Member Info for ddubya

Ideally, we need two or more firms like Apple and LG bidding to purchase us to make the best possible return over the shorter term but is that ever going to happen, when you consider no one was interested last time we were up for sale - probably not but who knows?

@Flyinghigher. At 35p and I’m retired but might still do a bit of investing.

Me too Kooba. First impressions of Dimitry were good, he qualified the Chair’s statement on returning money to shareholders with the necessary additional observation that it should be “…at the right time”.

Interestingly, he talked about applications in the military and ariel surveillance . I might be putting 2 and 2 together to come up with the wrong conclusion but I believe he may be eying up the Drone market?

Cliff seems to be more concerned with Lifestyle than return for the good old shareholders. What’s the best way to show him the door and attract someone with our interests at heart?

If parties are going to settle, the best settlement is going to be on the morning of the trial, rather than the day before as Tenner did and for something closer to a trivial amount than a winning award. When I heard we had settled I incorrectly assumed it would be on the fair value basis that Tenner maintained was essential. How stupid was I and everyone else that thought we were over the victory line? Tenner speak can’t be trusted and he has proven exactly why.

I would like to see Milkwood have representation but first I also want to know their intentions. I don’t want anyone gaining the votes needed to take NANO private and rob us once again, especially with a minority shareholding.

The situation we now find ourselves in is solely down to the incompetence of the current Board members. They solely need a shake up.

@Kooba. The settlement has taken account of future royalties and for other markets, which is why Samsung has a licence. It is just that Tenner and the Board settled for a sum in lieu that was light years away from what Tenner inferred would represent ‘fair value’.

He has much to answer for but has taken care of himself and (it seems) others who were close enough to be included in his inner circle.

It’s just the PI who have been fleeced as usual. It is such a common occurrence in the marketplace that the FCA should be taking action but as usual they are sat firmly on their hands.

The above does sound a bit like conspiracy theory but I am sure in my own mind that it happens and is not simply unhappy coincidence.

The judge has authority to award a licence agreement but awards are almost always commuted to a single sum payment to avoid need for ongoing discussion (and associated costs) and potential disagreement over how many units were been sold each year. It makes much more sense to deal with the issue in that way.

I agree with most of your comments TG2D but the Samsung settlement did include an allowance in place of future licensing arrangements. That’s the way almost all IP cases are settled because enforcing ongoing payments between it is the cleanest way to settle between parties that have been in litigation against and where there is an absence of good will.

What Tenner can justifiably be criticised for is obtaining such low value in place of the ongoing licence element of the settlement, which was so poor that I genuinely suspected foul play may have been at work. Perhaps it was?

Thank you for the mention Warren and very kind of you.

To be honest there are a number of others here that have much better knowledge of events than me. I used to look closely at the QD technology but stopped when it became clear NANO was more of a lottery ticket and no amount of public information could help anyone judge future direction of the share price.

I wish you good luck in your future investments too😀

@Terrorwit “Selling whilst the stock has recently been on a strong upward trend …”.

A strong upward trend to 12.98p from 23p last April and 170p over 15 years ago.

And, to whoever gave T’s post a recommendation - You cannot be serious [in style of John McEnroe]. Perhaps you just hit the wrong symbol 🤣?

I would agree Nanonano, if NANO product is considered sufficiently important to their business strategy?

I wonder what our far east major thinks of this debacle?

It probably depends upon how important the product they are working on with NANO is to them, or otherwise. They must have at least questioned their confidence in NANO.

There is certainly lots more room for further surprise in this NANO story.

The share buyback has not (so far) had the effect of increasing the value of my shares or anyone else’s but then again that decision was before the Board proved themselves to be completely incompetent and out of their depth.

Rather stupidly, I elected not to take the cash in return for some of my shares, which has cost me dearly but who knows it might come good eventually that is if our new shareholders are not planning to take us private and keep any benefits for themselves?

Yes Kooba. Exceptionally generous reward (on top of other LTIP benefits) for truly a truly dreadful operational performance.

The Remuneration committee has simply been asleep on the job, unable to implement the rudimentary and basic practice that Executive reward must be linked to shareholder return.

I would like to believe that Flyinghigher but it could be tricky recovering dues owed, if Samsung has used a Chinese outsourcer?

Overall though I also view todays announcement as a positive, at least from where we found ourselves yesterday.

Wherever he goes, he’s likely to be rearranging deckchairs.

@Terrorwit. Cable and Millwood investments are likely to have absolutely nothing to do with the existing NANO strategy, which is in absolute tatters. Much more likely to be focussed on their own business plans and how they perceive the business can be sold, split or developed. Credit where credit is due but very little sits with the existing management team.

@Terrorwit. Motivation is where the business plan comes in. No sensible business would attempt a takeover without one of those and securing buy on of those they need. They would likely have an earn out for Nigel’s services over a couple of years (if they need/want him now?).

If there are incentives to remain and grow the business the staff will lap those up.