Member Info for Kooba

Terry you dont even know the Corporate Governance code exists..and why it exists.

What i stated was just a fact…if you find knowing facts a problem that it is your problem.

“Who will be the first person to claim its confirmation of whatever it is they already believed?”

Well thats always you Terry however wrong you are you think you are always right…so i’m sure you saw this coming.

It does address Corporate Governance code issues of board composition though.

They informed by message 23rd June

Dear Mr

Nanoco Group Plc - Delisting

Your holding of _______ shares within your SIPP

We previously contacted you about Nanoco Group Plc proposing to cancel the company’s ordinary shares trading on the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange, which was subject to shareholder approval at a general meeting (GM) to be held on 19 June 2026.

The general meeting was adjourned, and no date has been announced for the new meeting.

We will be in contact with you again when the new meeting date has been announced.

This correspondence is for information only and no action is required. Should you have any queries relating to this matter please contact us.

If your circumstances mean you'd like some extra support, or you have specific accessibility needs, there are lots of ways we can help. Visit www.hl.co.uk/support or call us on 0117 900 9000 to find out more.

Yours sincerely

Corporate Actions Team

Hargreaves Lansdown

The company has also clarified the adjournment is sine die.

Meaning No Scheduled Return: Unlike a standard adjournment that schedules the next hearing for a specific date or time, a sine die postponement leaves the door open. The case is not closed or dismissed; it is simply paused until further notice.

It’s closed!

He sold 2.75m shares taking his holding below the 3% level. The date of the transaction that led to that threshold being crossed was 3 June.

So we do not know if he carried on selling or held the remaining shares. ..it is not disclosable.

But what we do know is that he sold these shares and that he was selling up to 3 June when the price was around 3p.

The company informed of its intension to delist on 27th May about a week before.

So to think he was selling due to the announcement makes sense and his selling would not have helped the share price as was quite sizeable , what we dont know is what he did with the remaining holding after the last disclosure.

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/nanoco/news/rns/story/w39783w

Quite amusing the size of the market being $10b and stating

“The market is dominated by prominent key players, such as Nanoco Group plc, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (SAMSUNG DISPLAY), BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., Merck KGaA, and Shoei Chemical, Inc. (Nanosys).”

When we have no commercial revenues. But some interesting parts in there.

Source: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/quantum-dots-market-109532

I’m afraid there was little confidence in the reduced board delivering on the JDA promise of moving the company to financial sustainability …that has been reflected in the zero enterprise value for some time. Now trading a larger discount to cash shows even less confidence in the management to deliver value.

They consistently say the market undervalues the company but consistently fail to deliver any evidence of this value…the de listing looks like a costly diversion to hide behind which does not indicate any confidence from the board they can deliver …or they wouldn’t have gone that route. All in all they have further damaged the rating and investor confidence…it’s on them .

What is also on them is fulfilling the promise of scale up volume increases boosting revenues and delivering a second phase of development to scale up with AC2. Everything else is shuffling what’s left of the assets in ever decreasing circles.

They were share acquisitions in lieu of salary for NEDs so off market issuance of shares…they then actually sold shares to cover tax.

Nanoco (LSE: NANO), a world leader in the development and manufacture of cadmium-free quantum dots and other specific nanomaterials emanating from our technology platform, confirms that it has issued 935,778 ordinary shares to satisfy the deferral of director fees of existing and former non-executive directors, as stated in the trading update RNS issued on 19th August 2025. In aggregate, 160,021 of these have been sold to satisfy income tax and national insurance requirements, with the remaining 775,757 being retained by the current and former non-executive directors. The number of shares the directors were entitled to was calculated at each month end of the deferral period.

Those no longer on the board would not have to declare sales…those that are would.

Dr Pickett announced he had sold down his holding to below 3% so as no longer a director and below that threshold we cannot know what he has done with the balance of his holding.

Quite clearly it was a misjudgement ..there is no two ways about it.

They have the up to date share register to work from.

We will never know the magnitude , but assume it was not going to be close to passing.

Seems they took a punt …and lost.

Hope they come clean and tell shareholders the cost incurred in this abortive exercise put that on top of the money lost in the last court case they escalated then folded and see real evidence for the declining balance sheet.

It is now 2 months since the company said that activity with AC1 would move to scale up phase in the next few months …so all ears on that.

Presume we are still discussing more work with AC2 as nothing to the contrary has been said.

The company had a two pronged strategy when seeing off Milkwood. Selling the operations and IP and progressing commercialisation.

The sale produced nothing but costs and much management time.

The commercial opportunities are as we stand with one jda.

How have they done in meeting their targets given to shareholders???

Dont blame them for trying to run away from scrutiny .but shareholders are still here.

Well terry to start with you said they would not have embarked on going to shareholders for a delist unless they knew it was in the bag. That is clearly wrong as the board and yourself have now found out. Clearly a vast majority of shareholders do not find the argument for delisting acceptable and they are the ones who own the company. I dont think the arguments are strong enough against the lack of visability and shareholder rights that would be lost…seems most were not convinced either .

They did not evidence they looked at moving back to AIM which would have saved more than half the cost whilst protecting shareholders rights and regulatory disclosures. Why not ?

I see Terry is soaking up the attention …he just loves it. Maybe that is why he serially calls everything wrong then says he gets everything right just to rile others into responding. He is such a little scamp…but i guess that is how he gets his jollies in the fantasy world he inhabits.

Quite sad really but i guess without this site and his endless pointless posts he has very little. Bless..

So funny with TW however often he gets things wrong…basically always , he still comes out and says he got it right and comes up with some new narrative of why.

He absolutely called this wrong…along with the board.

Most normal folk would wind their necks in…not our Terry he just keeps digging.

Globex…they clearly didnt want you to to see the numbers!

The very small number of posters who said that the company would not go ahead unless they knew it would go through and there was no point opposing…hang your heads in shame. Begs the question how much of precious shareholder funds were wasted in this exercise??

Shareholder power.

Sensible to adjourn rather than push ahead knowing they would not win…

Whilst people can vote in person at the meeting the deadline for proxies

This form (together with any power of attorney or other authority under which this form is signed) must arrive at Neville Registrars Limited, Neville House, Steelpark Road, Halesowen B62 8HD not less than 48 hours

(excluding non-working days) before the time of the General Meeting (10:30 a.m. on 17 June 2026)

So whilst it is still unclear the movement today would be unusual if it voting was clearly in favour of delist/

Most shareholders vote by proxy so id imagine the company has a fair idea where the voting is. Whether they continue to a vote if it becomes apparent it does not pass we will have so see.

So attention seeking…

Join the quiet ones you apparently appointed yourself to represent if you have nothing.

Very annoying and needy arent you!

Just see how it plays out.

Seems down to Milkwood and Cable car , if they are against cant see this going through. Though there is a chance the EBT holding ( costing over £3m) using shareholder funds could be key …that would be a somewhat ironic in terms of stuffing the folks who actually own the company.

“It reads to me like this imaginary highly motivated retail share base all work at the same car wash”

Usual NitWig/ Terry BS attacking other posters because he doesn't share their views…always ends up with him showing what a low life he is…he cant help himself.

But terry you’ve been saying the board would not have taken this course ( at quite some expense) if it was not nailed on..are you now thinking otherwise listing some possibilities if defeated.

The context of switching to aim is quite important and not to be confused as having the same costs. The costs are more dictated by market cap.

Whist a move from main market for a company that has shrunk to current levels might well be appropriate i dont see the company discussing a listing light anywhere. It seems a sensible move.

“Maintaining a listing on the AIM market is significantly cheaper and less heavily regulated than the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange (LSE). While total ongoing costs depend on the company’s market capitalisation, AIM companies typically face compliance and advisory fees of £200,000 to £300,000 annually, whereas Main Market companies often spend double or triple that amount.”

They can also ditch edison £60000 a year that delivers little interest.

They do not have to take a further hatchet to staff costs if they execute and move to scale up phase in the next few months as they have guided. Also they are still apparently talking to AC2 on further development. If they know nether of these will be delivered then yes more cost need to go because there would be no visibility on revenues.

If they do indeed move ahead towards finally get commercial traction and are in line to receive mass market product orders 18 months out they would likely have no issue raising further finance from existing shareholders with that visibility if they needed funding to get order ready.

I think they have made a mistake and just have no interest in their shareholders 80% retail and many of whom have supported previous raises and are dropping them because its easier for them to have no accountability.

Here's how you voted:

Shares available: ———-

1

APPROVE CANCELLATION OF COMPANY'S ORDINARY SHARES FROM THE OFFICIAL LIST OF THE FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY AND FROM ADMISSION TO TRADING ON LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE'S MAIN MARKET

You Voted: Against

2

APPROVE RE-REGISTRATION OF THE COMPANY AS A PRIVATE COMPANY BY THE NAME OF NANOCO GROUP LIMITED; ADOPT NEW ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

You Voted: Against

Quite weird as

Under the Companies Act 2006, UK law does not use the term OGM and has officially replaced EGM with simply a General Meeting (GM).

It is very much not an OGM and should be defined as just a GM…maybe this is a HL thing but something is not correct.