Member Info for Kooba

Though would agree if you are to show major holders might as well keep it up to date.

As far as I can see and have posted this list…it is broadly correct assuming shareholders whose responsibility it is to inform the company have complied with disclosure rules.

Main market listed companies must publicly disclose major shareholders, but they are not generally required to maintain this list on their website.

Are they AIM listed ?

Nb with the original rns of AC2 JDA

“The target of the one-year programme is to optimise lead-free nanomaterials to be incorporated into global electronics applications. Once successful, the subsequent stage will involve scale up to industrial production levels during 2027.”

So there was near term scale up ambition…meaningful if this was progressed.

An extension of the second JDA makes a big difference to cash burn …cash burn is the reason to delist apparently.

If the AC2 progresses it would have been a rapid move to scale up from what they previously said and their guidance was that such an extension was expected. So it does make a difference…a big difference to the prospects and cash runway of the business.

So whilst the fact they have neither nailed a further JDA or announced a termination it could be argued either way.

However I would point out that the original JDA was just one year so has effectively ended anyway and they are framing now as a further JDA rather than an extension.

Anyway reading the changes in how the company presents things is rather important , often relative subtle changes in guidance are big clues and should not be overlooked in setting expectation ..they change things for a reason.

Cash flow breakeven aim 2027 to medium term is a big change …and that is very material in the cash runway and delisting moves.

If they have a contract to produce materials for a mass production device on good commercial terms then they would not have a problem raising capital to fund production scale up ( whether that new investment values the business in shareholder interests ..another matter) but on previous comments on whether a company with a poor balance sheet can get such commercial traction that leaves doubts.

The alternative is they get a licence or royalty deal which may or may not move the company to sustainable financial position.

The proof of AC1 intent ie scale up phase orders within months ( set out in interims in April ) will come after the vote…such progress if it proves right should make up for any loss in AC2 revenues and further reduce cash burn. The fact they are trying to delist before hand might demonstrate the level of confidence!

It would also mean we are a one trick pony relying on one partner who has in reality committed peanuts in development work with Nanoco. A position we have been in before.

The last finals released 18th Nov could be seen as more confident.

“In addition, in April 2025 we announced a second JDA, also with a major Asian customer. This one-year agreement is targeting consumer applications but with a different QD material and at a different wavelength, allowing us to spread the risks associated with such developments. The initial results of this work are encouraging, and we expect to extend it during 2026, similar to our first JDA.”

Have expectations changed …has that been a factor in de-listing?

Diverting nonsense again Terry.

Your narrative is as flaky as always.

The bullish news is the founder ex cto and major shareholder has not dumped all his shares , even though we wont know if he keeps selling down as is no longer disclosable.

He doesnt seem as keen on the delisting as you…but what does he know???

Thats super.

Thats a ridiculous take Terry.

He made a choice and dumped a lot of stock…would he have sold more if he could who knows…might he be selling more we will not know now he is below 3%.

No one made him sell he chose to seemingly on the back of the delisting news…no even you can paint a positive of a founder and ex cto running for the hills surely.

Yes 2.75m shares dumped by founder and until recently main board director of the company and an employee up to February at the heart of the JDA work i imagine.

Why a seller because of threat of delisting …surely there is no longer term holder who knows the technology and the potential better…why sell now ??

Thoughts that he would back the delisting seem rather wrong!

He sold 4.5m in the tender at 24p and now a few years later millions at less than 3p.

Be interesting some uber bulls interpretation on this…and that the delist is good for investors.

Pot.

Agree smithy that is how they treat shareholders when it is main market listed imagine the absolute lack of engagement if they go private. If they do ever want to tell shareholders anything ..how would that be done. They have pledged to have a website for a year but are they going to email shareholders important updates?? Not sure they cover this as there will be no rns service.

Think they just want to disappear. There will be no protections if there is a matching market basis that there will be a level playing field …so someone on the other side might be far better informed …no MAR rules.

My big concern is continued failure to generate revenues and a highly dilutive ‘rescue’ that dilutes existing shareholders out of sight. I like investor protections …maybe just me!

There was simple middle ground to save money whilst keeping investor protections move the listing to AIM…was it considered??

Or is the main reason more around far looser regulation, accountability , transparency and governance than just cost?

In terms of costs how much will this exercise cost as a one off in itself?

My vote is in ,against , and hope it fails and promotes more of a considered approach to their largest shareholder component.

Though they have already done considerable damage to the valuation that will not be recovered.

Ongoing Maintenance Costs

AIM : Annual membership runs around £100,000 to £220,000, depending on the size of the company. The ongoing regulatory regime is more flexible and less demanding.

Main Market: Annual costs can be double those on AIM. The rigorous compliance required (such as mandatory adherence to the UK Corporate Governance Code or "comply or explain") demands more internal resources, management time, and legal expenses.

Do remember he got involved when he thought STM was happening …he then went along with the strategic review and supported trying to sell the business , in the meantime the Chair resigned as had moved passed 9 year stint and he had to take the helm because there was no one else…so like many what he thought he bought into hasn’t exactly materialised and I would guess he wishes he had never got involved…many know that feeling! So he is stuck and the best he has is to delist now which I take as no sign of confidence they are on the cusp of anything I’m afraid. He just wants to remove any real obligation to disclose much and maybe just wind it down on the quiet with no scrutiny?

Apart from the two that failed to get approval at the last AGM.

I believe when faced with a delisting there will be a higher retail turnout…it is also far easier to vote now across many nominee administrations. Assuming Milkwood are in favour when they mostly got involved to secure a listing is a stretch…someone voted against the board in the last AGM in size on resolutions I doubt retail were interested in …but they made a point.

We don’t know who that was but likely part of Milkwoods interest.

So have they kissed and made up and are happy forgoing listing protections and MAR …guess we will find out.

The truth of the matter is that

Nanoco Group (LSE:NANO) is known for having a highly fragmented shareholder register dominated by retail investors, often estimated to make up roughly \(70\%\) of the shareholder base through broker nominee accounts.

So without knowing how retail will vote …if they do. They cannot be certain in any way of delisting being approved by 75%.

What they may have is some support from the EBT ex directors staff etc but they would be relying totally on a very low retail turnout to get to 75% and if any of the larger institutions vote against they will not get there.

A strong retail turnout can defeat this …I don’t support and I have read the board ( all 3 of them and no majority being independent) and read thoughts on here and still don’t see it in retail investor interests.

They relied on retail to keep the lights on when they raised money at 37p…this is dropping many of those same investors not many years later and there will be no one protecting their interests behind closed doors…its abundantly clear they have no interest in communicating with the 70% of holders…no meetings no engagement on listing.

I also wonder whether on the inside the confidence in the last running JDA is fading and they want to take this offline and not have to comply with MAR disclosure rules and treat holders like mushrooms whilst still drawing down shareholder funds.

The question is “What is the best thing we can do next?”

The executives answer… hide, and forget about the shareholders.

They have had loads of time they have had loads of money..plenty left to execute we were told post distribution. Giving more time without clarity on when this company will become financially sustainable just appears a licence to blow the rest. They do not explain well enough whether there is a real prospect of medium (now not 2027 ) term breakeven..being pragmatic should they not look at whether carrying on chugging through the cash is actually best for shareholders if we are still hoping for something in 2/3 years time the company will be after money again which is when existing shareholders will be diluted out of sight …once private behind closed doors they can do much to “save” the company.

Prefer visibility and agree with Nanonano they are just not interested in the shareholders whose funds kept this running they just want to lose them and run it away from scrutiny how they see fit.

TW will say not surprised they want to get away from such scrutiny but to be honest any criticism i have ventured is completely fair and most of the time proves to be correct as the company bumbles on with new CEO’s and little board independence. I think they need to be held to account and not just have free rein with £10m of shareholder funds.

Well sage advise with the benefit of hindsight.

The thing with small caps is spreading risk but you are right you would have done massively better in trackers than most small caps…part of the reason is that so much money is moving into trackers away from active management …there are very few supportive funds in small cap space…this has taken a toll.

But also we like to believe these ( esp UK ) tech plays can succeed and be another ARM when the reality is that most fall by the wayside..some through poor management or products others because they can’t get funding …either way they struggle on going nowhere whilst still putting out expectations of breakeven and great things IT THEY EXECUTE! One story after another as shareholder value gets dissolved.

Most apart from TW who seems to think everything is part of a genius master plan and that everything is great have probably learnt a valuable lesson here and the unfortunate truth that many companies talk the talk but few deliver. This company has had one commercial order for probably $100k odd in over 20 years and much of the value they perceived in their IP is either expiring or is now able to be used by the massive end users. Nanoco like many other small UK techs do not have management with the nouse to succeed.

Always slightly odd that they think the route to market is social media and an on line shop for QDs and potential customers should DM them , who do they think will be browsing their shop to access off the shelf materials I wonder?

Might be wrong and the stuff is flying off the shelves but would really need some evidence this marketing approach is working , but anyone sourcing materials this way I doubt ever going is going to be of any scale.