Member Info for BeContrarian

Slides 10, 13 and 14 put some more meat on the bones of allegations that Tenner and Co should, and must put to bed. Fraud is being alleged.

It’s hard not to agree with the evident anger and frustration that is portrayed in the report.

I’m not against the concept of an EGM per se, but a lot hinges on how firm the proposed candidate list actually is. Last thing we want is to sack the board and then these proposed candidates come to nothing?

There’s a risk also with such instability that we would scare customers away.

I’m really not sure about this one. I’m still angry at the settlement but surely there is a risk to us all if the company enters a period of massive instability.

To suggest we PIs knew everything there was to know about this case is at best naive. On the outside looking in, it looked cast iron, and like so many others on here I was disappointed by the settlement. Having that said, I accept, looking at all the redacted dockets and the mountain of information locked away under NDA, that I don’t know all the facts. Far from it. So whilst I share the frustrations of many, I do find the hand wringing and calling for BT’s head a bit overdone now.
I think many of us created causal links (a+b must equal c) that gave us a cast iron case with a simple narrative of wilful infringement and countless riches. But I worry that many are simply making the same mistake in the opposite direction now: trying to retrofit a set or arguments to create a narrative of BT engaging in clandestine back handers and declaring this company an abject failure.
The uncomfortable truth is that we don’t know, and might never know, the full range of reasons behind the settlement, and fabricating narratives based on our frustrations is not going to get us any closer to the truth.
My own personal conviction is that there is still another twist in this tale, and that Nanoco may yet collaborate with Samsung in the future. But we just have to accept that uncertainty is likely to persist for some time yet.
As for the SP? It’s well oversold given that Nanoco now has a level of robustness that it’s never had before, and that negative(!) value is currently being attributed to IP and patents. But equally there is a lot riding on commercial viability. I think if we land the contract that’s been mooted, this bags overnight.
So it’s a frustrating hold at present but one has to make room for the unknown as an opportunity rather than a threat IMO.

For the past 18 months here, all pump and dumps have never succeeded in achieving anything more than a 30% rise. We are now sitting around d 100% above recent lows.

I don’t know if there’s anything in it, but from a purely price action standpoint, this would be a very unusual pump and dump, and I don’t think the hype is here as it was pre phase 3 to create a purely momentum built rise like this.

Exciting regardless.

Eccles you are mistaken. Pallas Point 6, the loan note, needs explaining and Pallas seem to have proof that better deals were on the table. It’s also not consistent when you think equity raises via shareholders have been very regular for this company. The loan note narrative is compelling if you ask me, and it needs explaining.

NGR and HH there is no use going over old ground.

The accusations levelled at the company by Pallas are an accurate and viable summary of events. NGR I don’t think there is a way to spin this whereby Tenner gets off without a more detailed accounting of what actually happened. Within Pallas’s letter there are serious claims with potentially criminal implications that will need to be addressed and if there has been no wrongdoing, the claims are easily proven false and can be dismissed. Would Pallas a potential libel/slander case against them if it all turns out to be hot air? I’ll let you be the judge of that.

Meanwhile there is no point in either trying to defend the board or to twist the knife either. Let’s see what Tenner et al have to say in their defence.

If we are braced (ironically) for another legal battle it better not be company money being used to defend director’s positions.

To me the claims made are not idle threats and are points made in plain English that need to be answered and clarified. Either get on with proving your innocence or ship off I say.

It is all very well posting an RNS refuting the claims. But there are questions to be answered and the board has an obligation to account for its actions and how this squares with operating in the interest of shareholders. It also stinks that they’ve only bothered to reply now that its been made public.

The board could (and should) show shareholders that they are aligned by:
Significant board wide share purchases
Refusing to accept any options until Nanoco is organically profitable.
Total pay freeze at board level too with a view to salary cuts in exchange for options (based on the above criteria) in the future
Providing better and more concise reasoning for the settlement

Instead, all we have, for now, is a passive aggressive retort from Nanoco. At least we know the board are still alive given their radio silence over the past few weeks…

Now Reuters. It’s ironic this is getting more publicity than the original settlement! https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/group-nanoco-shareholders-ask-top-bosses-step-down-2023-03-27/

Who can argue with the points made in the letter? There is a need for clarity and so far, we are nearly two months since the RNS with nothing by way of clarification. The accusation of insider dealing will have potentially grave consequences for the board and there is a case to answer there. Going to be an interesting few weeks and I wouldn't miss the investor call for the world.

Wandisco is a hot mess. Even as a Nanoco shareholder I can say that!

Good points Nano.

If I could just add, the reason why I hold is because I think there a potentially a few white knights on the horizon:

- the Samsung deal isn’t all it would initially seem (as steak has suggested(
- if the sensing customer is a big player a halo effect will be created
- a sensing contract also proves commercial viability
- the shadow has long been looming over the future of cadmium. Regulatory change could supercharge interest here
- Nano looks like an attractive takeover target with the legal issue put to bed

So for me there are enough dangling carrots to hold because all the above, and all will lead to asymmetric gains.

Like others I was not happy with the deal, but now isn’t the time to sell IMO.

Markets are largely a mechanism of sentiment and whilst are patents and assets are obviously worth more than the 2m, this is negated in the short term by the apparent mismatch between the board’s rhetoric and what transpired. Trust is hard earned and right now is in short supply. Until there is news that proves otherwise, or proves the commercial viability of this company, it seems perfectly logical to me that the company will continue to be valued only modestly above its cash value.

Andy, ‘be4’ you were ‘Drew’, when I last frequented this board you used to claim to be a female? Congrats on your transition.

I’m inclined to agree with Intrusive in the sense that investing hard earned in a company you have no faith in is simply nonsense. Far better to realise a loss and move on than begrudgingly hold and wring hands daily. That’s not investing. You may recall around d 29p I advised if your confidence had gone it would be wise to sell and since then the price has drifted further and way well drift a little more yet…

If one works on the assumption that it would cost nothing to obtain legal advice and pursue each enquiry to its logical co conclusion then yes, it would be an attractive prospect.
But if in order to extract value through legal pressure significant investment in or expansion of the company’s legal arm is required, you can see how this could get quite messy quite quickly.
That is why I referred to it as scraps because as a net figure, that’s exactly what it would be.

A buyout at the level won’t happen based on the share price action of the last 12 months. I do think the settlement makes Nano look attractive for a buyout and I do think that is partly why Tenner has been hammering this ‘enforceability of patents’ line. Therefore, if you buy our company and its IP you are assured of the patents you are buying. If two non core patents were sold for 10e of millions what does that make the entire portfolio worth?

I don’t rule out the possibility that it may be possible to secure more favourable licensing deals with smaller players that don’t have the means to slug it out in court. But I struggle to see how that would haul in major income streams for the company, perhaps a few million at best. Better than nothing but not transformative.

Plenty to ponder and I’m happy to hold for now.

Nano

Thanks for sharing the article.

If 90% of our market was sold for 150million then I think investing money in pursuit of the remaining 10% is futile and Tenner has his guns pointed in the wrong direction.

I hope there is more to the Samsung deal than meets the eye but if there isn’t, it’s better to be focused on sensors and new applications for the tech rather than chasing companies for scraps.

Hello all,

I guess some things never change, andybe4 still here giving it beans I see!

By my reckoning it’s been a year since I’ve last posted on this board. I steadily unwound my position in the 20s and thought I was done with this company. I was absolutely gutted by how it all went down.

However, I’ve been keeping an eye here and at 10p…I just thought that was a great re entry point and I’ve bought a few shares.

I’m surprised that one year on, the late stage respiratory market remains largely untapped. Synairgen fell foul of poor trial design and a great deal of naivety around SOC. it’s my conviction this drug is not a dud but the margins for error are wafer thin and we were just, by a whisker, the wrong side of that.

At this price the only real threat is a fund raise, and I don’t think that’s imminent. I’ll be honest this is a pint, but it seems to me that Syairgen’s race isn’t run just yet, and the asymmetry in terms of upside is hugely attractive at this price.

GLA

Steak, I've done a little bit of digging around this and found this good article here which backs up your point. It's a long read, but worth it for any investors here I'd argue:

https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5046&context=wlr

The long and the short of it is that secrets are common practice within settlements and much like an iceberg, that which is publicly known rarely, if ever, encompasses it all.

I am not necessarily bullish on there being any more to this deal than meets the eye, the settlement RNS seems to really go to pains to point out this is the be all and end all in terms of our dealings with Samsung, but am comfortable with holding here in the current vacuum. As Nassim Taleb said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Nanoco BB twilight zone instruction manual:
1) begin something approaching sensible debate
2) burnt posters bay for Tenner’s blood
3) Giga wades in to slam all the clueless imbeciles who apparently know nothing about anything - ironic given the amount of time he dedicates to them.
4) debate then becomes a personal, bile filled slanging match

Rinse and repeat, Ad nauseam.