Manchester nano-material firm Nanoco Group — which produces quantum dots used to make vibrant screen displays — on Friday rejected a letter by shareholder Tariq Hamoodi asking for the removal of board members.
“Nanoco notes the contents of a second letter that has been circulated to shareholders by Tariq Hamoodi,” said Nanoco.
“This follows Mr Hamoodi’s letter issued via RNS Reach in March, which has since been removed from the LSE’s website.”
On February 3, Nanoco announced that final agreements had been signed to settle litigation with Samsung on a no fault basis for alleged infringement of Nanoco’s intellectual property (IP).
Nanoco said the litigation had been concluded with a $150 million cash settlement to be paid in two equal tranches, with Nanoco retaining over $90 million in net proceeds after litigation costs.
On Friday, Nanoco added: “Nanoco has sought to engage with Mr Hamoodi, including responding to his initial letter.
“A copy of Nanoco’s letter to Mr Hamoodi is available here http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/0649A_1-2023-5-19.pdf.
“Nanoco’s board continues to emphatically reject Mr Hamoodi’s speculative concerns about certain actions and activities involving Nanoco, and does not believe the proposed board changes are in the best interests of shareholders.
“As previously announced, the directors of Nanoco have no intention of stepping down from the board and are confident that the board’s actions and statements over the period of the Samsung litigation were in line with its corporate governance duties, obligations and standards.”
Nanoco chairman Christopher Richards said: “We continue to emphatically reject Mr Hamoodi’s speculative concerns.
“The board welcomes scrutiny, but his misinterpretation of the past, and consciously selective and factually inaccurate disclosure, including the publication of heavily edited videos, presents a number of events out of context to create a false narrative to mislead our shareholders.
“The proposed board changes are not in the best interests of the company or its shareholders, and would give undue influence to a disgruntled minority shareholder.
“Nanoco is at an exciting inflection point, with the litigation proceeds fully underpinning our organic business which has significant growth opportunities.
“Mr Hamoodi’s proposals would be damaging and disruptive to Nanoco’s future prospects and, if successful, would result in an exodus of key talent from the business.”