Member Info for Nanonano

If you employ a plasterer to come and skim the walls of your house, and he does a job that looks like a relief map of the Himalayas, it doesn’t deny you the right of complaint unless you’re a time served tradesman.

Responds with insults when he doesn’t like the answers, and still didn’t answer the question I put to him.

I don’t believe shareholders have insisted on it remaining on a main market, many have suggested moving it to AIM.

With regards to why they wish it to remain public, I think that it is different depending on the type of shareholder.

For LTH’s I would expect many if not most have lost all faith in the board, and don’t trust them to act in their interests. In the case of more short term holders (post delisting RNS), I expect they wish to have the company sold swiftly, release the capital and move on.

The longer this drags on, the more likely LTH’s will swing towards the STH’s, assuming they haven’t already.

Oh and how is the saving an extra million or two going to really make much difference in he grand scheme of things.

Delisting was about inking a sale, probably at a price which will not please LTH’s, but sufficient to cover the costs of winding things up.

Because Nanoco cannot raise cash privately. They’d still be operating in the ladies lavatory in Manchester Uni without investors capital. Also we should bear in mind no private capital seems interested in acquiring the company- they’ve tried twice to flog it and failed.

Unfortunately we’ve had executives that view investors as a cash cow, but now the milk has run out and they wish send the cow for slaughter.

If we’re on the subject of answering questions, I’ll repeat the one I asked you before with regards to consultation of shareholders before the delisting RNS- what percentage of the company do you classify as being a major holder, 3% or higher or less?

Nanoco’s own executives have stated in the past about large companies dealing with small companies with small cash balances. At present Nanoco are very solvent, but by the time any JDA’s have reached conclusion, their cash situation will be much reduced and thus company is much more vulnerable. Any company they have been working with will likely walk away or defer production let the company fail, then they can pick up any IP for much less than they otherwise would.

Is it fair or ethical, no, but it’s the way these companies operate, and of you want evidence of that then you only have to look at how Nanoco has been treated in the past when they had considerably more cash than they have now.

It would be naive in the extreme to think things would be different going forwards. Even if they’d retained all the cash from the settlement, they’d be up against it, however they would have been in a much better position to have challenged Shoei.

The board gambled on STMicro coming good, and the result is where we are now.

What value can be extracted from IP since the Shoei showdown?

If anyone wanted to buy this company they have an absolutely golden opportunity to do so at present, and they'd get it for a lot less than the last independent valuation of £46m.

The company had over £60m in hand two years ago, enough cash to last them years, and take any company on in court.

They have completely screwed investors.

Agreed, they seem played out. Not sure what anyone new will do mind, as the options look to have narrowed greatly in the last few months post CDX cancellation and Shoei covenant.

The problem for the company is simply that every development agreement has ended in ether a developmental dead end or infringement, and with limited funds there seems little to prevent history repeating. They’ve had something in reserve in the past.

Regardless of your opinion I don’t envisage the board persuading shareholders to accept a delisting if that remains their only strategy.

It’s plan C now, whatever that is.

They’d have had to be clueless if they thought that a delisting RNS would go down as anything more palatable than a bucket of sick. I suspect they hoped ignorance or indifference would win the day.

Https://youtu.be/Zf8bf6OO7R4?t=831

What percentage of the company would you classify as a major holder?

The way things are now, I’ll be surprised if they’re still around in four months, at least in the present form. I simply don’t imagine the likes of Milkwood, Cable Car etc are going to sit back and watch the remaining cash whittle down without some kind of challenge.

Nanoco will not exist in four years.

That’s not an answer.

When’s this consultation malarkey happening then? Anyone here heard anything, emails, letters etc.?

Back to the imaginary people again.

Ironic that many of the shares that changed hands were a consequence of the co-founder and former CTO selling down his stake.

However I think perhaps they would still have struggled to get that vote through. I very much doubt the remaining II's are in favour of delisiting, I believe the board would have named them if they were, and without their support they will struggle to get that 75% threshold.