Member Info for SmithyB

Fwiw i voted no. Argument in the rns didn't convince me, no q & a at interims, we don't even know why Dimitri resigned, how close or distant he was from landing new jda's. Why they added apple to the shoei case, was 3m spend on legal always their intended quit point, is the 2nd jda kaput?

A minor saving of 700k pa does not extend their cash runaway enough to justify a delisting, as kooba as already pointed out they could save the best part of 500k pa by moving to aim. Imo it is about a sale (and less disclosure as a private co) but as the poster Sammy has previously suggested they have to prove their asking price by getting one of the jda's to the point of production.

Agree that vultures have their uses

They claimed they could have continued with cdx but it would have meant a low offer and they argued that they think they can do better for shareholders than a low offer. This would mean that they were telling porkies and that they were interested in a low offer but the buyer wanted minimal disclosure hence delisting.

Agree, most retail who vote will vote against but only a very small percentage will vote so it's down to Milkwood and cable car. Expect nanoco to not call this action if they weren't confident. Plan B has to be Aim for the cost cutting, would look weak to say so in the rns i guess.

On the potential shafting of any shareholders who stay through delisting, particularly if Milkwood vote yea and look likely to stay that perhaps offers some reassurance of a return.

Other than the 700k, the other relief from being publicly traded is repeatedly described as freeing up management resource. I read that as not needing a CFO, head of finance will do in a small private co

Vote is likely to pass which means they will have convinced Milkwood. Vague point they make below, given only 1 of the 3 named is a private company.

"The Board believes that a private limited company can make and implement strategic decisions more quickly than a company which is publicly traded. This was apparent during discussions with Samsung, LG Electronics and Shoei regarding potential IP infringements. This will also be advantageous in future business development discussions which would ultimately benefit the Company and Shareholders as a whole."

Nanonano - company claims it will begin scale up this year for jda1 supply. Company also claimed it did not need shareholder approval to sell the operating business so price never mattered. Being delisted allows more secrecy for buyer i guess.

Cash takes them to mid 2028 - only they know when orders are expected in JDA1 or even when their services rate increases, Like everyone else stunned that they would do this just for 700k pa and stunned that they think 75% of shareholders will vote for it. Too far underwater to sell now, if the vote goes through my platform will just transfer to a trading acct so long as nano remain in crest.

If no RNS's it could be whoever milkfloat loaned some of their shares to buying back at lower prices to close out the loan.

Maybe Milkwood getting their shares back

Good news on the second asian JDA would be welcome for the long suffering.

Without a hike in income they won’t be able to see sufficient cash to meet running costs for 12 months from interims in 2028, but 2028 is the year of possible full production in the 1st Asian jda and its related payments.

Curious about scale up later this year for jda 1, after customer has selected materials, will scale up be at Runcorn or in Japan? If Runcorn that will presumably have a cost which might, I guess, be met by increased payments from the jda. If this is all happening in Japan perhaps we are heading for licence agreements with Japanese chem co’s rather than manuf payments.

In December 2025, Shoei filed for a declaratory judgement against Nanoco. This requested a court in Virginia conclude that Shoei did not infringe any of the four patents used in the LG litigation. Nanoco filed counter claims, citing patent infringement and damages. As we progressed through the litigation, it became apparent that the lawsuit wasn't economically viable. Therefore, the decision was made to negotiate with Shoei to achieve an outcome which protected the future organic business of Nanoco.

Only party that would have coughed up enough would have been apple if they were driving settlement and i don;t think they wanted to go there.

Yes the 3.2m is there my mistake. case did not prove 'economically viable'.

No presentation, ok fair enough, interim ceo & exec chair.

+ as others have said, hard to tell a convincing story around shoei settlement that can counter fact that cost got got high (10 x more than my question to AI, shows how reliable AI is).

Leaving it to edison to spell out legal cost pretty cowardly..

No mention of military project on display

JDA 2 pause like both the stm and the JDA 1 oause (in 2025) bit nerve wracking - we can only wait and hope.

JDA1 moving to scale up to production in next few months - seems early if relates to a 2028 product launch, will it mean a signicant adance on the few hundred K we were getting, not clear.

Then other stuff could turn into jdas, been saying that for a while.

Not seen MWIR mentioned before, vision of temperatures i think, so industral rather than mass market?

So unless more income from jda's and other projects we are looking at being unable to see a full year running costs ahead at 2028 interims, so 2 years to get cooking.

If nano are doing a presentation with Q & A monday i'll have to watch when i get home. I'm hoping to see good answers on wtf the shoei settlement was all about (legal cost hopefully declared in the interims), how close dimitri got to landing the new jda's he talked about often and progress on 2nd jda. If they don't the interims will need a good few paras for events after end of Jan.

If the chem co customers turn out to be sony and samsung it's hardly a vc play

Or more correctly, blocking shareholder participation in any dilution. Remember thinking one possible outcome of cdx could have been new shares, the blocked resolutions just mean you'd have to offer shareholders the same deal.

The 2 resolutions that didn't make 75% were to set aside shareholder pre-emption rights, blocking dilution in case of an acquisition or 'capital investment'. Rabbit holes if you think this is significant.