Member Info for guidfarr

Something is happening here - these guys are buying for a reason and they must believe Reabold is severely undervalued. Sometimes i wonder why an operator like Enquest with big tax losses doesn't buy out Reabold - it would provide them with a company with big onshore gas reserves. And it would be much simpler to develop than their offshore 'expensive' wells.

And West Newton is not tiny. The 2022 CPR quoted by Union Jack showed gross 2C technically recoverable sales gas of 197.6 bcf, plus liquids.

Chances of delisting are not slip if most people don't bother to vote!

For Hargreaves Lansdown - you need to log in

'However, this doesn't stop you from partaking or voting in any future AGMs on any of the shares that you hold. If you'd like to attend an AGM or vote on a company’s shares that you hold, you can do so once logged into your account through our website by clicking on the View shareholder meetings link underneath your secure messages.

From here, you will be able to see all upcoming shareholder meetings for companies in which you own shares and submit a vote on the proposals or request to attend an upcoming meeting.'

I just voted. VOTE NO. DON'T LET THEM TAKE IT PRIVATE.

They can list on AIM and delist from the main market - AIM costs like 200k per year.

Milkwood Capital which owns 8.2% is not a friend to the board - they've had clashes before and tried to change management in 2024. They've been voting against their resolutions.

Your votes count. Make sure to contact your broker and stop this nonsense. These people work for us, not the other way round.

Well the board will have to buy a big amount of shares if they want to delist! Otherwise its a no from us!!!

If you want to make a difference buy more. This will go up if delisting fails.

I have 3 million shares and will be voting against . Should the shares fall I'm ready to buy up to another 2 million.

If it falls i'll be buying more to ensure i have more votes. So far 3 million stock

The arseholes will probably use 6.70% Nanoco Group PLC Employee Benefit Trust in favour - even if these were shares bought back.

We need Milkwood Capital Limited that owns 8% to vote against - and there is a good chance they will vote against.

Milkwood Capital Limited had a highly publicized, adversarial relationship with the management and board of Nanoco Group PLC. The tension escalated into an open corporate battle over board control and the company's fundamental strategy

The 2024 Board Requisition Battle

The friction came to a head when Milkwood—acting as one of Nanoco's largest institutional shareholders with an approximate 8.2% stake—attempted to stage a boardroom intervention. The Demand: Milkwood officially requisitioned a General Meeting to force the appointment of its own founder, Rhys Summerton, and investment analyst, André Tonkin, to Nanoco's board of directors. The Strategy Dispute: According to corporate filings, Milkwood believed Nanoco's public market valuation was severely depressed. Nanoco's board claimed that Milkwood's ultimate plan was to drastically cut costs, rapidly liquidate or sell off Nanoco's operating assets for minimal value, and convert Nanoco into a closed investment vehicle shell rather than letting it remain a standalone tech operating firm.

Management’s Sharp Pushback

Nanoco’s management and board launched a fierce defensive campaign urging shareholders to reject Milkwood's nominees. The board publicly criticized Milkwood's intentions, arguing that the activists were acting in their own self-interest rather than looking out for the wider shareholder base.

The Chairman of Nanoco at the time stated:

"Milkwood has a clear and established recent track record of launching activist campaigns against undervalued, cash-rich listed entities... the Board believes that the Resolutions are not aligned with the interests of all of the Company's Shareholders and would be highly disruptive."

Management argued they were already executing a superior strategy, which included appointing a new CEO (Dmitry Shashkov), exploring an orderly sale of the trading business at a premium, and returning tens of millions in surplus cash directly back to investors.

Though Nanoco's management won that specific battle with an overwhelming majority, Milkwood retained its sizable equity stake, remaining a major, historically vocal contrarian block on Nanoco's share registry.

DID MILKWOOD CAPITAL MEND THEIR RELATIONS SUBSEQUENTLY?

1. No Peace Treaty, Just a Standoff

Unlike other activist campaigns where Milkwood eventually signed formal settlement or standstill agreements (such as their truce with Aimia Inc.), no such olive branch was extended to Nanoco's management.

Instead, Milkwood chose to maintain its exact 8.22% equity stake (16,000,000 shares), remaining the largest distinct institutional shareholder on the registry. Rather than selling out after their boardroom defeat, they adopted a "wait-and-see

I think if we manage to block the delisting it would be a catalyst itself for a re-rating. This needs to be listed on AIM not the main market.

Don't let these charlatans take you for a ride - buy, vote against all resolutions and see the stock price double!

Then we need to see who came up with this idea and get them fired.

This should be listed on AIM where the costs are far cheaper. We also need to find a buyer. Expenses need to be minimised - any directors or employees not contributing directly to the bottom line need to be let go. Sell the company and distribute the funds to shareholders.

You are not alone. Milkwood Capital Limited have 8% of this. I'm not sure how receptive they will be to a delisting!

Milkwood Capital Limited had a highly publicized, adversarial relationship with the management and board of Nanoco Group PLC. The tension escalated into an open corporate battle over board control and the company's fundamental strategy.

The 2024 Board Requisition Battle

The Demand: Milkwood officially requisitioned a General Meeting to force the appointment of its own founder, Rhys Summerton, and investment analyst, André Tonkin, to Nanoco's board of directors.

The Strategy Dispute: According to corporate filings, Milkwood believed Nanoco's public market valuation was severely depressed. Nanoco's board claimed that Milkwood's ultimate plan was to drastically cut costs, rapidly liquidate or sell off Nanoco's operating assets for minimal value, and convert Nanoco into a closed investment vehicle shell rather than letting it remain a standalone tech operating firm.

Management’s Sharp Pushback

Nanoco’s management and board launched a fierce defensive campaign urging shareholders to reject Milkwood's nominees. The board publicly criticized Milkwood's intentions, arguing that the activists were acting in their own self-interest rather than looking out for the wider shareholder base.

The Chairman of Nanoco at the time stated:

"Milkwood has a clear and established recent track record of launching activist campaigns against undervalued, cash-rich listed entities... the Board believes that the Resolutions are not aligned with the interests of all of the Company's Shareholders and would be highly disruptive."

Management argued they were already executing a superior strategy, which included appointing a new CEO (Dmitry Shashkov), exploring an orderly sale of the trading business at a premium, and returning tens of millions in surplus cash directly back to investors.

The Outcome

The dispute was put to a definitive shareholder poll, where Milkwood's attempt to take board seats was resoundingly defeated.

THE CURRENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE NOT LOOKING AFTER SHAREHOLDERS BUT AFTER THEMSELVES. DON'T LET THEM TAKE YOU FOR THE FIINAL RIDE.

Go on then vote for delisting and see if you're better. They should list it on AIM where the fees are lower. I have no confidence in this bunch of directors. I think they will keep at it until they run it dry if we allow them.

As a general rule directors don't give a hoot about shareholders. They only care about what they can extract personally from the company. They only care about shareholders when they need to raise money. That is my personal experience. With this bunch I also know that they are a bunch of charlatans that promise a lot and deliver little.

I hope you all are contacting your broker and making sure to vote against all resolutions. These shysters/charlatans are trying to 'steal' your company and 'bleed' it dry out of the spotlight. Having the company unlisted is not in your interests! What we really need is to fire many of the directors here to minimise expenses and put it up for sale for a few millions. Then distribute the rest of the funds back to shareholders. If you don't vote you are playing in their hands. I think they won't get a 'yes' vote unless they buy a ton of shares in the public market in the days that follow. (which is not unheard of - I've seen instances where the stock multiplied x times pre-suspension)

This shambles of a stock attracts stamp duty lol. The blasphemous management here has really screwed shareholders well and proper.

That is the key question - how long will the cash last? I have no doubt that this company has too many employees for its size and the ones at the top must be extracting quite a lot. Given how fast the bulk of the money has been 'burnt' I don't think the cash will last long? The only thing that would benefit shareholders is firing most of the high level staff and operating at a bare minimum but that won't happen with this bunch. So what's the plan?

On the Employee Benefit Trust, the answer is: probably yes, technically those shares appear to carry voting rights - unless the trust deed, trustee policy, or meeting arrangements say otherwise.

Why? Nanoco says the EBT holds 13,102,486 shares / 6.73% on its major-shareholder page. More importantly, Nanoco’s September 2025 total voting rights announcement says the company had 195,543,816 ordinary shares, none held in treasury, and therefore 195,543,816 total voting rights. That means the EBT shares are not being excluded like treasury shares. They are being counted as part of the voting-rights base.

The EBT shares came from the 2024 capital return: Nanoco bought shares through the tender offer, cancelled most of them, and transferred about 13.75m shares to the EBT to meet future obligations under the LTIP and Deferred Bonus Plan. Nanoco later described the EBT shares as being held to meet future employee share-plan obligations and reduce future dilution.

The uncomfortable bit: the EBT is employee/management-aligned stock, not outside shareholder capital. EBTs are normally used to hold shares for employee incentive plans; they can warehouse shares for future awards. So if the EBT trustee votes for delisting, minority shareholders may argue it is effectively management-friendly stock helping pass a controversial resolution.

I would ask Nanoco directly whether the EBT trustee intends to vote on the delisting resolution and, if so, whether it will vote independently or abstain given the obvious conflict perception.

Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Limited owns 21% of Nanoco - these are probably HL customers’ shares held through the HL platform/nominee structure.

Will HL “keep holding” after delisting? Not as one deliberate holder.

Some underlying HL clients may hold on. Many may sell before delisting because post-delisting liquidity becomes poor. Nanoco says there will be no formal market, no public quote, and only a JP Jenkins matched bargain facility, with no guarantee of liquidity.

If Nanoco becomes unlisted/private, shares may no longer be eligible for ISA treatment. HL’s corporate-action FAQ says that where an ISA holding becomes ineligible, HMRC rules require the holding to be removed from the ISA within 30 calendar days - either sold, moved to another HL nominee/non-ISA account, or certificated. That could create forced or semi-forced decisions for some retail holders.

Laura I've seen you before. You specialise in buying busted companies after they're 95% down hoping to make a quick 20% before the crash resumes. You'll offload your shares here to unsuspecting bag holders while ramping the stock to high heaven to try pushing it up 😂😂

Going down - DIRECTORS HAVE PROPERLY FECKED SHAREHOLDERS HERE. Once private it will be very difficult to transact shares.