Member Info for Bagpuss67

The thresholds for disclosure for UK issuers are 3% and every percentage point thereafter. These thresholds are equivalent to the old s. 198 regime but cannot be imposed on non-UK issuers, to which only the EU Directive requirements apply.

Isnt it just the UK growth fund winding up? Was that where the AGL shares were held?

Isn't it every percentags point above 3% ie they need to notify going through 4%.

Specifically, the
controversy concerns the invalidity and non-infringement of the Asserted Patents and the right of
Nanoco to maintain suit for alleged infringement of the Asserted Patents"

AND non infringement not just invalidity

Info is FSP terminated and lawsuit not yet filed plus more/ endless research which if does not yield results will end up with most people being sacked to preseve the IP action.
PS who hands over their IP without any form of protective agreement? Answer people with zero commercial nouse

Or they perceive nanocos legal action to be totally irrelevant and to be just another one to bat off and settle with (maybe) on due course.

Surely what Samsung has done in respect of the deadline is worthy of an RNS

Don't think any high street bank will lend on a CBIL basis to Nano as they wouldn't have before CV19. IMHO. Best option Furlough and buy a few more months to let the FSP run its course and if that fails continue the mothball and just keep a couple of execs on to protect IP

Broker will have decided what needed to be said with Evercore trying to shape the words to make sure remaining competitive tension preserved. IMHO.

Let's hope finally a purchaser shows its hand.

If you buy this company you have to start funding its cash burn on top of the purchase price with no visibility of any payback. Not that attractive unless you are huge and have a special situation interest imho

BTB. Bet you don't do it. ??

Thomas. They have raised shed loads of money and spent it all. All well and good you saying raise more but others would have to write another big cheque.

BBD. I'm not sure how you are reaching thta conclusion. Maybe he just saw that the share price had run away with itself that morning and saw the chance to either make a quick 10k or put the brakes on and continue his accumulation at a lower price. I don't think you can infer his view on value from such a small trade compared to his overall holding. And surely given the risks he is expecting 50% plus on his 20p purchases.

Morbox. It is a fair point. But maybe management couldn't make that step to take legal action but once the FSP started and Evercore and LOAM were more influential they crossed the rubicon. Perhaps as a means to maximise shareholder value and up the competitive tension. But I do take your point. If this was a valid case why not do it and not the FSP.

Thomasbrowne. Are you suggesting that Apple may have cancelled the entire project involving multiple companies in the supply chain at huge cost just to buy Nanoco. You do not seem to grasp that nanoco was just one part of the potential supply chain

Thomasbrowne. That article is from 2014.

Nigwit. Come back all is forgiven.

Mr BWM. Its rubbish. They haven't accepted any bids. They have taken several parties through to DD

I also think that if they were getting commercial income from Dow or Wah Hong they would have RNSd it