Nano Nuclear this week pushed back against a story by the publishing arm of a private equity company that said the New York-based advanced reactor developer’s stock was highly overvalued.
“We’re not sure what we did to deserve any attention from these so-called ‘journalists’ who also short sell the stocks that they write about,” founder and executive chairman Jay Yu said in a statement shared with media. Yu said Hunterbrook had “ulterior motives” and that Nano Nuclear has no record of Hunterbrook trying to reach the company for comment before publishing a critical story on July 19.
Nano Nuclear believes it is the first portable nuclear microreactor company to be listed publicly in the U.S. The company is developing two types of reactors, known as Zeus and Odin. Hunterbrook describes itself as the investigative journalism arm of a private investment fund of the same name.
Hunterbrook Capital did not respond to questions this week about whether it held short positions on Nano Nuclear’s stock prior to July 19 and, if it did, whether it covered those positions afterward.
Nano Nuclear’s stock has soared since its initial public offering on the NASDAQ in May, and though share prices declined after Hunterbrook’s story, the drop appeared only to hasten what has been a steady decline in per-share value since peaks reached in June.
In the week since the Hunterbrook story appeared, Nano Nuclear’s stock fell $3.60 to $15.70 a share, though it dipped as low as $13.72 a share on Thursday. The stock hit a high of nearly $30 a share in late June, and shares overall were still up more than 30% percent since the initial public offering on May 8, as of deadline Friday for RadWaste Monitor.
In its July 19 story, Hunterbrook Media said Nano Nuclear has a wildly ambitious timeline for deploying its unbuilt reactors and has not started pre-application activities with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for either type of the reactor. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission confirmed there were no prestart activities with Nano Nuclear.
Hunterbrook also sought to contrast Nano Nuclear’s progress with other companies that possessed “more resources” and took 15 to 20 years to complete similar projects. The story cited NuScale Power Corp. as an example.
In Nano Nuclear’s statement this week, James Walker, CEO and head of reactor development, disputed comparisons with other types of advanced reactors.
“We’re not sure what projects they are referencing, which is why they lack education on the subject, but the only deployed microreactors historically took 2 to 3 years to license,” Walker said. “These were deployed decades ago and still operate at universities and research institutions.”
Walker also said that Nano followed the guidelines of the NRC “who currently estimate and advise a 40-month timeline from submission to the issuance of a license for NANO’s micro nuclear reactors.”
The licensing might take even less time after reforms signed into law earlier this month as part of the ADVANCE act, Walker said.
After the Hunterbrook report, Nano Nuclear on Monday announced it had appointed David Tiktinksy as their Head of Nuclear Regulatory Licensing.
Tiktinksy worked at the NRC for almost 40 years. In Nano Nuclear’s press release about the hire, Tiktinksy said he was “deeply impressed by the team’s expertise and dedication to innovation and excellence… I am confident that our combined expertise and commitment will drive significant progress.”
Hunterbrook also dinged Nano Nuclear for investing more in advertising than in research and development, even though, according to Hunterbrook, the Zeus and Odin reactors could cost hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development alone.
In Nano Nuclear’s latest, and so far only, quarterly report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it spent $290,539 on research and development in the first quarter of 2024, compared with $434,800 on advertising.
James Walker, Nano CEO, said Nano Nuclear’s research and development budget is “hundreds of times the marketing budget” and that they are currently raising money for the more capital intensive stages which will come later.
Yu also disputed Holbrook’s claim that Nano Nuclear did not reply to requests for comment. According to Yu, the company did not receive any inquiries, and if they had, “we would have educated them on all these topics.”
Hunterbrook also wrote that Nano Nuclear’s executive chairman and president, CFO, and CEO work as independent contractors at the reactor company while still holding senior management positions at other companies.
Yu is also chairman of the board of directors and president of mining rights company St. James Gold Corp., listed on over-the-counter markets LRDJF.
Walker is also CEO at Ares Strategic Mining Inc. trading over-the-counter as ARSMF. The company owns a fluorite mine in Utah. The mineral can be used as a welding flux, a material that protects metal during welding, and as an ingredient for hydrofluoric acid.
Jaisun Garcha, Nano’s chief financial officer, is also currently the CFO for Canada-based marketing company Snipp Interactive Inc. trading over-the-counter as SNIPF.
Meanwhile this week, and only days after Hunterbrook published its story, a law office based in California asked Nano Nuclear investors to cooperate with what the firm called an investigation of the company.
After the Hunterbrook story, “Nano’s stock price fell…thereby injuring investors,” The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz wrote in a press release. The firm specializes in investor class-action suits, according to its website.
Kristin Lucht contributed to this story from Washington.
