Member Info for SmithyB

Got my letter from Nanoco about the delisting vote on Saturday.

Don't think you can assume Metalenz polar is a winner for samsung and that swir for mobile is dead until they deliver. Neither NIR or SWIR have made it in that space yet.

Maybe cos a well led company that has probably known for sometime that winning the vote wasn't certain would have been pretty slick with its plan B, move to aim, Liam ceo, jalal no longer exec etc,,,,instead of releasing a rns that looks like more head in the sand for a few weeks.

....require shareholder approval.

What other options are there? Massive dilution to a japanese buyer that had been lurking in the wings all this time, firing all the staff and 'shelling up' as Liam once said about what would have happened if they had lost against samsung?

I don't think anyone should get hung up on the word adjournment, it's just someone's idea of convention in prose. If you took it seriously how would you go about changing the minds of retail PI's? They won't suggest delisting again.

The key sentence is:

It is therefore the Board's intention to propose the adjournment of the General Meeting to explore further options and allow for further constructive engagement and dialogue with shareholders.

and as they have no done no engagement with shareholders i won't hold my breath.

So the key phrase in that sentence is 'explore further options'. You could argue that the plural is baked into that cliche. The only option really is move to aim, doesn't req

Damn, people are speculating. That is so not normal on a stock exchange.

Liam asking all admin to continuously refresh their spam folders for any replies from Milkwood.

Timetable from RNS is:

Latest time and date for receipt of Forms of Proxy or electronic proxy appointments for the General Meeting 10:30 17/6/26

But i guess some bigger holders might go vote at the meeting. If a big enough vote against now they should know though

Nano has to receive proxy votes by 10:30 today. Assuming this means IIs too but not sure? If IIs too then if Milkwood have not been responding and intend to vote that would be their deadline too and Nanoco will know the result of the vote by 10:30 today

All we know is a percentage will vote against both motions.

Agree that until the resignation of dimitri - and perhaps related retirement of the founder - the publicly stated strategy was to try 2 things simultaneously, sale and on site commercialisation. Delisting rns is all about selling and getting the company to a point where the sale achieves whatever the board thinks the value is. If a delisting doesn't go ahead they will likely revert to the former twin strategy - at least publicly with knock on effect on board representation.

If the vote goes against the board imo there will be no great upset unless someone like milkwood attempt another gm requisition. They'll do a 'the shareholders have spoken' type mea culpa, propose moving to aim and a reset of the board. Chair goes or just lets go of exec role, Liam does or doesn't get ceo role firmed up, etc Might use this as an opp to get any other bad news like 2nd jda out undercover of this too. Not sure why you think the company would be wound up and staff made redundant when they have a couple years of funding remaining.

Tw says "The Bigger Picture:

This episode has inadvertently demonstrated exactly why the board wants to delist. A single unverified forum post — not an RNS, not a TR1, not a press release — moved the company's market capitalisation by hundreds of thousands of pounds in under an hour. The same shares that traded at 2.30p this morning traded at 3.00p at lunch and 2.60p at the close. None of this had anything to do with the company's actual value, its cash balance, its IP, or its JDAs. It was pure sentiment, driven by a rumour from an anonymous poster.

If you're sitting in the boardroom, watching your company's valuation get tossed around like this, why would you want to stay listed?:

Cobblers - board created this sub cash share price with its delisting RNS

Nah, just replying to one of TW's ai screened posts, hence the quote marks

"Nanoco isn't a short-term trade. It's a binary, long-term investment.

If the delisting passes, the matched bargain facility won't offer the liquidity short-term traders need. If it fails, investors will still ask what happens next. The cash runway and the uncertainty won't have changed, so the bounce some are hoping for may not arrive at all."

JDA1 is geared to lead nano to production in 2028, admittedly they will need funds in addition to the runway they have now to gear up but this is not the distant future it's 2 years or less. Why not go to the main market or aim for that funding in less than 2 years time?

IF Dr P had sat at board and had listened to Jalal argue endlessly that NANO should go private and dilute for new capital would it be insider trading or if he had sat at board and heard Jalal argue repeatedly that going private would enable an easy asset sale and sod the staff at Runcorn would it be inside knowledge?

It IS surprising that the founder who was until very recently retained beyond retirement as a consultant would sell his shares for 2 - 3p. It shows to me that he has no faith in NANO the reasoning to move to a private company. He was on the board during the strategic review and during various litigations and would have been lead on the JDA's. The remaining scientists are his team. AN RNS revealing that he is selling will have an impact on the vote. That and the fact that i doubt Milkwood have replied to a single email from NANO since they acquired a percentage.

I've voted no but accept it is likely the board will win. If it did lose i guess Jalal has to decide how to fix things: move to aim, relinquish his exec role and make a decision on Liam's role. Could result in a new chairman and a ceo who isn't Liam.

Maybe more useful if he had just voted against with his stake but at least holders got to see his unhappiness and might be encouraged to participate in the voting.

Obviously Dr p selling shares is a negative for shareholders who were willing to transfer their holding to the private co. Reinforces need for PI's to vote no.