Member Info for TerrorWit

So touching to see all these new posters invested for the public good.

Maybe we should take all these new posters seriously - they’ve obviously returned from the future.

This is all becoming very awkward.

I was promised a directorship, a company car and a private jet.

FFS, why not right to the new Archbishop of Canterbury whilst you’re at it!

Archbishop@canterbury.co.uk.

Quite a few sausages, short of a barbecue, if you ask me.

Interesting psychology there Laura.

Apparently the board is simultaneously too incompetent to run Nanoco successfully and sufficiently sophisticated to run a covert influence operation on LSE through long-standing shareholders who happen to disagree with you.

Feeks

You’re changing the subject.

Whether you trust management or not doesn’t tell us whether the second JDA has been extended, terminated or remains under discussion.

.

Feeks

Your conclusion follows from your assumptions but not everyone shares those assumptions.

I’m not sure the timing supports that conclusion.

The company said it was discussing a potential extension to the second JDA. It has not announced an extension, but neither has it announced a termination.

More importantly, a proposal to delist from the Main Market is not something that appears overnight. It would have required months of preparation, advice and shareholder engagement before reaching the point of a formal vote.

So whilst the status of the second JDA remains uncertain, I’m not convinced it is sensible to assume that the delisting proposal is connected. In fact, the rationale for delisting — reducing costs and conserving cash — would appear to make just as much sense if the second JDA is extended as if it isn’t.

The idea that a board would propose a resolution requiring 75% shareholder approval without first sounding out major shareholders seems unlikely.

Could they do it? Of course.

Would it be sensible to risk a very public defeat on a proposal of this importance without having some idea where the larger holders stood? Not really.

Previous disagreements between shareholders and the board do not automatically tell us how they will vote on this specific proposal.

Why not just read the delisting RNS again?

The board has already explained what it is trying to do and why: conserve cash and reduce costs.

Yet somehow we’ve progressed from that to executive heists, hidden buyers, secret fundraises, boardroom conspiracies and retired directors communicating through TR-1 filings.

At this rate, by next week we’ll have the FCA, MI5 and the King involved.

I suspect a psychiatrist reading this forum would have far more to say about LSE posters than the company.

I'm not Terry ....

I'm Liam Edelman

I've done the maths and it appears that, based on recent posting history, shareholders who comment on LSE have 323.35% of the stock.

What’s fascinating is that the forum has been discussing this as if Pickett sold all his shares

It’s another example of confirmation bias.

If somebody’s focus is:

“I need to understand why Pickett sold.”

they naturally emphasise the shares that left.

If somebody’s focus were:

“I need to understand why Pickett still owns 4.7 million shares.”

they would emphasise the shares that remained.

Both facts come from exactly the same TR-1.

Turn the question on it's head. If it was already a private company already, would you seek an IPO in London?

Who are you TerrorWit?

I’m a long-term holder committed to seeing the investment through until the company either executes commercially or runs out of cash.

The company currently expects to execute and continues to make progress. The proposed delisting and the current share price do not materially alter that investment case. The share price reflects sentiment and liquidity as much as value.

Two things seem obvious:

1. The board is recommending the delisting and has chosen to put it to a shareholder vote. It would be surprising if they had done so without believing they had a realistic prospect of success.

2. If the company eventually runs out of money, remaining quoted will not prevent that outcome. If anything, the costs of being listed would further reduce the resources available to the business.

Most of the arguments for voting NO seem to rely on multiple assumptions being correct simultaneously, whereas these two realities appear relatively straightforward.

If you infer a negative from the sale by a former director then, logically, since the current directors, who are closer to the company have held you must infer a positive too.

Maybe it's better to accept that you don't know.

The interesting thing about the 2023 “rebel” campaign is not that it existed but how shareholders responded to it.

After all the circulars, webcasts and publicity, none of the resolutions received more than about 20% support and over 80% of votes backed the existing board.

So the last time this group put its case directly to shareholders, it was overwhelmingly rejected.

You might enjoy this https://wp-nanoco-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2023/07/Nanoco-Circular-and-Notice-of-General-Meeting.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

in particular para 2 bullet 4, quote :

None of the Requisitionists’ nominees have ever served on any UK public company board. None of the Requisitionists’ nominees have the necessary governance experience to chair a UK listed company board or the audit and remuneration committees. One of the Requisitionists’ nominees has

had summary judgement, significant damages and injunctions issued against them in a case involving misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair trade practices in 2023..

“The absence of TR-1s means something.”

Now she’s arguing:

“The presence of TR-1s means something.”

Which takes us back to today's regular dawn chorus of parroted ramps.

🦜

“Hidden buyer!”

🦜

“No TR-1s!”

🦜

“TR-1s!”

🦜

“Less support for BOD!”

The song changes slightly, but the underlying melody remains:

“My conclusion is correct.”

🦜🦜🦜🦜🦜🦜🦜🦜🦜🦜

Feeks,

There are multiple plausible explanations. For instance, Pickett may have decided to reduce concentration risk or simply seek closure after many years. Litigation is very stressful and we have no idea what he has been through.

Since there is no way to know, so I’m not inferring a motive from the sale.

What we can say is that every share he sold was also bought by somebody willing to own Nanoco now.

That tells us at least as much about the market as the fact that Pickett decided to reduce his holding.

Observation:

Nigel Pickett reduced his holding from 3.83% to below 3%.

Inference:

Some of the recent volume can now be attributed to a known seller.

Unknown:

Who bought those shares?

Whether there is a single buyer or many buyers.

Whether further large holders are selling.

What effect, if any, this has on the vote.

Which is admittedly much less exciting than:

“BLOCK BUYER! 🚀”

but rather more informative. 😄