of acted as an agent. The shares then were passed to their underlying investors. There were a number of investors. I can't remember the exact number. I think it was in the range of 40 to 50 underlying investors. Yeah, You have a better memory than I do. So probably at the top end of that range then, around 50. No one was over the 3% threshold that required a TR1 notification. So that yeah, succinctly, I think that's the answer to that question. It went to a range of different underlying retail investors. So no change in that understanding? No. Okay.

1:13:28 No. And I think the final question was about the trading. And the answer, frankly, remains the same: no. So when we get questions about trading, trading patterns, etc, we always say, frankly, you know, if somebody has any allegation of any wrongdoing of any kind, the company is very happy to look at the evidence specifically and pursue it. It's not really our primary responsibility to monitor trading. There are parts of The UK regulator that do that on a professional basis. They monitor the trades, monitor the trading, etc. That is their job. Both the department within the FCA and the market supervision teams within LSE. That is their direct job to do that on a day to day basis. It is really not our job. If there is wrongdoing, then as directors, as responsible corporate officers, we are more than happy to look at it and, frankly, refer it to the relevant authorities.

1:14:31 If somebody has any other issue over this, frankly, the fastest way to resolve it is directly speak with the authorities, and they will come and talk to us. That's the way it should work. But either way, we're happy to either refer it or be referred to by the authorities to us. And in my experience, this is exactly what happens in real life. Any more questions from the room? Just one quick one. And I'd just like to know what the shareholdings of each of you are in our company, given that, you know, you're you're taking the salaries, you're looking to invest, and looking for this company to work and and grow and be successful.

1:15:22 Because, you know, many chairmans of of companies, I mean, you know, of this sort of size have a 30% stake, the CEO has a has a decent whack as well. I'm just wondering, you know, how much of of your assets compared to ours are are at stake for the success of this company, especially given my friends over there comment about, you know, putting in her a lot of her life savings as have many of our rest of us. So I'd just like to know, have you increased your skin in the game? Could you believe in this? Or is it very small? And also, including, Alexandra, what your holding is now because I've lost with avant garde tag and all the other loan shares and lack of loan shares and other people involved, I've lost track. So I'd just be interested in shareholder now, given the state of the company, to actually understand where the board stands. Thank you. Sure. I I think we'll start with Alessandro because he's in a different position to all of us. He's the founder of the company and has been a major shareholder of the company for a very long time.

1:16:24 So which is more the type of situation where you mentioned chairs, owning, etcetera. So, Alessandro, are you able to talk about your holdings in the company? Holding are public are the same. I believe that regarding the Avanga Group shareholders have to remember that the Avanga Group purchased shares from the trade flow transaction at $0.20 I believe. That is 10 times more than now. The Avangar made also this investment, right, that was cash, but is what publicly we disclosed. So there is no other changes. Yes. It's in the annual report, yeah? Yeah.

1:17:11 So percentage wise, I think you're around What do we disclose? Yeah. So if you look in the annual report on page 88, there's a table that clearly sets out all the directors individual and how many shares are owned. That has not changed since the publication of of the annual report. And, also, that needs to be at the most practical date anyway, and the accounts were not only published in October. So I can say none of those shareholdings have changed since what's in the annual report. So the numbers, some of them are quite large. I'm not going to read them out now, but if anyone wants to come and have a look at them afterwards, they're here in the annual in the annual report. I believe TAG is in around 22% at the moment. Yeah. So if you could include the the pledge, you need to include those, so the pledge of one f two as a following the other the other query. Right? Is it Mhmm. Total sum? Yeah.

1:18:06 It just occurred to me. Probably occurred to other people months and years ago. But you you you look at all the convertible loan notes that the company's had over the years, Mercator, lost count. There's there's been four, But how much actual cash has come in to the company from those in real hard cash, not just, you know, shares or whatever? Because I think we all know we're not naive enough to think that the you know, those companies have the com those lenders have the company's best interest at heart. They have their own interest at heart. So a lot of those shares that they may have required probably just, you know, moved into the market. And some of the, the pricing as well was to their advantage, not not ours. So, yeah, just just to, reiterate the question is how much actual cash landed from from those finance deals?

1:19:04 I don't know off the top of my head. I have to take the question away. Well, you could probably come back. I think if it's a conceptual question, question, every time, you know, if we do a convertible financing, that is the amount of cash. Yeah. It's a it's a natural fact based one. How much cash from all those promises of millions do actually benefit? Even within the burial one, what you're saying, but that's that's huge. So it's like, you know What do you mean? It's you. You know, it's but in terms of the other one, how much actual money you us to calculate the total amount of money we've raised? Or are you are you I know it's quite specific. It is it's probably a bit, I don't know, maybe overly detailed for this meeting, and it is something that I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking how much money we raised, which is all the various pieces of financing we've done, or are you clearing and saying, okay. From the bureau, the financing was 5.1. How much you received?

1:20:03 Yeah. From all of them because at the end of the day, we lost the ticket. We actually received the cash. Yeah. And then what happened? Whether it was converted into, shares or was The convertible is just the The company obviously hasn't had any income to to repay these things. So clearly, it would have been more confetti into the market. And who's gonna benefit from that? We're not. We're gonna be the the last to receive any benefit from that. The ones who are gonna benefit, the people who obviously have those shares, they just wanna basically turn around their investment. The terms of those CLNs were heavily weighted towards those financiers, not to us. So I think I think in terms of the actual specifics, we can pull together we can pull together something. We can answer it through the investor meet platform. We can put your question on there, and we can answer it through there.

1:20:51 The answer is it's been different for every financing transaction we've done. For example, with Venus, we did convert, but they've still holding the shares. Or, you know, they've as far as we're aware, they are still holding the shares. They haven't they haven't notified us as they would need to. Well, not everyone holds them in their own name. I think they hold them through a a nominee account. But Yeah. But it's normal. I think that tag. Sorry if I interrupt you, Amy, but I believe that it's it's normal that investors as a bank and custodians that manage their shares. So I I I would not say that this is strange, isn't is normal. But, you know, I think that we can respond in the document.

1:21:38 Obviously, there has been other financings with Mercato, etcetera, where they were converting and then selling the shares in the market. So we're, yeah, we're aware of that. So we can pull together the detail. Yeah. And maybe we can also spend just to follow this question regarding the Nuburu convertible loan note. Obviously, the company received the cash that they announced and the shares not be issued and Nuburu is not a convertible loan, let's say, like Mercator or other names, just to be clear, he's not a lender for permission. So I believe that we should see Venus, as Amy said, and Nuburu as investors that really are taking an equity risk, right, in the transaction.

1:22:29 I'm referring to the Nuburu. I believe that this is the goal of Nuburu is to bet more than $9,000,000 if you sum the corporate funding and inventory deals that is not a small amount if we are now telling that SYME is in this status of, let's say, business growth. And I can tell that Nuburu is not will not sell the shares in the market because it's not the mission to Nuburu to be a convertible lender, just to be clear. And Alessandro, maybe I'll take this opportunity. Now he's speaking as a I think, as a representative of Nuburu. I did receive questions from shareholders, which I do believe we've answered in the past, but I did receive questions. So I'd like to ask this question to Alexander. So what is Nabooru's you know, because Nabooru, obviously, is a strategic investor will have, you know, a controlling interest in the company should the conversion and all the stuff be approved and go through, which, obviously, we feel it should, but we will inform you and put the arguments forward and all the rest of it. But should all of that happen, that at the end, Nabooru will own a major controlling stake in the company. And the question people quite rightly ask is, what are Nabooru intentions going forward, know, vis a vis supply of IPME CAPITAL, you know, vis a vis delisting, vis a

1:24:00 vis the ongoing support, you know, what would you Yeah. Be willing to share with us today? I am happy to reply, Albert. I think that the Nuburu investment is a super important alignment of interest of a corporate company with all the other shareholders, right? So this is a super important opinion in the and also, I personally believe that this will help also the traction of other, maybe investors or other, let's say, funders, both in the corporate funding and also if needed, obviously, and in the transaction. So this is, in opinion, an important investment made. And as you are aware, Nuburu is again a listed company on IC with the strict rules that cannot become be an investment company, cannot trade.

1:24:57 So there is a lot of implications in Nuburu investment. Long story short, we all believe in this inventory business model, in particular, in the defense sector that is super capital intensive. As you are aware, there are European rules that are asking to create a fund for the defense sector to fund inventory, to fund the working capital because a lot of banks has issues on the ESG policies. So now a bank, if you are near, near to the world of defense, you are no longer eligible to get a loan from a commercial bank. So there is an angle of specific supply chains that I do believe that the inventory monetization model could be a killer application because if a sector needs capital, but no banks, commercial banks for nonsense ESG rules are no longer fundable, this type of supply chains, then our facility could be a killer application, right, to fund and this is also the better Naboor because he's investing in the defense sector and to have a partner that can fund the working capital, not only because Naboor is putting the money, but together with other co investors, I believe it is a benefit for SUPPLY ME at the end of the day.

1:26:22 Is that ethical? Sorry? Is that ethical targeting the defense sector? Sorry. I ethical? Is it ethical to Target the defense sector? You just said it yourself about ESG policies across you know, we know there's there's rather significant wars going on in the world Yeah. And everyone's against them apart from the perpetrators. But it's yeah. I'm actually gobsmacked that you just actually said what you just said about ESG and then just saying, oh, by the way, where's it gonna target that? No. I I'm I'm saying that the defense sector, firstly, is not only weapons. Right? It's a security, right? So the security of mission critical infrastructures of also the personal life is part of the defense glossary, right? It's not just the weapons or rifles or whatever.

1:27:13 And all these supply chain, so basically, needs capital, right? And I believe that SUPPLY NEE with inventory monetization model can fund these type of businesses, right? Techne is an example. Techne, if you see the video online, is helping also catastrophe events like reverse or other issues with the same platform, and they need to be funded inventory because they are building up special vehicles. So and Yes. I think just to clarify, I don't think it's a question of ethics really that much because it's a much more complicated question. So I think the point that Alessandro was making, if I were to rephrase it for him, is luck result of our funding. Mhmm. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe, maybe not. What I'm trying to say is for a big institution, for a bank, the process of evaluating an eligible transaction is extremely complicated because the ESG criteria, the complexity, the matrix of those criteria, and the impact on the existing business is extremely complicated.

1:28:23 Broadly speaking, this creates opportunity for alternative credit providers, which is why they exist. Otherwise, we'd find it very difficult to compete with the banks whose cost of capital funding is cheaper. So that is a fact of life. This exists. You know, the sound of business that banks don't say don't want to do, but maybe less keen to do in certain volumes and etcetera. This is an opportunity for other providers. And should this be an opportunity for us? Why not? As shareholders, why do you not want us to do the business if we think on a transactional level, which we have to approve as we go along, it's ethical or it's okay? If we decide so, you know, in your name, we will do that is the point.

1:29:11 So we're not evaluating a specific transaction, whether this kills people or this company kills people, how ethical it is, etcetera. It's a separate debate, not this debate right here, right now. That's all I'm saying. Nice deflection, but it is. It is. If you you specifically said and I paraphrase you're targeting the defense sector. The defense sector, by its nature, is to stop people invading one country or is to protect one country. And that inevitably, people get killed, people get maimed, people get life threatening injuries, people's lives are ruined. So whilst, yes, we're all here on the level that we wanna make money, of course, we do. But I appreciate how you feel about it.

1:29:58 So you don't act in my name personally if you're saying that if we feel that it's a good investment on behalf of you shareholders, then why not? Not personally. Not personally. I will act in the interest of all shareholders. And if you have a different view to that, then obviously, you're lucky that this company is listed. You can make a choice accordingly. Thank you very much. Any other questions from the room or Mr. Chairman? You. Okay. Take more questions then. Yes, please. Thank you. Anthony Williams, shareholder. I guess what I guess a lot of the stuff we've heard today, we have heard before. And the important thing, I think, for everybody, maybe what hasn't been discussed, is actually the time frame. You know, we know that the funding is the is the main the critical issue here. So can you give us some kind of time frame over this? We've been waiting a long time for this to happen. And so something some commentary on that would be would be helpful.

1:31:05 Albert, you mentioned an AUM figure that you think the company needs to get to and is capable of getting to make it viable. So what is that number? And what is your confidence level in hitting that number? And in what time frame? And a second question. The loan share business, it was very confusing. Was there was litigation going on, and it wasn't clear where these shares were. I just wanted to ask as well, have those shares been returned now? So that was my second question. Maybe, Alessandro, we start with the second question first.

1:31:52 Have the shares been returned, the loan shares? No. Thank you for the question. So the loan shares have not been returned. And from the slide of tag, at the moment, decisions of the loans and other assets and liabilities of TAG are under the independent administrator of TAG. So this is the status if you ask correctly the snapshot now. Okay. I think honestly, I think I went as far as I could already, and I can just repeat from my memory what I said. So we have current AUM of, what, four point five million five? Five point four. 5,000,000.

1:32:40 No, 5.4. 5.4. And our revenue is a function of It's basic yeah. So roughly, let's say, a function of that because every deal is slightly different. You call it roughly that. Yeah? So it's the revenue. Part of the discussion with Nomura also because they put just put in 5,000,000 in the company, not only with you, but also we have somebody who is effectively is going to be shareholder of the company, committing 5,000,000 in cash upfront. Was the plans to make the business basically self funding at least, or not requiring to continuously to raise corporate money as soon as possible. That, I think, you can yourself visualize what that means.

1:33:25 You know, is it a year? Is it a two? Whatever people put into that, you know, as soon as possible. I'm not gonna give it, you know, a time horizon, but, you know You must have your own targets. For sure. For sure, we do. For sure, we do. But I think it's within the foreseeable short term horizon. We have to make that happen. By the next stage. That means that means by implication, you know, using your own calculation that I told I've said this publicly. This means that this target implies us increasing our AUM by a multiple. Whatever that multiple you would calculate, I have my own calculation. You have your own. Everyone here is an analyst of sorts on this basic we're following this basic logic.

1:34:13 That is that is what we have to do. That is the task. And how we're gonna get there is, I think, Alessandro also talked about this. Know, you know, techne, obviously, is an important part of it, which is visible quite visible, you know, the expansion of that program. Yeah. Other clients, you know, and other expansions. Is it feasible to achieve that? We think so. Are there guarantees? No. That's that but I think what I was also trying to say when I was answering the lady's question is if we can get there let's say I don't want to do the numbers but let's say a multiple of five, yeah? So we probably are a different business in terms of how we're perceived by institutional funders, such as ASIMUT as an example, I'm convinced that we're a differently perceived business at that level.

1:35:15 That's what I meant by the war of attrition. I hope that it's been so hard and so, so, so painful, but, you know, you win in the war of attrition when the dam breaks. I hope we get there, but we're not there yet. And I think in the next period, we still have to escalate it to this other level. I hope this gives you a sense of how we're thinking about it. No. It could be that there are no guarantees. But, you know, if we said, clearly, confidence level is not a 100%, but where is it? What what is the percentage? Alessandro, you can talk about the confidence level, but think about it. This is a sticky business. Right? So so this number is already locked in. Right? So there's a three year kind of contracts effect, so it's not gonna be worse. It's gonna be, you know, anything we do is gonna be better and more for sure. So we're moving in that direction.

1:36:05 Yeah. But it I mean, it's gotta be beyond 10 times more or less. It's gotta be substantial. It's gotta be substantial. And I think, you know, as I said, techne is one of the big numbers, you know, we've showed to you, right, so already. So, Alessandro, what is the level of confidence? I think that it's more a level of confidence of some actions that we are discussing. Right? So the because as I was saying before, I think that our model is to achieve this, let's say, sort of to unlock some ingredients and then deliver a business scalable as other startups, other fintechs made, right? So what I believe we are I'm personally confident in some actions that we are discussing in order to target that to achieve this, let's say, trigger, right? At the end of day, it's a trigger because you let me to say this, you don't it's not correct to assess SUPPLY at ME, right, with a curve of growth that maybe you're asking, oh, next year, you increase 20%, 30% or whatever.

1:37:16 Really, we need to get this trigger as soon as possible. So this is the my my goal is not six months or two months, as soon as possible. If because of the work of the directors, we believe that there is an action to do, and this will facilitate this trigger, we need to, you know, work on every, you know, twenty four hours is possible on this trigger because I'm personally not happy if something that I personally founded is not still working. Right? This is, you know, the point. I mean, Italians are have a lot of, concept, but also if we made something we wanted to, that this is a must happen.

1:38:01 And you remember the words of mister Drag in European, whatever it takes, when the European defaulted. I'm not arguing the words of Draghi, but we want to this must happen. And as soon as possible, I think that is the goal. Who knows what can happen, whatever can happen positive, negative delays. Who knew that Banco do BPM delayed so much this activity? What we so sure we know is how much time and money we invested in this deal, and we are not crazy to invest a lot of money if the deal was not there two years ago just to also to give you also the sense of some queries that I saw on the board, the chats, or whatever. So this is my view. Yeah. I mean I mean, I don't wanna harp on about it, but just to give you a sense of urgency, it is very urgent. Mhmm. Why?

1:39:03 Because Alexander mentioned, you know, the sort of thing we've been through as a company, you know, it's when the company is having to raise money in extremely difficult conditions, it's not easy for the company either. You know, I appreciate it's very difficult for the shareholders, but it's an impossible kind of job also here. Yeah. So do we you know, we don't really want to be doing that. So we need to be doing whatever we feel is most urgently would address this particular challenge that is in front of us. Right? So and we, of course, we are evaluating all possible ways to do that, you know, what we can do to bring bring about this, you know, the urgency of Tibet. So just to be clear, so your your goal is to have made that breakthrough before we have our next agent.

1:40:01 No doubt. No doubt. And sorry. Sorry. Maybe not as long, but but no doubt that. And as some just to put you on the spot, what is your confidence level? If it's not a 100%, what is it? No. I I I believe we have again, what we are doing, I personally we are personally working over some evolutions. And if we are working on these solutions or actions, the confidence that with these actions, this trigger will happen is a super is super high. Right? It's it's evident. We are not investing time, money, efforts in something that we don't believe, right? By definition, if we are doing something is in the interest of all the stakeholders, and we believe that this is the best action in order to achieve this, right? And I believe that, again, the model of SUPPLYME is an innovative model.

1:40:59 We learned a lot. A lot happens. We have some pilot transactions and other correctly doing that are also near to complete the life cycle of three years. A transaction actually already happened. So technically, there are also some positive progress that, in my opinion, will help also this trigger the happening of this trigger. But hopefully, next AGM, it will be with more smiles and less and with better sentiment. Thank you very much, indeed. Obviously, Emmy, there's a number of questions online that we received ahead of today's event. You've had a number of questions throughout today's Annual General Meeting. Of course, we will look to maybe publish any responses that we haven't covered over the investment company platform.

1:41:48 Mr. Chairman, I think that's the questions from the room. We've addressed the questions online. Perhaps I could hand back to you as you do have the formalities. Thank you. So I now propose that we move to the ordinary and special business set out in the notice of AGM and accordingly put all the resolutions to be moved today to a vote by poll. I hereby demand a poll on behalf of myself as chair, in accordance with Article 61 of the company's Articles Association. Votes cast will, for the purpose of a poll, include votes cast by proxies. It is my intention as the holder of a number of proxies in respect of which no direction has been given to vote. The shares represented by such proxies in favor of each of the resolutions.

1:42:45 Vote by proxies, discretionary votes, and abstentions are shown on the screen behind me as they are for all resolutions. Are they showing by screen somewhere? Sorry. They're in there. I just said that. Oh, I see. I see. Yeah. In the a poll has been validly demanded, and, accordingly, I ask our representative from Neville Registrars our Registrars to conduct the poll and to act as scrutineers. Resolutions one to seven are proposed as ordinary resolutions and require a simple majority to be passed. Resolutions eight and nine have proposed special resolutions, which, to be passed, require majority of 75% to vote in favor of the resolution.

1:43:37 I will now, I guess, recite the resolutions proposed to the meeting in full. So resolution one, first resolution which is set out in the notice calling this meeting is to receive the annual report and the accounts of the company for the financial year ended 12/31/2024, together with the director's report, strategic report, and the auditor's report on these accounts. Resolution two is to approve the director's remuneration report for the financial year ended 12/31/2024. Resolution three is to appoint a Bride, Graham Murray as auditors of the company. Fourth resolution is to authorize directors to determine the amount of auditors' remuneration.

1:44:23 Fifth resolution is to reappoint mister Alexander Zamboni as executive director of the company. The sixth resolution is to reappoint mister David Bull as a nonexecutive director of the company. The seventh resolution is to authorize directors to, one, allot shares or to grant rights to subscribe, four, or to convert any security into shares in relation to any warrants, and two, provide further general authority. In total, the authorities would permit the directors to allot and issue ordinary shares in the company or to grant rights to subscribe for or to convert any ordinary shares, any security into shares up to the aggregate amount of 10% of the total number of issued ordinary shares of the company as set out in the notice of the meeting rather than the chairman's letter.

1:45:22 Resolution eight is to authorize directors to desupply preemption rights in respect to the authorities granted pursuant to the resolution seven, just the 10%. And the ninth resolution is to authorize the company to call other than then an annual general meeting, a meeting of the company on not less than fourteen days fourteen clear days notice. I now put the resolutions to the AGM. I would like to ask those of you voting by polling paper to ensure your names and the names of the members you're representing are clearly shown on the polling paper, which will be handed to you and indicate the signing of the appropriate box, whether you vote for or against or withheld at the respective resolutions.

1:46:12 A vote withheld is not a vote in law and will be not counted in a calculation of the proportion of the votes for or against at resolution. Please then hand your polling paper to a representative from the scrutineers who will then collect them. In case of joint holders, would members of the proxy's representative members please write the names of the other joint holders on the polling paper. I should add that any shareholders present who have submitted proxies by post and who do not wish to alter their votes need not vote in person. Indeed, it will make the vote count simpler if these shareholders who've already submitted proxies refrain from voting by polling paper.

1:47:05 Will those shareholders requiring polling papers please hold up their hands? Anybody else? Thank you. Okay. So I think this effectively concludes the poll.

1:48:14 The polling papers will now be collected and processed, which will take some time to complete. The counting of the votes and the results of the poll will be published via RNS, as it's customary, which is the regulatory information service of the LSE, as soon as practical after the conclusion of this meeting. So I think with that, ladies and gentlemen, the business of the AGM is now finished. And in concluding, I would really like to thank you for your support, your continued support. There's been no further business. I declare the AGM closed. Thank you for coming. Thank you, mister chairman.

1:49:00 We'll now redirect those online to give you other feedback. Thank you.