Member Info for BoracicLint

Is this really true? I didn't realise that they fell foul of retrospective FCA regulations - if so, that's an utter disgrace, to put it mildly. Retrospective regulation or legislation should only ever be used in extremely rare situations and preferably never. How can individuals or companies behave in a way that follows rules that don't exist in the present? It's an impossible task and more the mark of non-democratic societies.
Amigo's interest rates were never excessive as far as I could see compared to other companies in the market, so their malfeasance seems to be mis-selling - but was the mis-selling due to the retrospective rules? Unfortunately, we live in a compensation culture which brings out the worst in people and encourages them to chance their arm, which muddies the waters for those with genuine complaints and valid claims.
I very much hope the company survives (I am invested here so am obviously hoping for selfish reasons for the SP to recover) as it does provide a very much needed service; there will always be economic roadbumps to add to the woes of the less well off: the pandemic, inflation, interest rates, commodity prices and political risks.
A small example: I drive a 17 year-old car and now need to fill up with E5 petrol as E10 will damage the engine - today I paid £1.70 a litre for this. That's a 17% increase compared with E10 and let's not forget the home heating cost increases that will be with us very soon.

I exited JOUL last in 2019. Still seems a fundamentally good business with short-term bad news, so have dipped my toe in. Bought some at 76p 4 days ago - I know, I overpaid considering the price action over the last few days; also, just topped up at 62p.
It just seems massively oversold at the moment. Not really looking for massive profits; maybe 30% over the next 6 months as it sorts out the problems stated in the RNS, plus the removal of remaining covid restrictions.

From a couple of previous cases, Samsung like to brazen it out and if the case goes against them, will appeal if they can.

If NANO patents are validated in the IPR by the PTAB, I think Samsung has already agreed not to contest them again at the trial.

Not sure what defence that really leaves them with, so they will have to judge whether to carry on in the hope of a favourable result in the trial, vs the possibility of being found against with wilful infringement, which I understand can mean triple damages. Presumably they would also have to pay NANO backdated licencing fees as well (or is that included in any court award??).

If they lose the court case, they have appealed in other cases I believe, but surely they must have valid grounds for that and what could those be.

So, do they break their habit and make an out of court settlement if they lose the IPR? Seems like sensible damage limitation to me; I just can't see that they have an ace up their sleeve for the trial.

There are worrying signs, it's true. Why did the CFO leave? Why have the IIs got out?
We may not get the answer to the first question and it's hopeless to understand II motives because they can have myriad reasons for changing their stance, some of which may not even be directly related to this share.

I suspect the RI dilution RNS was designed to placate the FCA but potential 95% dilution plus the above factors have caused a lot of PIs to cut their losses or protect profits.

Future events haven't changed though: redress creditor vote and SOA court case. I think both will go through this time, as creditors are being offered substantially more, while the alternative is wind-down and a lot less returned to redress creditors; the previous grounds for the court not sanctioning SOA 1 won't be there. The shareholder dilution and increased redress and current SP should mean the FCA will not object this time. This what's keeping me in.

The other worry is how much money can they raise from a RI is the SP remains at current levels? I expect there'll be a lot more price volatility in the absence of IIs and probably lots of day trading.

I'm 77% down currently but am prepared to lose the rest as although it will hurt, I haven't bet the farm on this. The risks are still worth breakeven/profit rewards.

I'm new to this share but it looks as if LTH have suffered a lot. I'm in three similar shares myself and I know the sound of dilution as share value goes through the plughole.
I may be missing the point here but does an offer of £100m equate to a 7p SP? IE £100m/1380m shares. There's no guarantee of the deal of course (esp with the capex needed and the current political situation in Ukraine) and I suppose holders could vote against but a c4p SP now seems a good entry point.
Thank you.

Thanks for the link, Nanonano.

I almost got to the end before my non-scientific brain fried. Not only do the methodologies quoted by Samsung/Green seem utterly incompatible but even the end products aren't the same. Some methods produce nanoWIRES or nanoRODS but not nanoDOTS. Any end products seem to be inconsistent in size and quality and unable to be produced on an industrial scale.

On page 74, I actually laughed when I read this: “Q. And in your opinion, you didn’t consider the melting temperatures of those molecular cluster compounds. Right? A. It wasn’t something that I particularly paid that much attention to, no.” Other comments by Green also point to a lackadaisical approach, as if to say, Samsung are paying me to do this but really, I know it's all nonsense.
To me it smacks of Samsung's tactic all along, which is just to string things out for as long as possible, delaying what seems to be the inevitable win for NANO. IF the PTAB upholds the patents and dismisses the petition, what further defence grounds could they have in the court case? I'm trying to keep my confirmation bias in check but failing miserably.

I believe our patience will be rewarded and handsomely!

I only bought SNG in December, with just 1600 shares, after being reminded of it by an ex-work colleague who did very nicely from it last summer. I would have invested more but am already in other shares like NANO which I feel are high risk but for completely different reasons and sectors. Despite being late to the show, I've invested for all the reasons explained by some great posters on this board, which helped convince me of the investment case - thank you all.
It seems a very well-run company and I don't believe they would have partnered Ashfield or gone ahead with US recruiting without some inkling of the P3 results.
But I have to be realistic - this is pharma and volatile. I suppose the other possible P3 outcomes are inconclusive results or even 'failure', either of which would cause a big drop in the SP, so am trying to mentally prepare in case of this - tin hat at the ready.
Reading the RNS, they only mentioned results in 'early 2022' - I tend to read this as first quarter. Is there a reason why people think the RNS is imminent?
Apologies if this is a stupid question!!

I've been reading a few articles and the main points for me were... Looking at historical movements of gold price relative to inflation and interest rate changes. Extrapolating that to the current situation, it predicts the gold price will be c$7000/oz by 2030.
Fiat money printing by central banks on and off since 2009 also means that many countries' central banks hold insufficient gold reserves. Even the country with the biggest bank reserves, the USA with about 260m oz only covers roughly 2% of its (admittedly humungous) debt. As inflation now seems to be flagged as more than transitory and the Fed expecting to raise interest rates this year and next, central banks may be looking to bolster their reserves and this could help maintain and increase the gold price.

As well as this, gold and precious metals miners are generally unloved. Again, looking at the US, much of new money entering the markets over the past few years has gone to tech stocks, while capex in broad commodities has declined since 2015. This has been made worse by the popular Index ETFs pushing more retail investment into tech like the 'FAANG' stocks. Commodity producers are only receiving about 5% of every dollar invested in equities.

This all seems to point to a big disparity between precious metal supply and demand in the medium term, while the gold price seems to have been holding well between $1700-$1800/oz during 2021. Overall, prospects for gold look bright, even bearing in mind competition from cryptos now being viewed by some as a store of value (though much younger, unstable and subject to regular government bashing).

Over to you now LEX. Let's hope the news and assays are as positive as the commodities environment.

lptuf93, looks as if your buy is showing as a sell, as the price was closer to the bid than the ask price.

BTB, an interesting point but I feel that based on
a) increased likelihood of commercial wins that will hopefully extend or maintain our cash position
b) the apparent weakness of Samsung's defence
the likelihood of NANO continuing as a going concern and an on multiples of the current SP, my personal rating is 70%/30% in favour.
All shares are a gamble, god knows I've had several bankruptcies to deal with over the years but to me this looks a reasonable bet/investment and will be staying put until the facts change materially.

From other cases, I get the feeling Samsung tends to string out proceedings for as long as possible and then appeals if they lose. Our case seems strong though: assuming we are successful at PTAB (and to my non-scientific eyes, the Samsung arguments seem patently (pun intended!) nonsense), the Samsung defence is weak at trial.

Do we know if Mintz will proceed with wilful infringement to add extra pressure for a pre-trial settlement? Against this we have Samsung's stubbornness, which may hold on hoping for success in the trial. Samsung has to balance the risks of losing with/without wilful infringement, or damage limitation through pre-trial settlement, versus the chances of them winning the trial.

Around $1bn in damages seems reasonable based on lost licence fees but there seems no precedent for the profit basis and were we to take this approach, the legal process would be stretched to its absolute limit. It's nice to daydream but I would rather we went for a lower amount on a more solid foundation.

Although commercial wins now look more likely than in the past, I am still in this share for the Samsung case. However, I do look to BTBs fairly depressing posts to put a leash on my confirmation bias: I won't risk adding to my 26k shares despite my optimism for a trial win.

Mmm, more positive news with a confirmed reserve, which looks to be the first of several over the coming months. Rather than selling some, I've just bought another 42,489 shares, which should appear on the Trades shortly. I really do think this company is finally on the rise (been waiting since 2009, mind you!).
GLA

Yes, a vote of confidence from a major holder is reassuring for the rest of us LTHs.

As for the RC drilling, the only other fact I remember is that it tends to avoid the 'nugget effect' you can get with diamond drilling, suggesting we will get more accurate estimates and helping to avoid future disappointment were reserves to be overstated.

My Buy is also showing as a Sell.

Gloster, I am not being 'revisionist', just a misty memory. Whatever the facts, I agree the Aussie escapade was a disaster and the buck stops with the BoD. At least this time it seems there is no intention to actually mine and I would expect the RNS to be as factual as they have been to date.
Presumably, they will have to provide the relevant evidence for the eventual JORC announcement. I am not familiar with the detail how this works but the BoD surely can't interfere?

If I may liken Samsung to a maggot - and I think I can, they will continue to wriggle. Everything lobo has been able to post (and thank you very much for all your hard work) points to what look like potential knockout blows for the PTAB and subsequently for the trial.
It seems to me that a buyout is unlikely, as the price would be too high and they would lose the possibility of winning the court case (we have to accept this is a possibility, albeit a remote one).
I am already overweight in this share but have made another 5000 share top-up at just over 19p. Hardly earth-shattering I know but my confidence in a favourable outcome for Nanoco is still very positive.

A different kettle of fish from us, admittedly. However, it was awarded by 'our' Judge Gilstrap in favour of what is arguably a patent troll company. I feel our case is strong for numerous reasons discussed in detail in previous posts and Nanoco has always been a genuine research and producing company and legitimately sought to protect its valid IP with patents. Samsung would never be able to appeal on the basis of us being patent trolls.
What I feel is that Samsung will continue to string things out for as long as possible and that there won't be an early out of court settlement unless the PTAB rules in favour of most of our claims. Even then, they may prefer to wait for a trial judgement (in the forlorn hope that they win) and the risk of wilful infringement despite their defence seeming to to be featherweight.
Although the SP has been drifting down since the high in April, I am planning to stay put and possibly make another small top-up.

As I've alluded to in a previous post, I don't believe we can blame the BoD for what happened when it was Tanzanite One. Large-scale illegal mining and no effective help from the government locally or nationally in Tanzania ruined a potentially good business. IMO, the sapphire venture was a mess and felt like a gamble in the last chance saloon. Nothing was ever mined if I remember rightly and for that, the BoD can be held responsible.
However, I am not aware of BoD members' shenanigans. We should also remember that in any career spanning decades, we all have highs and lows but it can often be human nature that tends to exaggerate the failures.
Looking at the current opportunity, for me it ticks all the boxes: an experienced BoD prospecting in a stable, first world country in an area with extensive and proven historical mining. Like all small companies, this is high risk for me and it is just possible that we have picked all the worst parts of this area. The recent RNS are positive and my sense is that LEX will establish substantial reserves from at least one of our six prospects and that will be reflected in the SP movement.
I am not sure what you are worried about - fraud, excessive cash burn, lack of expertise?? I haven't seen evidence of these in this venture. Perhaps you ought to sell or go short if you have major reservations about the management.

I do wonder if there is a lack of new investors because similar explorers look more interesting. For example, Cora Gold recently announced its 6th set of drilling results, which included one very rich level of 31g/t, and the SP jumped from 8p ish to 12p ish. We can't currently compare with that but their mines are in Mali. I would much rather be here in a stable area with a known history of successful mining.
By the time we get to our 6th drilling results, I believe things will be looking very rosy indeed and the SP will perform similar antics.

Great to hear all these differing opinions. I am torn between what BeContrarian's last 2 sentences say. I still really think that the court case is my primary investment case - commercial success has always seemed to elude Nanoco. I'm not saying it won't happen in future, but I am sceptical.

I am expecting Samsung to continue to string this out for as long as possible and that there will be no early settlement until (and if) the PTAB upholds the patents. More likely, they will hold out until a trial decision. Despite this, there's a small percentage of the optimist in me that says, just maybe an early settlement might happen. That, plus the SP decline of the past couple of days nearly putting me in the red means I am not selling. In fact, if the SP falls further, I may well top up, as I do believe in NANOs ultimate victory in court with substantial damages that will make this a multi-bagger. (And no, I'm not a ramper - first bought and sold in 2015, 2019 and have been holding since Feb 2020.)