Member Info for BoracicLint

I've been looking to get into this share but today's drop seems to be on no news. The only RNS is about a transaction in its own shares, reducing the free float.

Does anyone know why this might have happened?

I topped up at just over 22p this morning - doh!

On the one hand, the RNS is concerning in that it might suggest the issues are spread wider than the auditors first thought and that's why they may not be able to complete by the deadline. Can't help thinking this is also pretty poor of the so-called auditors; they should have contingencies and plans in place for this sort of situation - it's part of their job.

Also, of course it means my holding will be stuck if suspended.

On the plus side, BOO having bought in is encouraging; nothing new has come to light stated in the RNS; it seems a good business overall.

So, on balance I've risked another top-up at just under 17p, but no more, no matter what happens.

GLA.

Just made a wee top-up at 22.04p. Previous chunk was 25.375p. May make another if the price continues to drop, as my sense is that the audit issue will be sorted out satisfactorily and the price will slowly revert to over 50p.

The one that caught my eye was this:
"Motion by Samsung for summary judgement of non-infringement of the quantum dot patents"

Probably my ignorance of legal process but I'm amazed that after all the time and effort expended getting to this point, S can even be allowed to say "Aw, c'mon judge, can't you jus' dismiss the case for lil' ole' Samsung. We ain't done nothin' wrong." (In my best Korean/Texas drawl ;) )

Yes, SP seems to be spiking today - could it be informed investors who've seen the 84 docket (maybe on this BB? ;))
On IG you can't currently buy online - only by phone.
However, this does often drop down later in the day; not that it matters to most posters here as belief is still strongly for a favourable court result or settlement and we are in it for the long haul. IMO, S will go to court but happy to be proved wrong.

Just taken a small, speculative punt on this as a day/few weeks trade, hopefully. In at 8.55p.
The drop seems overdone but is the main cause IIs selling out?

No sign of another bidder. They probably would have appeared at the time of the first offer, surely?
Instead of $105m staggered in bits we now have an equally derisory offer of $35m cash up front.
I will lose 50% if this goes ahead but frankly I can't see an alternative while the war and sanctions continue.

It's my fault for getting into this share without investigating enough beforehand - lesson learned!

One other point - isn't this really the only asset the company holds? Please could someone confirm? If it is, then although we will still hold shares wouldn't the company become a cash shell under the AIM rules? If that's right then they either have to buy an asset or find and allow a reverse takeover, otherwise they have to wind up after something like 6 or 12 months. On wind-up we will not get anything as the company won't have any assets.

With my shareholding, the Ferrari's likely to be an Airfix one!

I worked for a big insurance company for many years and when we wanted the FCAs opinion on what we were doing in certain pension aspects, they would never give us a firm opinion or green light. Effectively, they said 'we set the regulations and we'll check you're following them' but to get a steer if you were doing things correctly was impossible.

No surprise really that the likes of AMGO has fallen foul of the FCA. Yes, AMGO certainly seems to have made big mistakes but a lack of regulatory advice means errors are much more likely.

Looking at the link you gave, the FCA may be able to put a positive spin on this sector by saying they've enforced regulation and are helping those hard up with an extra means of raising loans outside the high street banks in uncertain times.

I'm down over 50% on my holding but believe AMGO has a future so will stick it out.

Feeks, thank you. Let's hope Gilstrap is a strict as usual on this point and with S attempt to change the definition.

NigWitty, in fairness I think that the PTAB decision has given investors a degree of confirmation for those, like me, who have mainly invested because of the court case, and less so for commercialisation. You should bear in mind it was decisive: all 5 patents were upheld long with every single item of IP within them (albeit there are elements of crossover). This in itself is relatively unusual.

I recall that S had previously agreed they would respect the PTAB outcome and not attempt to re-contest validity in any way in court, thus denying them a major defence on the basis of novelty, obviousness and prior art.

I'm no lawyer but if the point of the case is to now establish infringement of the validated patents, Google suggests to me that it can be direct or indirect.
Direct - practices each element of the patent holder's patent claim.
Indirect - contributes to direct infringement by another party or induces another party to engage in direct infringement.

Extra defences seem to be:
Inequitable Conduct - where the patentor didn't disclose full detail and candour at the time of registration. Doesn't success at the PTAB refute this?
Laches - where the plaintiff waits an unreasonable time to file the lawsuit. N can surely demonstrate its contacts with S and that it only resorted to law after S failed to respond suitably. Any delay surely can't be construed to S detriment either, since it continued to sell large numbers of screens with the technology during that period?
Equitable estoppel - the alleged infringer was led to believe that the patent holder did not intend to enforce a
patent. Perhaps S will try this to explain the breaking of the relationship with N? Again, hard to believe that N would simply say please use our IP as you like, even though it's our commercial reason for existing.

Running these scenarios through my mind, I cannot see a jury accepting arguments like these, despite the undoubted quality of their lawyers. My main source of worry is the unknown - IE what defence will they try that I haven't thought of, or some sort of twist on one of the above.

Having topped up 2 days ago at 35.4p it's galling to see today's drop. Have topped up again another 3000 shares and am now in this for much more than any other share I own.

The story hasn't changed and we all know the risk vs reward here. Much as I would like to invest more, I can't risk any more as I have been 'averaging up' not down in NANO.

Good luck all holders on this generally great board.

I'm a Naked Wine 'angel' (first time I've ever been called that). Despite being a pensioner, my home fuel bill doubling and petrol up hugely, I'm not cancelling my membership. The 2 main reasons are it's only £20 a month and all that goes towards whatever wines I choose to buy as and when, so it feels more like a sort of savings account, because I can withdraw it at any time. Also, I have noticed the difference in quality, so won't be going back to fiver bottles in Tesco.

I was in this share when it was Majestic and would like to see it do well, as the business model is a bit different and it supports lots of small wine makers.

If you're already holding, I suppose it's a (wine) case of grin and bear it. Today's drop seems overdone after yesterday's but I think this will recover some losses if you can hold on at least a year.

I have been in and out of this share since 2015 and its grown well, with an ok divi to boot. Got back in March before the
results. Seems to be a very well-run company and has rarely put a foot wrong. Was on the verge of topping-up - doh!

For me, this has come out of the blue but have decided to sell now for slightly less than the offer, as I didn't want to wait to re-invest elsewhere. At the offer price, I can't see this failing to go through as highest historical price was about 1450p.

Having bought at£20 and £18, a low takeover offer is the last thing I want to see.

I hope JD and co will carry on trying the business turnaround which seems to be working. Latest headwinds mean the sector as a whole is suffering again and probably will for several more months if we head into what looks like a recession.

I doubt the SP will ever et back to what I paid but hope to reduce losses within 2 years.

The AGM is on 11th July, if you can make it to Bermuda!

Items of interest: re-election of BO as a director.

There is also the following, which seems to allow them to issue up to an additional 60% of shares, with agreement.
"Under the Company’s Bye-laws, there is a prohibition on any issue of shares by the Company other
than in accordance with the pre-emption provisions and exemptions set out therein, including the issue
of equity securities to be held under an employee share scheme or employee share option scheme or
an allotment or issue of shares pursuant to the exercise of any share options issued pursuant to a
share option scheme representing up to 10 per cent. of the issued share capital of the Company from
time to time.
The purpose of Resolution 3 is to approve the disapplication of such pre-emption provisions and
thereby provide a standing authority to the Board to issue:
(i) for non-cash consideration, such number of new Common Shares as is equal to 60 per cent. of
the total number of Common Shares in issue from time to time; and
(ii) for cash consideration, such number of new Common Shares as is equal to 60 per cent. of the
total number of Common Shares in issue from time to time,
provided that, unless they are amended by Resolution passed by a three-quarters, 75 per cent. majority
of the members at a General Meeting, such authorities shall expire at the conclusion of the Company’s
next Annual General Meeting.
The Directors believe, in light of the Company not having an income generating business and having
an objective of exploring and developing its Carolina gold projects and other opportunities in the gold
sector, that this Resolution should be approved in order to preserve maximum flexibility for the future."

Don't want to read too much into this but can't help thinking a raise could be on the cards once the cash runs out. It stood at $0.9m as per RNS on 9th June.

NANO was/is the only company that developed the ability to produce CFQDs AT SCALE, using the molecular clustering process. Hence it took out patents to protect that IP. I remember a previous poster showing info about an email sent by one of S senior scientists stating that they had tried and failed to produce them.

They had the relationship with NANO which they broke off and mysteriously managed to produce CFQDs themselves afterwards.

What's more, I think the manufacturer of the QDs is Hansol, previously a (toilet?) paper maker. I find it mind-boggling that such a company could take such a massive technical step up using their 'unique' recipe for producing QDs. This is backed up by the PTAB findings where S submitted odd combinations of other possible methods that, in some cases, didn't even produce dots but instead wire shapes.

Imagine top-quality lawyers like Mintz delivering these kind of facts to the jury. It shouldn't be difficult to put across those points in a way that makes it obvious that S knew the tech was unique and came from NANO and was therefore used knowingly by them. It seems wilful infringement almost automatically goes with a verdict in favour of NANO - maybe not in legal terms but logically how could S dodge that bullet?

I can't pretend to be a LTH having got back in during 2020 after 2 previous brief stints. However, I do want to endorse what BC, Feeks, NigWitty et al have said, and that is this is a quality board. In fact, the best I have ever known on LSE.

The quality of posts, considered thoughts, research and lack of back-biting have made this an absolute pleasure to read and thanks to great posters past and present.

If you want examples of the opposite, I would add AMGO to BCs list: blatant ramping, de-ramping and unbelievable trading of immature insults.

I don't agree with Sammy's over-optimistic view, but I am glad for the input as it helps me reassess and validate my own views.

For prospective investors, my tuppence worth is:
- NANO is small-cap and so inherently more risky than a blue-chip; gains and losses are likely to be greater.
- The door to commercialisation seems to be finally opening, meaning the company can stand on its own 2 feet. Further orders will see the SP step up.
- The tech is proven in the sense it's already in millions of TVs.
- We are fully funded for some time.
- The case against S seems very strong and I believe there is a great chance of winning in court, based on what's happened to date with the Markman and PTAB and all the info that's come out as a result. If there is a settlement instead, it will have to be large enough to satisfy NANO, Mintz and the TPF, but not so large that S think the trial is a better route for them. SP up in multiple(s).

Minuses:
- Although the tech applications seem more promising and commercialisation seems likely, I can't completely shake off the disappointments of the past and worry about potential orders not coming to fruition. SP will step or dribble down.
- We lose the trial; SP will crash.

Although already in quite a fat profit, I'm not selling a share, even to de-risk. (This is NOT a ramp!)

Very odd price action, considering stated volumes:
Vol. Sold 102,000
Sold Value £1,836.20
Vol. Bought 320,686
Bought Value £6,426.49

There wasn't anything unexpected in the RNS and today's volumes/value are the opposite of the price movement. Anybody know what might have happened?

This rapidly becoming my most disappointing share.

I find the closer we get to complete results/updated JORC from the current drilling round, the more impatient I get. I'd have thought after all these years I'd be more chilled.

I do remember another poster reporting that LEX didn't want to give too much away, in case it increased the price of any expanded land licences. Maybe that, plus what Rosie said below about the NOMAD might explain the poor level of info for shareholders.

Anyway, keep up the pestering - it seems to be working!