Oki, da betyr det at de har mindre forhandling uten penger på bok til å drive 🥹
Rart de henter penger for en så kort periode i siste runde.
Per nå er de de nesten hadde på kroken ute av bildet.men om de plutselig dukker opp igjen aner ikke jeg noe om. De oppgir heller ikke årsak når de trekker seg.
Jeg vet heller ikke hvordan formalia var rundt disse nesten situasjonene.
På meg virker det helt usannsynlig at den banebrytende teknologien hele selskapet er tuftet og funnet opp på plutselig ikke skal ha en fremtid. Dette må belyses. Hva har endret seg i R&D og/eller i konkurransesituasjon.
Hvor står nanowires produktet i dag
2 Likes
De så på det som litt av en situasjon. Så nære noe stort og de som gikk inn short term ville til og med fått tredoblet det de gikk inn med. Alt handlet om hvor nære de var med disse store industrielle aktørene.
Hva det innsalget var basert på, analyse av hvorfor det ble stang ut og muligheter videre blir fokus nå mtp muligheter for å få inn mer cash
Og hvorfor ikke det er kamp om nanowires produktet som skal være like om hjørnet, det lurer jeg på
Det høres jo ut som en logisk forklaring, og vi trodde jo også at den kortsiktige finansieringen var i påvente av noe konkret. Også kan man jo bare spekulere i hvorfor de trekker seg.
Det du skriver om mer enn tredobling Bingo, indikerer vel at det var snakk om et salg.
Jepp, min forståelse er at det var snakk om salg av selskapet.
Dritt at det skulle komme til dette, håpte at et oppkjøp kunne gi et bedre utfall og at det ikke var for langt vekke pga den korte finansieringen. Men nå er det enda mer usikkert og enda mer venting…
Nå er det ikke mye venting men snarer desp behov for funding og støtte fra banker
Men de har heldigvis litt penger på bok
Noen som har oversikt over runway nå?
Prøver å forstå meg på dette. Hvis de virkelig var så nær å få solgt selskapet eller evt få en stor industriell aktør tungt inn på eiersiden så kan da det umulig være slutt nå? Da må det handle om hvor reelt dette faktisk var og der vil vel de som skal gå inn med mer cash kreve å få vite mer i detalj hva dette handlet om ? Hvis det viser seg å ikke vær nok hold i det blir det et tillitsproblem som er verre å hanskes med
Det er jo ikke hver dag et en Tech start up fra Norge er nære ved å bli solgt så det må jo ihvertfall bety at teknologien er noe å satse på videre.
Ikke lett å spekulere uten å vite noe 
Company going from bull with several statements of future prospects, to damage control mode, just weeks after short-term funding very close to runway end with even further specific timeline for short-term funding throughout Q3 with the company founder investing approx 600 000 NOK of own money for the first time. Clearly a process went south and the other party walked away.
Throwing away top notch research since 2005, several 100s of novel patents, weighted pipeline of approx 150M for 2025 (per May)?
This cannot be over just like that. Just call Sparebank1 and issue some convertible debt of 30M buying half a year of runway, build more and increase the valuation. Then convert on acquisition, IPO or new strategic investor. They have done it several times since start.
Actually the average cost price in most capital raises since start is around 14-16 NOK per share.
It’s unclear whether the actor was a strategic investor or a potential acquirer, but the first is what they are aiming according to statements. The company’s sudden reduction in news flow, reluctance to name partners, and delay in other communications might have been related to ongoing negotiations with the potential investor.
If the company had been in advanced negotiations with a strategic investor or acquirer, they likely anticipated that the deal would close before their cash runway expired. This would explain why the short-term funding was planned to last only through Q3 2024—they expected the deal to be finalized by then. The optimism in previous announcements about growth potential, blue-chip partnerships, and readiness for an IPO could have been based on the assumption that the pending deal would close successfully. This could explain the stark contrast between these earlier messages and the more urgent tone of their latest update.
When the actor walked away, CrayoNano likely had to scramble to revise their business plan and communicate the new financial realities, which would have been a significant blow. Rescue efforts are likely focused on finding a new investor, strategic partner, or even revisiting previous discussions with other potential acquirers.
The company’s recent update mentioning “consolidation” for the first time suggests they are now open to discussing acquisition. Could be a hidden signal to the actor who bailed?
You bet a potential actor who walked out on the deal (it happens more then you think and it could be external factors instead). Some use it to “shop around” and stall other companies with term sheets. During the exclusivity period, the target is typically prevented from negotiating with other potential buyers or investors. If the acquirer intentionally drags out negotiations, the target can be left with no alternatives, making them more dependent on the deal closing. This can lead to the acquirer pushing for last-minute changes, such as a lower price or more favorable conditions. However, such tactics can backfire, particularly if the target has other potential buyers, strong intellectual property (IP), or a supportive board of directors and investors.
If the acquirer was trying to corner CrayoNano, they might have delayed the process deliberately to exert financial pressure, knowing the company was nearing a liquidity crunch. This happens. Lets see what the board of directors are made of.
Anyhow, here is a breakdown of what they have said in the QA which was deleted before/during summer.
(by the way, I got all PDFs, presentations and news articles physically, but this is also available in Wayback Machine).
Lets go back to 15.02.24 from Q4-23 Q&A :
We are currently engaged with advisers to support on our near-term funding requirements and will update once we have further details. There is a need to raise money this year while we continue to scale our revenue and move to a cashflow positive position. Pleasingly, though, we anticipate this to
be the last required funding round as we successfully execute our growth plans.
No mention of long-term funding, just near-term and its the last required.
Strategic investors are considered preferable over a potential IPO at this
stage. That’s mainly due to their ability to better support our strategy and operational growth plans. Strategic investors would be companies within the wider related industry with complementary operative- or strategic activities, or other synergy potential.
This sounds like the focus is capital injection and making way for new shareholder. Not sounding like direct competing companies producing UV-C LED components, but could be anyone somewhere in the supply-chain, its diffuse.
Pleasingly, we are ahead of our schedule for OEMs and have good design-in activities with several blue-chip companies.
Blue-chip companies usually dont go bankrupt.
We are targeting to launch a UV-C LED with a 50% reduction in the price-
performance parameter in Q4 this year. The first priority is our internal EPI wafer and template technology for cost down and yield increases. We are contacting and starting qualification and early design-in activities with selected customers and partners for an early involvement with early design-in activities from the middle of this year. The next step would include an implementation of our nanowire structure design to drive further cost down and performance increase.
Customers/partners should be in design-in with the new product already, then nanowires implemented into same package when other processes are optimized, must be specific order.
As a policy, we don’t comment on rumours. We don’t believe it is in our investors interest to sell the company anytime soon just as we are achieving good market penetration and demonstrating commercial success. There is considerable value being, and to be built, as we execute on our growth plans.
They are not pursing to get acquired, but a new investor. They see the upside in building the company instead, despite being acquired can still be an exit with great upside for shareholders. Competitors would never be investors, they would acquire instead. Competitors as partial investors are complicated in the market.
Lets go back to 23.05.24 from Q1-24 Q&A :
We remain highly confident that we can continue both building as well as converting our pipeline. We are in active discussions with a number of global names, some advanced, which could meaningfully scale revenue in the near to medium term, and we hope to announce a further new contract as well as other partnerships shortly.
Global and advanced names.
What is the reason for the recent CEO change? (Answered by Jens Kielland, CFO) It was always the intention that I would temporarily hold the role of acting CEO, and ultimately reassume the CFO role
His position was agreed to close already or happened a week later. He was never going to reassume CFO role. It was disclosed in the prospectus.
We are confident that revenue will build as the year progresses, with it likely to be second-half weighted due to current lead-times.
This should be no surprise, its for H2.
As also detailed in the presentation, we are working on securing more longer-term funding to fully support the ongoing progression of our strategy. This could take the form of loan notes or other forms of debt, or investment by strategic investors, or a combination, and again we will provide an update as soon as we are able. Strategic investors could be companies within the wider related industry with complementary operative- or strategic activities, or other synergy potential.
Longer term funding is now introduced/disclosed. Process ongoing most probably. Again, new investor, not acquisition.
Through recent engineering, we have been able to achieve a first progress and could reduce the price by about 10%, providing benefits to customers and improving their competitiveness in the market. We are still targeting to implement a significant step forward to a market leading position by reducing the price-performance parameter further targeting for substantially, with pilot products planned for end of 2024, followed by production and deliveries in 2025.
Restating the development towards market leading position.
We obviously can’t provide much detail as we are bound by NDAs /confidentiality agreements, and it would be too premature as we want to secure results first, and timings are largely led by our customers. What we can say is that we are engaged with several different parties and started our engagement with them ahead of our initial expectations. The quality of our product and service has already attracted and convinced first market influencing OEMs who have already started their strategic supplier onboarding programs with us. The overall process with customers entails different stages, so our overall work with them will cover several years. As we are focusing on top tier customers the lead-times are longer. For example, design-ins typically currently have lead times of 12 months or longer.
Ahead of expectations on engaging with the blue-chip companies.
4 Likes
Det blir for generelt. Og «eneste norske tech håpet» osv. Og det er klart de er offensive i alle kanaler helt til siste slutt. Jeg har lest meldingen flere ganger og jeg synes det virker merkelig. Ikke fått betaling osv. Jeg tror problemet er at det nesten ikke er ordrer å snakke om. Hvor mange shipments i juli?, ref den positive meldingen som kom om rekordmange. Betale lisenspenger skriver de, hvilken størrelsesorden er det snakk om her?
Hva med blue chip bestillingene som VincentFreeman nevner
Og det der med konsolideringer osv er visvas
Det er noe de har skjult og det er hvordan det går med selve produktet alt egentlig handler om. De har sagt de skulle oppdatere markedet på Q updates, men har ikke gjort det. Føler det er noe som har skjeddd her som vi ikke vet om. Stemmer det fortsatt at det kommer i Q4? de har guidet det
Selskapet må fortelle hvordan og når de skal få NTNU oppfinnelsen klar, altså hvordan det går med nanowires produktet. To fra pwc har til og med spurt åpent på LinkedIn, men ikke fått svar
Kan det være usikker standing med selve produktet, utsettelse, evt problemer er det som hindrer store avtaler i å skje. For at det skal være liv laga fremover må nanowires produktet vise seg levedyktig og like sterkt konkurransemessig som de har sagt. Har de feilet fatalt i ivaretakelse av en fantastisk oppfinnelse lurer jeg på
1 Like
Ref. delisting. Det hadde nok ikke noe med preferanseaksjene å gjøre, men dealen som falt i fisk. Condalign har vel også preferanseaksjer, uten at selskapet delistes av den grunn.
1 Like
Jeg stiller med bak Vincent og Freeman over. Fornuftige innlegg.
De store aksjonærene ønsker nok å få vite mer om dealen som falt i fisk og når nanowires produktet kommer på markedet før de går inn med mer
Also sensing a narrative change in the last update hinting on consolidation (m&a) as a possible solution.
Companies will never reveal failed investment processes, first because of NDA not even able to confirm existence of such. In addition its bad for company image and future discussions, so its also normal to put blame on external factors.
However the severe phrasing about the “risk of no basis for continued operation” could be a legal or regulatory necessity. Companies are often required to inform investors of all potential risks, especially when liquidity is in question. Even though CrayoNano is listed on an OTC platform rather than a fully regulated stock exchange, they are still subject to certain regulatory requirements. These rules may include the obligation to disclose material risks, even if the company is pursuing funding options. By issuing such a stark warning, they may be ensuring compliance with these requirements, while also managing expectations.
The participants in the last round is probably under NDA and know it was connected to a specific process. They might put in more short-term, lets hope that. However, more funding from other current shareholders could be more difficult balancing revealing company secrets and status.
Remember: The founder and patent creator and inventor put in 600K NOK, he wouldnt do that for securing “another 3 months of runway” if no possibilities on the table. The pending OTC delisting was obviously connected to other process to be secured.
This is from 6th August, just weeks ago (!):
Investor Confidence: We have confirmed buy-in from major investors who have already signed their participation. This financing round positions us to implement our commercial strategies effectively and prepare for the next funding round at a valuation no less than the previous one.
But @SuperTechInfo that founder also believed what NTG said about large industrial player(s) about to go in long term(or maybe even aquire I don’t know) His decision of buying more shares was based on exactly the same note as for all of the other large investors when they signed up.
Helge Weman is the prime insider in the company and is 100% certain involved in due diligence processes and technology assessment with potential investors/buyers. He was CTO and board member for many years, and is still involved. He also attends all general assembly in person. He knows whats going on.
When the company is pursing financing/m&a, due diligence under strict NDA is a full requirement for this. Their technology and patents will always be central in this. Based on such processes and the founder putting in private capital, this should be a good sign.
However, when in liquidity challenge, the negotiation dynamics can be hard, because you never know the real intentions of the other actor.
I don’t think he is involved at all when it comes to this. It’s made out of his idea, but he has no role in the company.
