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:
You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.
Your email and password must only be used by you. If a post is made under your account, it will be considered that it was posted by yourself.
Your account nickname must not be the same, or contain, listed company names or board members' names.
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
You will not;
discuss illegal or criminal activities.
post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge.
post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.
post any personal details (e.g. email address or phone number).
post live price or level 2 updates.
publish content that is not your original work, or infringes the copyright or other rights of any third party.
post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.
post links to, or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication.
post any affiliate or referral links, or post anything asking for a referral.
post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic.
re-post premium share chat posts on regular share chat.
restrict or inhibit any other user from using the boards.
impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives.
post or transmit any content that contains software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of this website or any computer software or equipment.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
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 and Verified Members
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
Absolutely entelon. The Texan Court is ruling on the question of patent infringement and not accounting practices in South Korea - that’s where the money is for NANO. However, if the Court can be persuaded they are admissible, there might be opportunity to air some potentially embarrassing questions in public. For example, it might be admissible to enquire how much a CFQD licence costs from Hansol.
Dow didn't have any of their patents infringed upon. The factory simply had replicas of Nanoco's production line in Runcorn. When Samsung decided that Dow's price was too high if Dow then sold the factory to Samsung and Samsung used it to product quantum dots there's nothing wrong with that. Dow's completely out of the game.
For what it's worth I think Dow still have the factory. The last we heard from the company about the relationship with Dow was that they had upgraded the factory to produce next generation dots that would be used to produce new products. Still waiting on that of course.
Sounds a bit far fetched to me. Certainly Dow might well have turned a blind eye to Samsung ripping off the tech (allegedly) to keep a major client sweet, but turning over a facility to them? AFAIK creating the dots doesn't take any elaborate equipment, the magic is in the recipe and process, so putting a facility together wouldn't have been an issue.
ddubya: It's all very intriguing ! The big problem is that amongst corrupt dynasties like the Lee family, anything goes. Yes, certainly, Hansol is owned by a branch of the Lee family. It's a huge question as to whether the Court is empowered to explore the relationships among the various companies(and that includes Dow) and how defensive Samsung might be about these relationships being exposed. If Dow are in any way implicated, it's another big question as to whether Dow wants that possible can-of-worms to be opened. Dow is still investing in quantum nanorods. If Dow felt exposed, they might put pressure on Samsung to button things up and Samsung would listen to another major like Dow, particularly as Samsung has a lot($6 Bn) hanging on the Verizon 5G contract and a scandal involving Dow would go down very badly in the USA.
In terms of the whole scenario, I can't see how Dow can be kept out of it as there are so many unanswered questions. But, the law suit is a confined action. The Mintz lawyers will be very switched on and will have acquainted themselves with the proven corruption endemic within the Samsung empire. In the end, this will all come down to who feels under the most pressure and exposure in any possible deal done pre-Trial. A Jury Trial means public exposure, of course, and maybe that's one of the reasons that only about 1 in 20 suits ever get to Jury trial.
I understand Hansol is owned by a member of the same family Amerloque.
Not saying it was so (it is for the Court to consider) but here’s a Hypothetical question. What if Hansol’s did not have any involvement in developing the CFQD and its role was solely as a conduit to receive funds as an outwardly Independent company?
How would the technical and family connections stand up to closer scrutiny, and how much has Samsung paid Hansol (or anyone else) for use of ‘their’ CFQD over the years?
amerlogue: you are absolutely right to call out the total silence from Dow. You have already made us aware of the possible back-door deal between Samsung and Dow/Corning. From memory, the Dow factory at Cheonan (located very, very close to one of the Samsung plants) cost Dow about $30M. You are making the interesting suggestion that, in some sort of "deal", Samsung took over the Cheonan plant from Dow and manufactured QDs there, putting out the fake story that the QDs were coming from Hansol. In early 2015, when LG were showing interest in Trevista dots, the Cheonan fab was presumably not up and running, as an RNS announced that Trevista dots would be made at short notice at Runcorn, UK. LG, of course, rejected QDs and stuck to their OLED. That would have left Dow in the lurch, complicated by the merger with du Pont. If Samsung did do some sort of back-door deal with Dow, it is entirely possible that Samsung, who are corrupt by culture, inveigled Dow engineers (who would have been fully briefed on any Nanoco trade secrets) to help set up the Cheonan fab for QD production for Samsung under the cover of darkness, as it were.
I don't recall Edelman ever mentioning that he visited Cheonan. Didn't Nano employ a far-East representative who had had Dow experience in his past? If Edelman does know a great deal more than he's admitted to, it might account for he being pushed out. Edelman continued to talk about "the Big S" for some time after the early days of 2015, and, as we know, there was the pretence of a Samsung/Nanoco collaboration until at least 2017. Edelman is something of a narcissist who likes to bask in the glory of major companies (hence he spending £900,000 on pushing Nano from AIM to full LSE listing) and he may have just been hoodwinked by Samsung/Dow as they were good at keeping the flattery going.
Anyway, as you suggest, the silence from Dow/lack of any promotion of Trevista dots/no mention of Cheonan factory needs explaining. Someone beyond the nefarious Samsung Mafia will know !!
It is very possible that Hansol was a smoke screen. Why would Hansol give its supposed technology to Samsung Electronic Materials? What is the current status of the Dow QD factory located next door to Samsung and why did Edelman hide its status from us for so many years? When did Dow learn about Samsung's miraculous invention and why did Dow give up its exclusive QD partnership with Nanoco? I suspect that Edelman and Dow have dirty hands. I have never seen a serious Dow Trevista QD marketing and sales effort and no effort at all since 2015. I repeat, "What happened to the factory?" Where are the expertly trained factory's employees working now?
Given that Samsung’s defence is NANO did not file its patent correctly, it presumably follows that Hansol never made CFQD and that was simply a Samsung smokescreen to hide what I believe to be the truth - Samsung made them, using knowledge it gained during the collaboration phase, to supplement what was public knowledge in the patents themselves. I am convinced Samsung is as guilty as sin itself, and it hopes to drag the case out and hopefully avoid losing on a technicality.
We just need to be very patient and hope our legal team is meticulous and prevents Samsung from creating an escape route.
ME remains on board as an adviser and retains his share options, so not not treated as a 'bad leaver' and still very much still on speaking terms with NANO, Mintz and all. I suspect Mike was as keen to take a step back as NANO/LOAM were to save money and find a new direction.
1) The board said some time ago that departures could come to preserve cash. ME's departure fits with this. 2) The due diligence process with our funder would have covered the filing of patents. If this were an issue, they wouldn't be here because they'd still have to cover the costs under the agreement. It's most likely a nonsense defence because they don't have one. 3) There are measures in place to better manage cases remotely in the event of a further lockdown - the new normal and all that bs. 4) Agreed on Samsung's reputation for dragging things up but then the Texas court have the opposite reputation so how will that balance out?
I'm still wondering why ME suddenly departed and I have concerns over Samsung's challenge over that the patents were not filed properly...I'm just hoping his departure was not that he knew something was awry and he ran for the hills before the proverbial hits the fan!
A second wave of Covid-19 leading to further lock downs seems set to kick off. This may well delay the legal process.
The legal systems is designed to allow plenty of opportunity and time for both parties to discuss their grievances and reach settlement.
However for the likes of Samsung given their track record and the number of board member and senior managers with convictions coupled with a track record of IP theft as highlighted in various press reports it seems likely they will drag the process out for sometime.
The issue is that annual their tvs are making a profit of $1,000 or $6 billion a year as highlighted in ME company video referencing the litigation case and profits deriving from QD enhanced tvs.
Now for Samsung chucking loose change of $10, $20, $40m at patent lawyers to try and derail and fudge the situation is a strong motivation.
So I am still hopeful of a cash settlement and licence deal in mid 2022..Cash of $250 to $350m less TP meaning 60p a share and a licence deal pushing the sp to 90p to 120p.
However if it becomes clear that circumstances change that Samsung sees more value in the potential of Nanoco's team then they may make a bid...but that's perhaps more wishful thinking...
The Nanoco team need in the meantime to deliver commercial deals rather than empty speeches which ME was characterised by...Hopefully BT will have a more measured approach only releasing information which is more realistic and reliable for investor digestion.
I am still hopeful that Nanoco can be a growth business in a high growth and exciting technology sector but like many here the frustration of nagging doubts remains until we see the first rays of light.