Member Info for Kooba

Oops that was meant to say invest the rest of the cash..

Oh an that might not be the current nominations committee because again the company website is not up to date on the board composition either

“Board Composition And Committees

The board consists of six directors, three of whom are non-executive and are considered by the board to be independent.”

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/about/corporate-governance/

Its good when your corporate governance pages are not correct…shows focus,

The Nominations Committee comprises Christopher Richards, who is Chairman of the Committee, Alison Fielding and Chris Batterham.

The Nominations Committee is responsible for evaluating the balance of skills, knowledge and experience and the size, structure and composition of the Board and Committees of the Board, retirements and appointments of additional and replacement Directors and Committee members, and makes appropriate recommendations to the Board on such matters.

So I doubt he was instrumental in appointing Shashkov but the board as a whole had to agree the appointment. If they find a buyer for the business he will not have a role…neither the Chair or the CEO have any UK listed board experience i dont think so their skill set is maybe more operational that in corporate governance and compliance …maybe the structure is telling us that they dont expect there to be a buyer and they are regrouping to try to form a plan b …go it alone and blow the rest of the cash !!

Great comeback you absolute clown…your lack of self awareness is breaking new ground.

You got any new tricks or is the fake phone calls it…boring pathetic and sad all in one post..congrats.

Considering the company is effectively up for sale and also being forced to call an GM to get representation by their largest independent holder it’s a shame their website is so out of date on basic formation. Might have thought having that up to date when there are so many changes might have been a good use of 15 mins of someone’s time.

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/investors/major-shareholders/

No surprises but GM called and Chair she succession ..rather hoped there might be something on how they will deliver value for shareholders themselves without Milkwood ..they say there is a clear strategy ..I beg to differ , a loosely hoisted for sale flag and nothing much else.

They were the largest institutional holder as Milkwood are now…except they also had bonds which meant they were conflicted over shareholders.. they had a far smaller holding when they stepped down a year later…point is did they get a seat for the benefit of the company or to protect their interests ? It’s not the size of holding but the principal I guess.

I might just wait to hear what Milkwood have to say rather than basing anything solely on what Nanoco have said as an aside. I would also like to see Nanocos formal response which will presumably come when they get round to calling the meeting..they can explain why they refused Milkwood representation , but had someone from LOAM welcomed on board …not sure they were at all aligned with other shareholders apart from RG! .After that I would expect Milkwood to have a communication to shareholders as to why they seek such representation ..then I will have a clearer picture I suppose.

Interesting stuff especially from Apples perceived view of Cadmium.

I guess the supplier and Apple could be breaching patents IF the position put forward by BT and the company over the years remains true ie only using Nanoco technology can you produce CFQDs in volume…there appears admission they are using Cadmium free so it moves to Nanoco to try to prove how and if they are infringing.

“Young says that Apple has opted for KSF for prior MacBook Pro models because it doesn't use toxic element cadmium (typical for quantum dot) and is more efficient (and thus less expensive). Way back in 2015, when Apple introduced the first Retina ‌MacBook Pro‌ models, Apple executives said that quantum dot technology was considered at the time, but rejected because of the cadmium requirement.”

https://www.macrumors.com/2024/11/14/m4-macbook-pro-quantum-dot/

Might have thought Apple were aware there were cadmium free QD solutions years ago !

Well whatever possibilities there are or not should be presented a week tomorrow ..also a full explanation why a leading shareholders is being refused board representation at a critical time for the business. As explained before the company could sell all the assets and IP without recourse to their shareholders under current rules…i would prefer more oversight by someone with real skin n the game as a shareholder …especially if there is any offer that secures the business for the benefit of those working there over the interests of shareholders ..which may end up being a factor especially if an MBO type structure emerges. Milkwood seem to be one of the very few meaningful buyers who see some value and should be consulted on how the best outcome for shareholder value is achieved.

Probably perusing new opportunities in the staff canteen !!

Meanwhile he is still CEO of Nanoco on LinkedIn …maybe the new one might want to point that out.

Its like they are just finding things for people to do…nothing new in any of that again most of it QDs for dummies. What’s the point exactly?

Is it for potential buyers…not at this basic level

Is it for potential customers ..ditto

Is it for investors ..ditto

Who is this stuff for..anyone who has heard of Nanoco knows all this basic stuff and what the company could do …if anyone wanted their products or to buy the company.

Maybe its BTs last stunning strategy to put knew light on the company….thanks BT the door is over there ..use it.

I see the local MP Mike Amesbury was wowed by the company back in Aug …this was even after the STM pullout and the CEO leaving.

“Fascinating whistle-stop tour of Nanoco’s HQ at The Heath, Business & Technical Park, Runcorn, courtesy of quality control team leader Rebecca.

Nanoco, which employs about 50 people, is a world leader in the development and production of cadmium-free quantum dots and other nanomaterials for use in multiple applications including sensing, displays, lighting, life sciences and next-generation quantum technologies.

We can be rightly proud to have globally significant companies like Nanoco in our community, working at the cutting edge of science and technology.”

https://www.facebook.com/100058008163735/posts/pfbid0uYrk5YDDaMKPoPzpu9F94DKje4wPwSd7CthkR8q6jFfLZS7GfavVEwEkg98kyp7Al/?

All that talk of success and good jobs the guy must be a real judge…perhaps the visit brought him luck.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/07/suspended-labour-mp-mike-amesbury-charged-with-assault

What did Australia deserve for this ? Are we exporting our attention seeking twerps?

The same terrorwit that was preaching about climate change elsewhere ..a very confused and hypocritical individual..that has not a clue about this company ..and never has. A gullible twerp who believes any old puff put out by the company that serially disappoints.

Nb Nigel

In Australian English, it is a colloquial term for a male social misfit or a friendless person.

Figures.

Loosely worded I guess in case nobody is interested or offers anything acceptable as with last time they did a formal sale process. The wording gives them optionality to try to develop a strategy with the new CEO should there be no takers of the clearly hoisted for sale flag ..if they thought there was a clear route to maximising value through growing the business then clearly that’s what they should be doing and not trying to sell all of the operations and IP. They think that they can achieve a better outcome by selling it now than trying to build a business as a listed entity…probably right. The party they have engaged are serious and are working to get the business sold i understand ..they don’t earn much if no deal is found so are motivated it also proves the company want to find a buyer.

After the somewhat garbled strategic review rns…more clarity with the results is essential , especially if they want to fend off Milkwood. But why they don’t want Milkwood involved in the process I don’t know ..hopefully they can explain that too when they call the GM.

A swift decent cash sale is probably the best outcome right now… buying just the IP may be worth more to some parties than the complications of owning all the cash munching operations.

Fingers crossed there is a positive surprise in the outcome ..for a change.

The board have outlined their strategy..it is to find a buyer..that is plan A.

“The Board has therefore concluded that it is in the Company's best interests to appoint advisers to review the options for the Company's business and assets, including the potential for a sale of the trading business (including IP). The Board has appointed CDX Advisors LLC ("CDX") as its financial adviser. Work with CDX has commenced with a view to achieving the best possible financial outcome and to secure the long term future of the Group's IP and operations.”

Plan B is if they fail to find a buyer what do they do ..they have hinted at niche markets in sensors for gen 1 but absolutely no detail on how or with who they may address those markets . They have also not confirmed whether the Gen 1 materials developed for STM can be used by them in alternative commercial solutions..or in what markets they may be allowed to approach.The big issue is they likely have to start from scratch with a new sensor firm as far as i can tell. Then there is litigation ..one target worth pursuing apparently ..worth pursuing means they have large financial resources ( which also means they can fund and delay defence) so i see no sudden revenues there.

The new CEO might have a new approach but anything using their materials is likely to take years in integration and volume build to be meaningful in sensors and on display they could be selling materials in months but to who ??

The options seem extremely limited in putting forward a sustainable low risk strategy apart from trying to find a strategic buyer ..hence what they are doing.

Agree though many gaps in Plan B need addressing and shareholders appetite for just rolling the dice again with the remaining money on a long shot might not be that strong.

Following the delayed results we have an AGM and GM before the end of the year so if they are unconvincing shareholders will have an opportunity to show their support or otherwise.

I also see you are referring to TerrorWit as Terry ..something i think you chastised others for doing…you bully you!

They knew the long term relationship with STM better than anyone else…not sure how that helped. Looking at the r&d spend the Asian customer is responsible for a bout £600k a year out of the STM combined £2.5m of revenues..so far smaller. I’m not sure whether that points to the importance of the work to them or not..but if it was to be a platform technology for a generation of SWIR sensors it looks like a very limited spend to get to materials they may use.

As to bouncing back…Nanoco has never bounced back in terms of commercial success..it has never had any and continues to not have any. Whilst there maybe a limited opportunity at a further far smaller infringement case without sales revenues the model is broken.

That is the reason they are putting it all up for sale not because they have confidence in bouncing back to commercial success its because they have no sustainable business plan.

Interesting NGR having been chief cheerleader putting down any doubts you now would not touch the shares unless they are close to zero…even with 7.5p cash at the end of current FY.

Funny now you are out how you now are calling them down.

Good luck with your future investments ..but ask questions when things don't add up! Blindly believing managements of small co’s is not a good idea.

The actions being taken in other jurisdictions where they could have got an injunction against infringing products as we were told with Germany and China was meant to be exactly the focus needed to mean they would not draw things out as it could have has a direct impact on sales ..if a jury trial had gone for them in the USA I’m sure they could have tried to exert similar pressure there too. Samsung are indeed a powerful and devious player and they tried everything to avoid trial ..there is only one reason they offered what they did..they knew they could be worse off ..maybe a lot worse off going to trial.

Hilarious stuff.

I make it that Nanoco need to respond to requisition and call a meeting by 20th Nov …same day as the results announcement…there might not be anything that encouraging to say but at least there should be some much needed clarity on what the company actually want to achieve and the prospects of delivering on it….they will also need to be explaining why they don’t want a major shareholder having oversight of the process.