Nanoco has called for a General Meeting next month to address the potential appointment of two directors to its board.
- Milkwood Fund, holding 5.6% of Nanoco’s voting rights, suggested the board nominations, sparking the meeting.
- Nanoco’s leadership opposes these nominations, questioning the appropriateness and rationale behind them.
- Christopher Richards, Nanoco’s Non-Executive Chairman, criticised the lack of clarity provided by Milkwood.
- The potential changes are viewed as disruptive to Nanoco’s strategic direction and shareholder value.
Nanoco has scheduled a General Meeting to discuss the potential appointment of two directors to its board. This decision follows a requisition notice submitted by Milkwood Fund, which has a 5.6% share in the company. Milkwood proposed the appointment of Rhys Summerton and Andre Tonkin as new board members.
The suggestion of these nominations has faced significant opposition from Nanoco, as expressed in a forceful statement to its shareholders. The company questions the suitability and reasoning behind the proposed appointments. Christopher Richards, the Non-Executive Chairman of Nanoco, highlighted the lack of information provided by Milkwood concerning their candidates.
Richard articulated the board’s dissatisfaction, stating, “Milkwood has given no indication in the Requisition Notice as to the appropriateness of its nominees to be directors of a listed company nor as to the rationale for their appointment.” This sentiment reflects broader concerns over the potential influence of Milkwood’s previous activist strategies, noted particularly in their unsuccessful attempt to control another investment trust.
The motivations of Mr. Summerton, a director of Milkwood, add further complexity to the issue. He has expressed scepticism about Nanoco’s value, indicating a desire to transition the company into an investment entity, drastically cut expenditures, and quickly sell assets. Richards notes that such actions would preserve surplus cash without distributing it among shareholders.
Given the absence of a clear and favourable rationale for the nominations, coupled with Milkwood’s former activist movements, Nanoco believes the proposed changes would disrupt its strategic objectives. The board is concerned these resolutions could undermine its efforts to enhance shareholder value.
Nanoco firmly opposes the board nominations, perceiving them as a potential threat to its strategic goals and shareholder interests.
