The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Yes dubbya this pattern is like 80% of the days trades. One Friday a few couple weeks ago it had a drop nearer 4pm than 8am though but for the vast majority it seems to drop in am and rise in late pm of trading. (Gmt.time)
It could just be me but it seems to there is a recurring pattern in NANO trading. Opens steady then (without any news or unusual trading volume) there is a drop of several % points and shortly before or at the close, a narrowing of losses on the day - but still down.
Am I wrong, or does anyone have any possible explanation(s)?
What are the alternatives? Dilution? A loan with interest? Bonds?
In my view this is a mechanism with pros and cons. Its a non-dilutive loan with interest payable at the back end rather than monthly with a kicker on a successful litigation outcome. If we can't repay the loan at the time, and assuming the IP is still robust then we can explore other funding options to pay the liability. I'm just glad it wasn't bonds as that seems to open up a huge can of worms where the bond holders manipulate matters to suit such as parallel shorting which does no one any favours.
IF we win the action then this is all moot I hope but at least our cash runway is extended and the company is able to focus on the new relationships and commercialisation.
Completely agree Lobo. I would also love to see the due diligence in securing this loan. Given the huge amount of money supply currently available, is this really the best (and only) deal available for shareholders and value creation?! Feels more like stripping money out of the company under the guise of non dilutive
Also definitely feels like they are walking a tight line with regards to insider involvement given the ridiculously generous terms being handed out - completely at odds with a market rate
There's been a few eyebrow raising situations over the years, most involving the former CEO's share dealing antics, but I remember the fund raising back in 2017 which caused some chagrin amongst private investors, as the equity was only available to ii's at what was then a very significant discount. A later fund raise was made available but not at the same level of discount. Course subsequent circumstances with the Apple contract cancellation and the Covid epidemic have created opportunities for PI's to buy in at significant discount to any prior cash raise, but you have to have a few quid spare tyo take advantage at the right time.
Regardless of how 'immaterial' some of you view this 105% nominal bonus of the loan notes is, I think it stinks. Why wouldn't they have gotten RG and LOAM to underwrite the deal and then let other shareholders take part? It is all very strange. I don't like the wording in the RNS and comparing the pricing to what was received during the process to obtain litigation funding. It is wholly irrelevant - sweetheart deal for the two of them and very bad behaviour from Brian Tenner to let that pass. It irks me and I would like to understand via lawyers whether this needed shareholders approval because of insider involvement - at first glance I think it does.
Nanonano - exactly. Their defence purely rests on prior art (invalidity).
Samsung don't appear to have denied infringing the patents, their defence seems to centre on the invention being non patentable owing to prior art.
I know that people are are aware of the deposition of one of Nano's experts on 29/7/21 for the PTAB (it is this chap-https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/mark-green) He seems to be well respected in nanoparticle research including some of the fields in the disputed patents. An interesting point in his professional bio is one of his research projects aimed at developing an aerosol containing molecules which are a conjugation of DNA specific molecules and quantum dots. One part of the molecule binds to a target and causes the quantum dot to fluoresce thus highlighting an area to be sterilised/cleaned.The project is specifically aimed at covid detection on surfaces and has been funded to the tune of almost £400k due to report back in August next year (https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/projects/discover-aptamer-biosensors-for-the-detection-of-sarscov2-on-surfaces(a7b55bce-9903-49cb-bd26-29ca8bbff1c7).html). I can't see cadmium being included in the dots used for obvious exposure health risks.
The development team believe that the technique could easily be applied to a wide range of other bugs so if it works it could become standard issue on hospital wards.If it can be used for something like 'flu then I could see that being a decent seller to the public as well.
Yes, totally agree from what has been expressed with regards the postponement of trial until after PTAB.
If we win that, the court case, I have understood would be just a case of agreement on settlement.
Hopefully.
Samsung go on selling tv's. I would expect them to try and find some grounds for appeal, if that fails, then they have to pay-up any award or find themselves in contempt.
The key lies the PTAB decision. If that goes our way i believe the court result is just a formality.
I'm assuming here but I hope that there are a whole load of other patents and not just those ones needed to produce the new materials. Otherwise once those patents lapse in a few years anyone with the budget and skill could reverse engineer them.
It's not just display patents, it's the patents for molecular seeding, that's key to all of Nanoco's products.
Nanonano, if the case fails it will be because Samsung has managed to invalidate NANO's display patents. That would indeed destroy all past claims and future revenue from those patents. One hopes the company wouldn't have made the same mistakes with the nano particle patents being used in sensing though.
your view is in line with my own.
The case is critical IMO. If they fail, it opens the door for any other company to exploit the IP, if they're not doing so already.
Many investors seem to be looking at the potential of a big payout, but seem to be overlooking that if the patents are valid, the Samsung will have to pay for an ongoing license, and with that hovering anywhere from $100-300m per year depending on how you gauge present and future royalties, that can value the company at $1-3bn plus based on a modest ten times earnings multiplier.
Naturally that could be completely wide of the mark, so we will have to wait and see.
I read this earlier but thanks for posting the link.
Seems to me that the company consider themselves to be clearly communicating the terms of the loan and they certainly don't want to embellish on any ambiguity re the 105% bonus. I'm taking it as an additional sum and I'm ok with that in light of the confidence in success with the trial. If we win 'big' ; do I care if the 'lenders' double the returns of the loan that underpins the company and removes the opportunity for shorters to exploit perceived weakness? A. NO.
But if the trial fails, which cannot be discounted, then commercialisation of one or more of the product streams remains possible. Maybe.
Lots to play for regardless.
https://www.edisongroup.com/publication/non-dilutive-debt-extends-organic-cash-runway/29741