Member Info for Kooba

I doubt LG will do anything apart from look at Nanoco’s balance sheet and look at the life of the patents which start expiring this year apparently ..since LG are not now according to them using the materials ( a different case for Samsung.. and no idea why we didn’t seek and injunction in the US after the patents were upheld) ..oh apparently it’s because that could backfire….they will see no negative to sales if Nanoco seeks an injunction…which again could expose Nanoco to huge counter claim if they are proved wrong.

No quick solution unless LG do want to buy the technology that they are moving away from…or Samsung wants to buy Nanoco and likes the idea of the lawsuit against LG that it would pick up in the process defending the IP it licences for bugger all.

Personally think LG is a red herring ans some sort of gaming by Nanoco …which will go nowhere fast bu5 doubt will put any serious buyer off..they can pursue it or drop it…up to them.

Oh jog on Terry ..you have nothing to say and when you do it’s easy to show you re wrong ..every time.

Don’t like my post you can block me. Moaning about them whilst having nothing to say just shows what a dimwit you are if anyone needed more proof.

Chin chin.

If one goes back to the outcome of strategic review when they were fending off a GM.

They clearly committed to return capital before the end of July 2025

3. The Board will adopt a progressive return of surplus cash during FY25

The Board is determined to deliver shareholder value as rapidly as possible. In light of the plans set out above, the Board believes that it is now appropriate to commit to a return of surplus cash to shareholders during the course of FY25, and intends to return an initial sum of cash via a capital return following the release of the FY24 report and accounts.

The timing and size of further returns of surplus cash will be contingent on the completion of the right-sizing noted above, working capital needs, and progress on the execution of a potential sale process.

Never happened the report and accounts published 24th November…but they won the vote..bit like earlier one where they paid out the minimum promised when fending off another challenge.

They have pledged to

A clear strategy to maximise value and deliver returns

· Having received advice following the commencement of the CDX process, the Board remains confident that the Group has commercial potential and inherent value

· The Board has:

o appointed CDX Advisors to explore an orderly sale of the Group's trading business (including IP);

o significantly reduced the Group's cost base;

o determined that surplus cash reserves will be returned to Shareholders;

They have actually committed to return cash irrespective of sale I thought.

They have told their shareholders that the business is very undervalued by the market and that selling it will demonstrate that value and they would return that as well..if they do not receive any offers they think reflect that value then it’s not exactly demonstrating anyone as well as the market places significant value on their IP know how and facilities and staff.

Not entirely sure how they move on from that to prove everyone is wrong about their inherent value.

I think there would be great pressure to rightsize the business further as we would again be somewhat reliant on the longer term Asian customer moving to some commercial arrangement ..the other JDA early days and if there are any others further away. So realistically as a go it alone they are miles from a sustainable business…probably why they want to sell it !?

If they have recieved a formal bid for the operations and IP as a result of a process that was open and timelines then than would be extremely price sensitive and there would be many parties aware of the situation from any competing companies to reams of advisors ..thinking you could keep that secret and there is no risk of it leaking into the market is folly.

I doubt the process is progressing to that stage….yet?? If there is only one finalist they will know they have the company by the balls and will negotiate the hell out of it , the company has said they favour a sale they also know shareholders in the listed entity will not likely have an appetite to throw money in as the company has cried wolf so often and failed to deliver any commercial revenues…oops maybe $200k start and finish with STM before they walked.

So unless this is competitive ..and I doubt it any buyer knows they have the whip hand.

It was always a risk with the strategic decision they made to sell…they are not in a position of strength and the buyer will be.

An area we worked in but dropped out of , could any potential JDAs get us to dust off our Solar work ..wonder if we have patents covering QDs in solar?

https://www.ecoticias.com/en/quantum-dots-double-solar-output/18655/

Let’s face if any practitioners and players thought the FCA was anything but a joke ..I quest they would be less inclined to take advantage of price sensitive information. Who really thinks the FCA is a serious investigative organisation that catches anything but the low hanging fruit??

They may be getting slightly tougher apparently but they have been a joke to those prepared to take advantage of the toothless organisation for many years.if folk think they can get away with it ..they will. Human nature…not everyone is a good guy that follows the rules if they think they can get away with it.

Speeding drink driving folks know it could ruin their lives if they need to drive for a living…does it stop them ??

Bad example maybe ..but it’s all about the chance of getting caught.

I worked in securities at a high level for many years…let’s agree to disagree on our experiences of how rife dealing on price sensitive info is …maybe just go back to the goings in in this share with unexplained midnight calls to major shareholders not that long ago and reconsider how shareholders on that call and those not behaved. Unfortunately many senior managements want to keep certain shareholders in the loop ..and that information needs to be carefully controlled. It wasn’t . You don’t have to look far for evidence of continued absence of a level playing field even if no direct benefit from those disclosing to third parties is evident.Maybe not construed as an advantage but if an advantage is given..even oh we’d be disappointed if we haven’t met our goal of delivering a sale by end of this CY …an advantage will have been given.

Folks like to chat if they know something…that’s life.

Rinse repeat …deny.

Maxi19 if a generous offer leaving a large cash pile above market cap emerges and the shares have not moved ahead of it I would be flabbergasted. Morality over greed….unfortunately greed wins. Would be free money.

There has been unusual movement ahead of good ( not so much ) and bad (tons) here before ..when the price gets pushed up a bit it leads to big increase in two way which facilitates insiders buying more meaningful amounts.

I top sliced on last run up but will hold to outcome one way or the other.

Unfortunately this whole process being protracted is not great if they don’t actually hook a decent offer. It has taken a huge chunk of management time and might be an issue with securing JDA commitments with uncertainty over ownership.

Nice idea taking your time to get a good offer…my view is if you had a motivated buyer prepared to pay a good price they would want to move quickly to get agreement. Still somewhat pessimistic on there being an acceptable offer..not changed.

Yes ddubya i too am giving the benefit of the doubt as i like the cut of Dmitry’s jib with first presentations , so will have to wait on progress with the sale process…we also were meant to be looking at further JDA s before the CY end…maybe an update on litigation response too.

Will it all wait until the finals are released in Oct?? I guess we may have to wait till then and get updates on it all??

Ddubya

“Had no Indications of Interest to purchase been received by NANO before end of June would that not have required an RNS to the market to say there was no interest?”

You would think so but presuming that there are finalists who have submitted acceptable IOIs by the end June because they haven't said there are none is a stretch IMO.

They could merely say that it took more time to get participants to commit or not to moving to the next stage and they decided to extend that deadline irrespective of what they told the market. They could say the situation changed and they are not rushing the process ..there is rushing and there is delaying due to lack of progress. Which who knows ..but leaves uncertainty and such periods of uncertainty have never ended well for shareholders here.

There is still the question of whether a sale would be put to shareholders for approval…how they have structured this technically no , they can just sell all the operations and IP at a level they think is in the interests of all stakeholders without approval. They have previous management directly to me said they would put such a significant sale to shareholders.

They may not have the opportunity to be frank…any buyer will want certainty and not leave it to the large private investor cohort to throw a spanner in the works.

Lets hope their idea on extracting value from the operations aligns with shareholders…expectation in some quarters may be somewhat higher than the board in securing a future for the business.

The very basis of market expectation ..is from information given directly by the company.

Definition. Market expectations refer to the anticipations and beliefs that investors and participants hold regarding future economic conditions, asset prices, and market movements.

From presentation to shareholders April 2025

Next Steps - Phase 2

• Gathering Indications of Interest (lol) during Q2 of calendar year 2025

• In-depth engagement with "finalist(s)" (site visits, management presentations, expert sessions, due diligence)

• Final Agreement negotiation in Q3

Ceo has said sale by calendar end..to achieve this one would need to agree terms Q3 as set out above,

Question is are there any finalists??

The process cannot go on indefinitely especially if there is only a remote chance of the company meeting the goal of a sale that reflects the real underlying value they believe is there…they say markets are significantly undervaluing the asset…they have had 10 months to prove their case. They have burnt £5m since they announced the strategic review and desired sale process so still have some way to rightsize the cost base if they are to see this business through to any commercial adoption..the only hope if there is no buyer.

The company announced it was for sale over 10 months ago….for the whole world to know.

Where is the confidentiality impact to Nanoco in confirming the progress of this endeavour.

As said they do not have to name names at this stage but there is absolutely every reason to keep shareholders informed on the process and progress when they have given defined timelines on how the process will take place. Ie IOI by end of June.

Final deal by end of Sept. Completion of transaction before year end. Thats what guidance was…and that was extended from a sales process being conducted at pace!!

What’s on target what’s not?? Is anyone even interested??

“Not sure how executing on board strategy to find a buyer for the operations and IP might fall into any of this."

Then you are an idiot.

Use AI you don’t look such a clown when you don’t have to think for yourself…basic functions are above your ability.

For a company that can’t raise a smile it’s generous to propose taking on all the risk for the 20% carry to be paid out of future profits..and yes they said they would fund it out of the new $75m and sort it out later.the rns does not include terms and there might not be free cashflows for years following any drawdown . We will also be giving 10.5% of the equity out for the bond funding IF it does land…for ex gen I presume and also paying interest out of thin air as they can wait for those cashflows . All so flakey.

“What is Commercial Sensitivity?

Commercial sensitivity refers to information that could harm a company's competitive position if disclosed. This could include information about: Pricing strategies, Future business plans, Trade secrets, Customer lists, and Cost structures. “

Not sure how executing on board strategy to find a buyer for the operations and IP might fall into any of this.

AI Overview

No, commercial sensitivity does not automatically negate the requirement to announce price-sensitive information. While commercial sensitivity is a valid reason to delay disclosure under certain circumstances, it's not a blanket exemption. Public companies must disclose price-sensitive information promptly to ensure fair and transparent markets, even if doing so might harm their commercial interests

Where’s the commercial sensitivity in confirming whether you are disposing of the entire operations and IP you informed everyone you wanted to do 10 months ago….and said that you would have IOI in by end of 1st half this calendar year.

Repeat there is an ongoing obligation to keep shareholders informed of developments that are price sensitive..positive or negative. At this stage it might not be necessary to name the party/s..if there are any ..but if they were serious why would they object to their interest being know..apart from it might be positive for Nanoco in bringing other potential buyers to the table .If there are no IOIs that are acceptable ..they need to tell their shareholders. They cannot keep this “well engaged” and expecting a sale before the end of this calendar year narrative going if they are not in very advanced talks at this stage with anyone.

I can see no commercially sensitive aspect that trumps keeping shareholders correctly informed.