Member Info for bonzoful

Nanonana. The RNS on the relationship with STMicroelectronics said it was for work on infrared sensing. Not sure how that would feed into mini led screens. But delighted if it did.

STMicroelectronics yesterday announced an advanced Biometric System-on-Card (BSoC) solution based on fingerprint-recognition technology, addressing the market demand to enhance contactless payment-card security and convenience.

Google searches on "fingerprints" and "infrared sensors" (the area ME mentioned nanoco and STm were cooperating on) throw up references to nanomaterials. Speculative, not conclusive. But the potential of the link with STmicroelectronics, one of the key firms in developing the internet of things, seems as exciting as those with Samsung and Merck.

A QLED TV is just an LCD TV with quantum dots. It is a term used by Samsung to market its quantum dot tvs.

I received marketing material from Samsung about their new range of QLED tvs in recent days. The arrival of QLED at affordable prices increases the upside for Nanoco in the Texas court case and it is conceivable that has influenced a few investors to top up in recent days.

QLED tv now available from £599 (eg John Lewis). We were told years ago that it was when TV prices fell below £1000 that sales took off. Samsung have reached that point. Let us hope they settle with Nanoco. If they do I may get one.

Any Samsung manager travelling to Texas to support their lawyers in court when the case resumes in August is going to have to self quarantine on return to South Korea. Not sure they will be keen to absent themselves from the office given the changes happening at the top of Samsung if they can avoid it by settling beforehand.
And still no announcement from Nanoco on financing of the legal action. So I think Nanoco and their lawyers see no need for it.

Any Samsung manager travelling to Texas to support their lawyers in court when the case resumes in August is going to have to self quarantine on return to South Korea. Not sure they will be keen to absent themselves from the office given the changes happening at the top of Samsung if they can avoid it by settling beforehand.
And still no announcement from Nanoco on financing of the legal action. So I think Nanoco and their lawyers see no need for it.

The 1,000,000 trade at 15p this morning appears to be a buy - the ask price has been artificially inflated for this one trade only to make it appear on the screens as a sale. There was a 425,000 trade at 15p put through at 17.05 on Friday which also appears to be a buy despite it appearing on the screens as a sale: in this case the bid price was raised above previous levels to make it appear a sell. After weeks of low volumes a couple of substantial buys are welcome: the market makers may need to rebuild their books (and its possible someone knows something we do not).

The legal firm representing Nanoco is presumably currently not being paid. That may suit them if it means any settlement with Samsung is split between Nanoco and them with no need to give a finance company a share. As soon as there is no prospect of a settlement in the next few months the legal firm would probably be very keen to see arrangements for financing the case put in place. So the absence of an announcement about financing of the case probably suggests the lawyers think a settlement this summer is conceivable.
Some of the imaginative guesses as to the size of a settlement overlook the fees payable to lawyers and any company financing the case. As they are contingent on the result they will be substantial to cover the risk involved. ME said Nanoco would get the majority of any financial settlement which could be 51 per cent. The fees could be up to 49 per cent. It would be a pity if unrealistic expectations ended up influencing how any settlement is received.

I, like most others here, believe Samsung have been using Nanoco technology to produce their QD TV. At the last presentation to analysts ME asserted Samsung QDTV sold for $1,000 more than equivalent non QD tv while an analayst suggested the cost of the QD per TV was $10-$20 each. The technology appears to have been available from DOW and Wah Hong. Why have other display manufacturers not bought it from them? It all seems rather odd - particularly as there were specific game monitors expected to be launched with CFQD a year or two ago.
A few sales from DOW, Wah Hong or Merck could fill the gap between 2021Q2 and end 2021 when Edison suggest is the earliest serious revenue is likely to arrive from ST Micro.

Agreed. Three possibilities. First, a new contract - few of those over the years, fantastic if it arrives but it would defy experience to expect it. Second, funder of the legal case - I agree with others this is more likely to be put in place and announced after Samsungs reply to the court case has been seen on or around 2 June. Third, settlement with Samsung - I don't expect any Samsung manager to advise the company to admit fault because of the importance Koreans are said to attach to not losing face. I expect an out of court settlement in four or five years time when Samsung are losing the court case. There is a very good chance it will be worth waiting for even though a large chunk of the proceeds will go to the lawyers; and some dilution between now and then can be expected.
Meanwhile there will be trade talks between the UK and South Korea. Should anyone be minded to raise the case with the Government before those talks begin I advise writing to your MP asking them to raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Trade. The MPs office will then forward the letter to the office of the SOS Trade who will deal with it as an MPs case. So the reply will be seen and signed by the SoS and the MP. If you write direct to the SoS they are unlikely to see your letter while you would be likely to get a reply from a junior official. If others are interested I suggest waiting to see Samsungs reply; liaising with Nanoco and then lobbying individually with consistent points.

My recollection is that ME said in the recent presentation that putting some CFQD on top of a silicon chip, carefully, can result in much faster processing times. Sounds like an alternative to the VCSELs some companies have invested large amounts in producing. If that is what ST micro want to purchase QDs for and NANO get the contract it could be the start of a huge market. I shall be looking out for evidence either way.

British Airways and Shell have each now been granted an option to take a one-third share in the equity capital of Altalto Limited (a subsidiary of the Company) at a strike price of £1,. Not quite the same as £1 for a vls share.

The webcam on the interim presentations can be accessed through the results centre on the investors part of Nanocos site. https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/investors/results-centre/ I found it very convincing on the court case with familiar but illusive prospects on new business. No guidance on the later was given: any material contracts will be announced.
On the court case ME said 4 out of 4 US speciaists approached wanted to take on the case; the firm chosen, Mintz, only takes on 4 cases a year, does a lot of due diligence before doing so and only takes on cases where high damages are expected. ME reckoned Samsung had sold 14 million TVs with Nanoco technology and himself suggested Samsung earned a premium of $1000 per tv by doing so. In questions it was suggested Nanoco might have earned between $10 to $20 per tv which ME said was at the bottom of the range of damages they were anticipating. Another questioner wondered how difficult it was to prove Samsung had acted wilfully. The answer was it was easy. Nanoco had written to Samsung a year ago informing them of the infringement and they carried on doing it. That was wilful. ME said this case just covered the US (no number of TVs for the US given) and other action may be taken in Europe. ME thought the legal case would usually take 18 months but in current circumstances might take longer. Dow Dupont are not involved.
On other work infrared QD sounded promising and may result in contracts but this was much on the lines we have heard for years. One of the questioners asked about one of these customers prepaying for work to provide Nanoco with finance and ME did not rule anything out. Possible work on COVID 19 detection would only go ahead if it were funded. ME thought Plesseys deal with Facebook looked like a takeover by google and Nanoco were still trying to work out if the green and red dots they had been supplying Plessey would still be needed. The finance chap Brian Tenner, also acts as COO and carried conviction with me.

available on London Stock Exchange site. Third party financing of litigation with Samsung nearly in place. Sale process ended. Materials sold for sensing made. New contract for R and D services being finalised. Cash into 2021 Q2.

I agree. The bigger the raise the bigger the likely immediate hit to the share price but the stronger the cash position and the greater the chances of seeing the legal case through successfully. This route entails delay to Samsung's investement in QLED and Nanoco's ability to explore other uses for CFQD. So I hope we are wrong and a deal is done before Easter. Unlikely. Some patience required, still, despite the excellent points being made here.

The possibility of Nanoco having to raise more money from shareholders, banks or other sources cannot be ruled out so some caution is still required though I remain optimistic about the final outcome. Even if Nanoco's case against Samsung is as strong as most on this board, including me, believe there is a risk Samsung will play it long in the hopes Nanoco run out of cash before in the case is settled (or because the Samsung bureaucracy have difficulty facing up to the need to pay for what they have been using for free). However that scenario would take months or years to play out and meanwhile Samsungs $11.8bn investment plans for QLED are on hold. Nanoco will be cutting back on R and D to preserve cash and have little collateral of the sort likely to appeal to lenders. Both sides need a deal, a broker is in place, the first we are likely to hear is an announcement: either a deal (likely to be very good for the share price) or a cash call on shareholders (which may be negative for the share price in the short term) if those discussions run on too long.

Many will recall Samsung announced last October they were going to invest $11.8 bn OLED QD. Then in December they announced a pause in the investment for personnel changes or something similar. I wonder if Nanocos more assertive attitude was a contributory factor. Samsung must see a return on the investment they planned. So they too may prefer to do a deal and get on with their plans.

Years ago Nanoco were including Samsung TVs on their stands at shows when there was no need to. And Dow built the line to produce commercial quantities of Nanoco dots near Samsungs production facilities. It is not obvious Samsung would want to buy and manage a small company in NW England. But they may not want it falling into the hands of another TV manufacturer. Dow Dupont, when formed from Dow and Dupont, said they were looking to focus on high growth areas. So on reflection I suspect the most likely outcome is either Samsung agreeing to buy Nanoco dots on terms that allows Nanoco to remain independent; or a sale to Dow Dupont or an equivalent supplier of components to the display industry. Something has to happen in the next few months. It may not be a sale.

If there were nothing of value in Nanoco why would Dupont still be offering to make and sell Trevista quantum dots (under licence from Nanoco)? It seems unlikely that first Dow, and since their takeover, Dupont would be marketing components over which they had doubts. I have no evidence to support my theory, but wonder if Nanocos fatal flaw has been an inability to assert its intellectual property rights in Korea and China. Apple's flirtation has put it on the market at rock bottom price. And if an American company of comparable size bought Nanoco they may have more chance of asserting the IP rights they buy.

From early days Nanoco turned up at shows with Samsung screens at their stalls when there was no obvious reason to. Dow built a factory near Samsungs facilities to reproduce Nanoco dots under licence. Nothing came of either. Then there was the interest from a US corporation, probably, Apple. A week after that link was ended Apples main designer walked. Had either link come to fruition this would have been a good investment: for investors and consumers. Neither did. Nor did the link up with the inventor of graphite. I don't see bureaucrats gambling a lot of their companies money on something turning up. The case for buying up the patents Nanoco owns at a bargain basement price may, or may not, be more attractive to them. So I reckon we are looking at a write off (33%); a bargain basement sale (50%); or a competitive auction for valued patents (17%). The comparative stability of the share price since the sale was announced points towards the bargain basement sale outcome.