Member Info for ddubya

@Laura. A shareholder giving support to the delisting proposal is not the same as providing an irrevocable undertaking since that includes a contractual commitment to sell to a bidder at an agreed price.

Again, who have they agreed to sell shares to when there is no bidder?

Thank you TerrorWit and good luck with NANO and your other investments.

I had been keeping these shares for my children and hopefully grandchildren’s benefit but finally lost all confidence in the Board. Thankfully, I made good my losses in precious metals (not the opportunity costs over 16 years) and will be far more careful with these funds going forward 😀

You quote below makes reference to ‘takeover’ which would include a bidder and seems to support what I am saying.

I’ll leave you to it for the moment Laura. I don’t want any more comms than are need on the Board.

“irrevocable undertakings are binding commitments from major shareholders to accept a takeover offer or vote in favor of a delisting resolution.”

I certainly don’t mean to be obtuse Laura and to be honest your tone seems to better fit the description.

I have been clear on my ownership of NANO. I no longer have shares and sold my last very recently. If you are wrong on that account what else might you not have got correct?

What did your response at 13.06 today mean if not to suggest no IU had been received and consequently the motion may well not carry?

So in your 30 cases, to whom did the existing shareholders provide irrevocable undertakings to sell their shares?

That’s fine TerrorWit. You are a NANO believer and making a decision with your eyes open.

@ Laura . It’s up to you, spend time finding out, or don’t 😀.

To anyone else listening, I suggest you do your own research. In my view there is no need to either obtain or disclose an irrevocable undertaking unless there is a bidder and hence Laura may not be correct to highlight the lack of irrevocable undertakings as a positive indicator that a vote on the motion will fail. My guess is that it passes.

My agenda Laura is that I don’t want anyone to sleepwalk and be locked into an investment they will never realise. What’s yours. I am also talking about cases where a delisting is proposed.

Sorry. Pressed send by mistake. Claude draws a distinction between Takeover and Voluntary delisting stating the following for the latter.

B) Standalone Voluntary Cancellation — The Shareholder Circular (UKLR)

Where the company simply convenes a general meeting to seek shareholder approval for cancellation under the UKLR (no accompanying takeover offer), the Takeover Code does not apply. Any IUs obtained from major shareholders to vote in favour of the delisting resolution would not be subject to the Code’s mandatory disclosure regime. However, as a matter of good practice and market convention, and potentially under general disclosure obligations (e.g. DTR), material agreements or commitments by significant shareholders that affect the outcome of the vote would typically be disclosed in the circular sent to shareholders.

In short it appears that if there are any undertakings obtained, NANO need not disclose them. You might want to dig a little deeper but would make sense to me.

Perhaps your 30 cases all involved a bidder, which would be governed by the City Code?

I have just asked Claude for a view because she is smarter than me. Her response draws a distinction between voluntary

@Laura. State undertakings where they exist presumably. But what if there is no needs for them?

@ Laura. I believe that irrevocable undertakings apply only where there are bidders for shares, as would apply in event of a takeover. I don’t think it applies to a voluntary delisting, only criteria for the % of shareholders that must approve the motion to delist. What were the circumstances in the 30 delisting you have seen?

Irrevocable undertakings are typically taken where there is finance involved. For example, where a VC is buying a stake or putting funds up for an acquisition they would require irrevocable undertakings to sell their shares to an agreed party before the VC commits.

I can’t see where an obligation arises for a key shareholder to vote in a particular way in these circumstances. How do you see such an obligation arising?

Either way, the CEO will have held discussions with key shareholders and have a good understanding of their views.

16 years actually holder but I am out now having made no overall gain and over 2m shares.

There is chance of a good trade from here but only if something commercial comes of the workpackages underway. There is also a high risk of a wipeout too.

I doubt the motion to delist would have been presented had sufficient shareholder support to delist not already been secured 😐

I hope you and other don’t get burned here Laura.

OK we are up 10% today but my cynical guess is the Board see this as a golden opportunity to take control, avoid all oversight, retain the cash and the value any future ‘deal(s)’ might deliver.

If NANO delists you will still be able to sell, if matched to a buyer, but there will be little data available to value and market shares. That likely means low SP and NANO is unlikely to ever relist.

After all this probably is the very lowest point in the history of the company. A good time to be a shareholding Director but I am far from convinced this is a good time to be a shareholder.

Good luck to you and all though.

@Leafie. I suspect they will, following a delisting and the majority of PI have sold.

@Terrorwit The company may be better off but what about the shareholders, is it not them that matter most?

Let’s be honest, you have been finding the positive in every NANO miss step or period of radio silence. And what has it delivered for you? I take it you are well underwater now just like the majority?

How many more excuses do you want to provide for NANO’s underperformance TerrorWit?

NANO has been an absolute dog for almost every PI. I have lost money but thankfully was out well before this 50% drop, which follows on from many similar drops in the past.

For me, the funds are for my children and hopefully grandchildren, so thankfully I made the right decision to get out in favour of precious metals, where I have more than recovered the losses.

NANO has been a sad tale of technical promise but led by incompetent, greedy and dishonest management in my view.

I hope everyone gets their money back but a delisted firm is rarely a good investment in my view. It is most likely being done to save money and provide a cash cow for the Directors. Before success arrives they will have flushed most PI down the toilet and forced the remaining diehards to sell back to them at a ridiculously low valuation.

Why should the CEO receive 49% and in return for what exactly?

I guess TRK shareholders are just the Cash Cows (again).

SCLP has now doubled in around six weeks yet there has been no RNS that fully explains this rise or any denial by the Board of an increase for unknown reasons.

I’m not complaining but I do hope there is a crock of gold at the end of this rainbow.

It was a very strange decision to sell Gold when at the bottom in value terms. Of course, back then everyone was saying gold and precious metals were dead and of no value.