Member Info for Kooba

Well if all their shareholders were like you cheering their every failing and dumbsplaining every strategic error I’d imagine they would be tapping shareholders for more money to pay themselves more bonuses …they like shareholders who don’t question anything and hold them accountable.

The one word answer was on an another thread …try to keep up.

No not really you brought in comparisons …you set your own traps. Too easy.

Again only a month ago the company in very upbeat mood said with the interims

“Continue to achieve all milestones in the Joint Development Agreement ("JDA") with the first Asian Chemical Customer - now set to finalise R&D in Quantum Dot ("QD") image sensors and transition to scale up phase over the next few months.”

Over the next few months transition to scale up phase…a scale up phase i would envision including multiples of the current £1m a year in R&D revenues and significantly reduce the cash burn detailed in post below. If Asian customer 2 renews that again would help finances and likely the roadmap to breakeven 27/28.

“ JDA with second Asian Chemical Customer achieved positive results, and we are currently in discussions around a further JDA”

So why now??? Because they cant use shareholders anymore ..they dont need them so are abandoning the listing and those shareholders being forced to sell out of tax wrappers.

What happens if this does privatise will largely be out of shareholder hands as the level of protection drops significantly….but i guess they are very well aware of that!

Well you didnt mention quantum materials as a case study that went private.

Quantum Materials Corp. (OTC: QTMM) is not a successful company and is currently undergoing Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. The company was headquartered in San Marcos, Texas.

Wonder why

Terry do you remember this you posted earlier today ???

“The high volume today suggests someone is sweeping up shares from panicked sellers. It's possibly the same entity responsible for the flurry of buying during the last few weeks. “

I think that is what Bachatanut refers to…if as you said its the same entity responsible for the flurry of buying ahead of the announcement would that be insider trading…one word answer please.

Neither QD vision or Nanosys had a wide shareholder base from being listed entities or had tapped those wide mostly private shareholders several times to keep the company solvent. There is a responsibility to those supportive shareholders…those that hold in ISAs will need to buy the shares out in personal name or sell. The management are only interested in losing the accountability of a listing and abandoning the protections afforded to those shareholders.

They should act in the interests of ALL shareholders .

If they execute and start getting orders and stsrt making money supplying a mass market device chain someone might want to buy it….no way thanks for that!!

The company reported with the interims recently GROSS cash cost base as £300k-£400k per month down from £500k last year.

The compant has and does have revenues from JDA work which has been around £100-£150k a month…much of that is ongoing but even if you take the low end it means actual cash burn is £200-£300k a month or £2.4m to £3.6m annually i saw some quoting higher numbers earlier. This means the cash pressure is not as acute as some made out. The fact they still pay Edison £60k a year for repeating rns’s means there is some more trimming that can be done!

At the lower end of that burn figure and with the prospect that the company gave of there being scale up revenues building within months it begs the question why now??

There is a decent cash runway and the prospect of increasing revenue as AC1 moves towards commercialisation. The position on AC2 is clearly better known to the company than shareholders but we await clarity. Again if AC2 moves ahead with their next development plans and scale up 20027/8 that would further boost revenues.

There really seems no particular reason to delist right now apart from it suits the executive to have less accountability and regulatory burden. If they think the cost of maintaining a listing is £700k a year ( which sounds toppy to me) then maybe they should move to AIM where there is a decent level of regulation but lesser financial cost ..”AIM (Alternative Investment Market): Average maintenance costs are roughly £220,000+ per year, which includes LSE fees, Nominated Adviser (Nomad) fees, and reporting costs.”

I think this is being done for all the wrong reasons and will be to the detriment of shareholders ..i see very poor corporate governance and there needs to be some serious questions asked as to motivation as they do not really make sense. What’s the real agenda??

Nanonano…Milkwoods plan was to dispose of the assets and use the cash to build a special sits investment business like they have privately , that has given from what they said exceptional returns to investors. Nanoco said no we will deliver value through a strategic review …quite a bit of cash later they have delivered nothing.

Maybe it is an already large holder opposed to plan and is increasing position to gain control to vote this down. Thinking Milkwood ..there is an opportunity to take control of a cash vehicle here that has failed on every promise when they have been challenged at GM before. Pretty sure many private shareholders would vote for a listed investment with new management just now..maybe with a deliverable plan to extract value from the assets and build something worthwhile.

Just speculation but certainly a possibility as others who get everything wrong are spouting rubbish.

There will i presume be virtually no effort as a private company to keep shareholders informed , the business can be far easier be run for the benefit of executives and employees using the £10m left of shareholder cash.

They got about $90m (£72m) from Samsung they distributed £33m odd by tender and buyback.

We have £10m left …so quite a lump has been burned through in a few years.

This business is just run for the insiders and now will be even more so with no regulation…expecting more would really be niave.

Https://d3s3shtvds09gm.cloudfront.net/uploads/2026/05/Nano_Flash_270526_Ed_NOBB.pdf

As already posted

ISAs cannot hold private investments.

SIPPs can and i know HL allows such investments to remain in SIPPs.

Those shares should not have a vote in latest ruse.

The position of the EBT becomes interesting too as it holds nearly 7% of the company.

“Nanoco Group plc maintains an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) to meet obligations under its 2015 Long Term Incentive Plan and Deferred Bonus Plan. In April 2024, the company transferred 13,750,000 uncancelled shares from treasury to the EBT. The EBT currently holds approximately 6.93% of the total issued shares.”

Those shares taken from treasury were the ones tendered at 24p. So effectively they used £3.3m of shareholder money to buy those shares.

We are now in a position where they talk of extending the cash runway…maybe shareholder interests would have been better served not using such cash for employee freebies…especially when it must be extremely doubtful any bonus’ have been met. If they have thats a greater disgrace.

From a governance point of view just highlighting from the announcement…they make out it will make them move free to deliver value but what it means is no accountability or oversight in the business. Shareholders will be blinded and have little say in how the business is run.

“ the Company will no longer be subject to the UK MAR regulating inside information and other matters;

• the Company will no longer be subject to the UKLR and, accordingly, Shareholders will no longer be afforded the protections given by the UKLR. In par not be bound to:

a. make any public announcements of material developments, or to announce interim or final results;

b. comply with any of the corporate governance practices applicable to Main Market companies;

c. announce substantial transactions and related party transactions; or

d. comply with the requirement to seek Shareholder approval for reverse takeovers and fundamental changes in the Company's business;

• the Company will no longer be required to publicly disclose any change in major shareholdings in the Company under the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules;”

A few questions around corporate governance should also be asked.

We now only have 3 directors and two of them hold executive positions as we have an executive Chair. Normally the Chair should be seen as independent…but not here.

We only therefore have one non executive who can just about be deemed independent though he has served since April 2019 ( when the shares were around 50p) a period of significant shareholder value destruction.

“Major corporate governance codes (such as the UK Corporate Governance Code) strictly discourage the dual role of the Executive Chair. Governance standards require a clear separation of powers between leading the board and running the business's executive operations.”

“Corporate governance codes dictate that at least half the board of directors, excluding the chair, must be independent. To qualify as independent, non-executive directors must be free from any material business, financial, or familial relationships that could compromise their objective judgment.”

So Nanoco that speak highly of adhering to such governance codes do not respect them especially around such a serious decision as being promoted here. There is little independence from the executive and that goes directly against the code.

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/governance/

If they were in any talks they would not be proposing this. It has had a significant impact on the share-price and could well have prompted private investors to dump on liquidity fears so i think the directors would be in breach of fiduciary duty in proposing this at this time if there was any background scheme they hoped to force through.

If it was private and the whole company was to be sold investors would still get a vote…clearly if they sold the assets and IP no so much !

You legally can hold in a SIPP but that might be at the discretion of the pension administration.

Hargreaves for instance you can retain delisted in your SIPP.

Bunsen has being trying to puff these before this announcement so be wary of anything they write . They were going to 10p by the end of last week! Maybe they just were trying to get a short on !!