Member Info for Baoxiou

Don't think it is misleading - just do a bit of googling:

The investors North Atlantic Smaller Companies Investment Trust PLC (LSE:NAS), a fund managed by Harwood Capital LLP and Richard Griffiths Ltd

There was also a £5m placing that shores up the balance sheet nicely, and puts a floor in the stock price at 25p a share. The placees were Lombard Odier Asset Management, Richard Griffiths and North Atlantic Smaller Companies Investment Trust. All of this is likely to be sticky money, and so supply from the placing is likely to be minimal. Several directors were buyers early last month in the range of 28.5p to 29.42p.

As if he really said "we didn't think there would be a reaction to the share price given there was no financial information". Blatant lie. Not only did they know the terms of settlement they knew what expectations were because those crooks also confirm that they read the boards.

He totally avoided the substance of the question about the calls. Claims that they were having calls to reduce amounts owed to advisors and only tangentially mentions Griffiths and LOAM. Laughable.

Send in the clowns.

36. Red Wolf’s own assertions suggest that they lack a basic understanding of BCM’s

algorithmic approach, which serves to undermine their claims of theft of Red Wolf trade secrets.

Manual trading done with human judgment leads to integer volumes of trading, even though an

optimal solution would certainly suggest fractional volumes. A human could enter fractional

volumes into the trading system, but the complexity of convergence bidding drives traders to

simplify their bid requests. These simplifications are typically choosing integer volumes and

spreading similar trades over multiple operating hours. If Red Wolf were actually using

algorithms to suggest or place trades, they would not find BCM’s fractional volume

recommendations so “highly irregular” as stated multiple times in their declaration. There are

additional reasons we believe are irrefutable proof that our algorithms are independent of any

Red Wolf’s alleged trade secrets, but we feel describing them would likely reveal BCM’s own

proprietary intellectual property.

37. It is inaccurate to suggest that the trade recommendations BCM provided to Chris

and which he executed on behalf of Red Wolf posed unlimited risk to Red Wolf. This is patently

Case 1:19-cv-10119-MLW Document 19-2 Filed 01/29/19 Page 10 of 12

11

4851-7615-5782, v. 2

false. In convergence bidding, cleared bids are liquidated (back into cash) on a 24-hour cycle so

the risk is very short-term. Second, we believe the trades our proprietary algorithms generate

have an optimal risk/reward ratio based on the data sources we use. To this point, we estimate

Red Wolf profited approximately $100,000 or more from the recommendations we sent Chris

and the timeframe in which we believe he placed trades (operating dates between and including

December 13, 2018 and January 7, 2019). Finally, CAISO has a set cap on real-time bids that

serves to create a limit to the down-side risk of every convergence bidding trade.

The smears will go both ways. "Two phones" Griffiths would love this, something out of his books. Looks like a commercial dispute and Moeller has to pay 50k a year and is injuncted from trading. Looks eerily familiar to the deal Nanoco signed up to with Samsung.

From the court docket:

At no time did Chris Jylkka have access to the source code of BCM’s

algorithms, nor did he transfer any code from Red Wolf which was used in BCM’s algorithm

development. Furthermore, Chris had no useful knowledge or information that was used to build

the architecture of BCM’s databases or the code that populates the database. Chris’s access to

BCM data was “read-only” and limited to trade recommendation output and related OASIS data.

39. Chris Jylkka is an experienced energy trader. At no point did Chris help with

database architecture, data acquisition, or algorithm development since databases and machine

learning are something about which he knows nothing. These subject matters were firewalled

silos separate from BCM’s market analysis and trading execution tools. BCM’s internal

database further requires a username and password to modify or upload information. Chris

Jylkka was not granted this level of access.

40. I can categorically deny that we have taken any source code, algorithms, or trade

secrets belonging to Red Wolf. In no way have we taken any of Red Wolf’s software. We have

no source code, no database schemas, and no compiled code of Red Wolf. In Red Wolf’s own

disclosures, it acknowledges that Chris Jylkka had no access to Red Wolf’s developed systems in

any way.

Bombarding message boards? Say what, 1,574 posts dedicated to Nanoco at all hours of the day? LOL as you say.

Samsung are sued for hundreds of times a year, they do not care what Nanoco publish in RNS or to Edison, only about the legal merits of a case. No broker research was ever sighted by Samsung in the proceeds. As @troublesome said - to argue that the company could not be transparent with shareholders because they had to put on a brave face won't cut it, certainly not in the context of Market Abuse Regulations and definitely not in the High Court of Justice, especially when the very same company allowed shareholders exercising significant control (with a board seat) to see information that was being withheld for such "strategic purposes" to trade.

@Kooba - on the patent sale, keep in mind Nanoco entered the patent box tax regime (or at least announced to their investors they did) within FY2022 (July YE) and then agreed a settlement with Samsung involving the sale of patents that would be captured/benefit from that regime. The tax advice the company sought in structuring this (I would imagine with Brian Tenner's ex employer PwC) will be available through discovery and will be another piece of evidence to show what the company's intentions were at the time, the status of negotiations with Samsung, and any misstatements made on the back of this.

Some folks here (seemingly linked to the company) call these allegations speculative and that only "circumstantial evidence" has been laid out. They have watched too much Law & Order and have no idea what they are speaking about. In civil cases the courts will admit evidence of similar facts if it is logically probative.

Just to show you how long it takes the FCA to move, it took them nearly 4 years to get Sir Christopher Gent regarding dissemination of MNPI. I advise you to read their decision: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/final-notices/sir-christopher-gent-2022.pdf

This process can of course be accelerated by going to the High Court for disclosure in other claims. The questions and disclosure requests should be fairly straightforward and Hamoodi's QCs and solicitors will know where to look. If there is no wrongdoing, great, but someone has to start speaking.

Remember that in the UK, in civil cases, the claimant needs to prove the case against the defendant “on a balance of probabilities”. This is unofficially described as the 51% test. If evidence does not exist, has been deleted, or the parties subverted requirements to record any call, different parties are saying different things (seems the case already), High Court Judges are not stupid.

The FCA takes time but this will be on their radar. It seems that no one wants to provide any detail about the call; who was on it, what was discussed, what time did it take place at (it seems after Samsung had submitted the term sheet that was signed given the Chairman's admission. The call isn't the only issue for regulators or civil litigation. The timings and knowledge of settlement offers and active negotiation whilst Turcan was a litigation sub-committee and board member in sync with the admission to the tax box regime... all point to LOAM having a good handle on where negotiations were headed.

If Hamoodi sues, all this will come out through discovery. It is unavoidable for Nanoco and LOAM. They will never concede or admit to wrongdoing, especially if there is any risk of insider trading, especially whilst so many eyes are watching the situation. LOAM has a reputation to protect and so if they suspended Giles and Turcan today, they would have egg on their face. Better yet to just put on a brave face and see how far Hamoodi takes this.

As @nanostory pointed out Hamoodi can pursue claims against the directors and officers, who will be personally liable. It is an exciting time to be a shareholder as there are assets to recover. Fielding is wealthy (she sold her company to Griffith's backed IP Group early on), Batterham has a few quid, Chris Richards doesn't seem to have done much but has a decent pool of assets (significant real estate in Somerset), Turcan (father owned Turcan Connell and married into gentry, seemingly twice now). Tenner and Gray seem like the asset light ones in the group, with Pickett just above him.

Just remember, if the directors have damaged the company then it is them who pays, not the company.

This is so comical... started with "Hamoodi's allegations are unfounded and he is going to go away" and then to "he can't find the support to call a vote". God forbid when the lawsuits start rolling in against the directors and officers and the FCA starts prodding around.

@Intrusive - he is such a bad person doing charity boxing matches!! what a chancer Hamoodi is raising money for Children's Hospices - https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/battleinthecity He is an awful person for doing this. Or should he should be donating to the legal fund to support Brian Tenner and Chris Richards court fees?!

I'd love to see him in the ring with Brian Tenner, who looks like he doesn't have long to go from severe diabetes and obesity issues !!

Completely irrelevant. Neither have anything to do with SWIR.

Interesting that the STM deal has expired / lapsed and the company has not announced it but seem to be telling certain investors they have been in calls and meetings with that have asked.

Oh, do you run Fluffers on Demand?

NGR1616 - you need a job.

Another interesting point a friend pointed out

Last year Nanoco had a bunch of different jobs posted for production engineers and chemists etc, but their headcount didnt actually change (not in the annual report and not via LinkedIn)

Why did they post all those jobs - at one point there was around 6-7 listed (as they hyped up production whilst doing the share placing) but havent actually increased headcount?

Because they were trying to hoodwink and excite all the plebs here.

Crooks is all they produce in Runcorn.

If Apple wanted to design and experiment with various materials that Nanoco's previous lab could not do, or perhaps wanted their own folks to work hand in hand in secrecy, then surely they would even invest £5m in their own facility. Apple did not invest £100m... we are talking single digit millions.... do you think that really means anything to Apple??? or would secrecy and/or their own equipment to develop dots to spec be worth the £5m?

I think you need to understand that Runcorn is a lab, it isn't a Dow Chemical production facility. Look at it on Google maps, it is an office block. And what a s-hole it looks like..

No, I don't. Nanoco have never produced on industrial scale for any customers and I do not expect them to for STM. They are doing lab work hand in hand with STM, who will ultimately produce it. That is the reason why STM has been building out production in Fremont, California and hiring their own production engineers etc. You are being sold the STM dream and you will again find yourself holding the empty Tesco bag. The best Nanoco will get is a final milestone payment.

More ignorance on display from IntrusiveThought aka BT's altar boy.

The patents are still subject to other challenges at the PTAB should they be brought. Anyone can bring IPRs against them. The same goes for validity challenges in civil court.

Maxi19 your comment is particularly funny...

"If you think orders are actually not anticipated this year, that would require the board to be incredibly deceptive and also incredibly reckless/stupid. My opinion is that the board handled the comms over the litigation terribly, but it is far more reasonable to think they are telling the truth about commercial orders."

Why would it be reasonable to assume they are telling the "truth" with respect to commercial orders? They have missed guidance on commercial orders for 5 years... what would be different now after they just deceived you in broad daylight?

Additionally, with Jonathan Steckel and STM saying publicly that they expect commercialisation of SWIR sensors 2 years from now, how would this underpin production? What is more likely is that Nanoco management are lying as usual and dangling the possibility of commercial orders in front of the plebs here to keep them quiet.

Old news... its a company with 10m CNY of capital (1.5m USD) founded by a former University of Manchester PhD. Likely one of Nanoco's interns. Meaningless.

Pipe dream...

Firstly... Perovskite is calcium titanium oxide. Nanoco doesn't use any such materials for CFQD. Nanoco's CFQD are indium phosphide based. We don't hold any patents focused on perovskite QDs, Canon holds hundreds.

Second.... Look at Canon's press release "Canon Inc. announced today that the company has developed a quantum-dot ink with a perovskite structure (perovskite quantum-dot ink) as a material for next-generation quantum-dot displays, and has successfully demonstrated its practical durability1 for the first time2 in the world.".

This is lab stage / next gen technology... its no where near production.

Be careful - have a read about Nanoco and the activist who is trying to remove the board due to collusion with Lombard Odier. God bless you if it is henry turcan.