Member Info for Kooba

Troublesome..Self regulation has never proved that effective! It only works once an organisation knows it is not going to get away with it as we have seen recently with some tv channels. An investigation here may consist of did you get any information not in the public domain and act on it…no. I don’t think i did ..Ok thats fine then ! Onwards and upwards bonuses all round.

Bluerill

“.., while effectively LOAM have already 'announced' their findings in that their lawyers' response letter to Tariq's charges was extremely robust and thus contains the strong imputation that they've conducted a thorough internal investigation and found nothing .”

Where can i see the LOAM “announced” findings letter , i wasn’t aware they had responded.

I think you make a lot of presumptions as tot he conduct of a hedge fund that might not be correct. Such as whether there was a tape recording of the call at all.

Much here revolves around whether the parties act in concert and had over 30% which the takeover code deems to be an effective controlling interest. Here LOAM and RG were involved with the business when it floated and moved to be holding well over 30% at the time of the loan and the appointment of Turcan to the board of the company and appointment to the litigation sub committee. If they have combined controlling interests and have managed to exert authority on the board by having such combined interests then that becomes another matter. Whether such holdings conferred preferential treatment is again another matter.

https://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Note-to-advisers_Rule-9disclosure.0322.pdf

I wonder how many calls with companies that RG has been on are recorded for posterity ?

Good practise in this situation would have been for a regulated person from Peel Hunt on the board..if that was not the case and no recording of the highly inappropriate call was made then i would say the balance of probability is that information above and beyond the 6th Jan rns was shared.It should be up to the participants now that such a call has come to light to prove what the reason and context of such a pre arranged call was and what level of detail was discussed. Strictly speaking they should not have had any contact whatsoever ahead of highly price sensitive rns…since they chose to they need to justify the reason for the call and the notes accompanying the contact..if not recording or notes were made then it seems a matter for investigation anyway. Agree that self governance of these matters when senior people are on the call are worthless. Nanoco board has precious little independence at the best of times but investigating the CEO and Chairs conduct isnt going to happen. I dont know LOAM well enough to comment on their internal compliance but the huge overlap with RG interests would raise eyebrows in any fund management organisation I know.

NGR

You have just accused me of being paranoid and delusional ..and having mental issues.

You think that is ok?

Having said all new posters were drunk or on drugs..in jest in hindsight..

Maybe you find these are appropriate accusations to make as personal sleights and jokes..pretty sure many will not and realise that such posts are highly inappropriate.

And you want to play the don’t be personal card…you are indeed a nitwit.

The poster on the other thread has been exposed as nitwig even though they said they had never had an account before and denied outright that they were one and the same , deluded in thinking some are not what they claim …nah just justifiably untrusting . Nitwig has had numerous other accounts ..not sure if anyone remembers them on here before they were banned.. but seems like a bad smell they keep resurfacing.

NGR

Bang on the playbook of your “friend”

“Or maybe PPE and you Kooba are just paranoid and delusional. Because suggesting every poster disagreeing with you and agreeing with others is one and the same person can, frankly, only be explained by having some sort of issue mental or otherwise.”

Next you will be saying that anyone who disagrees with you must wash cars for a living ..clever stuff like that when you cannot justify your posts ..the last person i think you are is PPE..He seems to repost your drivel as it is identical to a poster on the other thread…maybe you just copy their childish style?

NGR

‘I’m pretty sure most recent arrivals here are either drinking too much or on drugs or both.’

So people you do not agree with I presume , you put into a group as impaired addicts… seen very similar playbooks elsewhere. ..except throwing mental health issues around at people that that poster doesn’t agree with. It surely must be the lowest form of ability to have to behave in such a way and to believe throwing such ridiculous accusations around trying to undermine debate does anything than make you look a very sad individual.

Interesting the ‘individual’ elsewhere has a habit of reposting your post here..what a coincidence that is.

Edison the company paid for and approved promotional research openly refers to ST Micro , since Nanoco have editorial control before release it seems bonkers that it is fully open who the European customer is in promotional material yet they pretend to observe “secrecy” in official comms..all seems a bit of a sham. If there is confidentiality agreement then its been selectively ignored.

Thank you Nanonano..i even posted a link to the presentation covering the expected validation timing .. a precondition to any order expected before the end of the calendar year.

I don’t tend to make stuff up to be honest i leave that to others.

What everyone should be able to agree on is that if the company can achieve a significant order in sensing that it should lead on to much bigger and better things and a genuine long term growth future for a UK technology business..if the shareprice reflects that some shareholders may move on and others come in..it would cleanse the share register to an extent !

First stop is the validation of materials that the company said was a precondition of any contract and would be achieved before the end of the current financial year..ie by the end of this month.Delivering on that timeline given only a few months ago might start to repair shareholder confidence.

Was a joke silly !

I dont think anyone can forget that or the pittance received in a no fault settlement ..as to trusting Samsung with the secret recipe was that the best idea?

Tell me what commercial traction they have…what orders have they received of actual product used in commercial applications? Calling people a clown is not an argument but it does show projection.

The Chair is on record saying they had the conversation as they were negotiating the heads of terms..rather difficult for LOAM to deny it without it looking even worse than it does! If i were compliance and risk management at Loam i would be having a very close look at the overlapping investments with RG ..dozens of them often giving them effective control jointly..if no one has spotted that before then they are presumably free to do whatever they like round there.

“So don’t make out the current team has failed to deliver something that takes years and years to cycle out into the commercial product”

They have delivered nothing in the way of commercial traction ever , if they do not get a decent commercial order this time will just be more of the same..the lead times to product are lengthy but the company has targeted numerous applications and sectors over the years all apparently close according to the narrative …just that they never materialised. Lets hope this time is different for shareholder sakes..they’ve had years and years …just no orders.

Bluerill I respect your point of view but disagree the likelihood of improper communications.

I also doubt that banning using mobile phones in hedge funds or by wealthy individuals such as RG is a thing…quite the opposite. These guys don not want an audit trail! Anyway will leave it there…will see if more details emerge in due course.

I think just allowing the same crew to carry on who have failed to deliver any contracts or growth for decades doesn’t necessary make much sense either..they have had lots of time, shareholder funding and opportunity to try to commercialise the R&D…that is the strategy and it has not been implemented . I’m sure the factory is lovely , unfortunately never used to fill any commercial contracts since being built. I think the idea from the group is if there are grounds to think that contracts are imminent then sure there is a reason to have a large production facility..if there are not then not so much...at the moment we do not have any commercial contracts. Since the projects the comapny are working on are wrapped in secrecy i guess they would need to look under the bonnet to know how realistic commercialisation opportunities really are before being able to have firm plans.

I am afraid you are not that wise with the way of the world just because it would be illegal , unprofessional , career suicide etc does not stop folks acting stupidly when money is involved as we have seem time and time again…getting caught is the problem. If it was not recorded or minuted properly at the time then why would anyone be dismissed? If the evidence is such that one party admitted that things were said on that call then it might not be a straight forward situation. I doubt anyone made inside would simply put their hand up and say fair cop guv yes i dealt when i was inside or for that matter any member of the board admitting to divulging inside information either as both offences would be criminal. So just dismissing a call that nobody denies took place , that was without question a highly inappropriate and unnecessary communication ahead of a price sensitive rns 7 hours later should be properly explained and hopefully will be investigated..these things do not happen in days ! Though it should start with knowing what was the point of such a scheduled call at such a time when the company was finalising heads of terms? Was it social ? Was it just to say that there would be an rns in the money with no detail..easy to do at that time of night…no it was to have a conversation…why??

I really don’t think we have seen the last of this particular point..it seems key to unpicking the relationship with the senior board members..and how cosy the board members were with these shareholders. We will see.

Those seeking to engage constructively with the requisitioning group there are contact details.

Assume they will ask your real name and proof of share ownership though i would think.

Investor Contact

Jonathan Harker

Morrow Sodali

T +44 203 148 9770

transforming.nanoco@investor.morrowsodali.com

If genuine and non abusive you can also see that TH is on linkedin which has a messaging feature.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tariq-hamoodi-52bb8415

Making stuff up on bulletin boards is not a way of engaging with the requisitioning group..but there are avenues for genuine share holders out there if they choose.