Member Info for ddubya

I had no scientific basis to apply. However, by reference to the $220m estimate for the US market alone, I did not think £350m to £500m was unrealistic.

Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight that was not going to be possible but nothing that BT talked expectations down, until we issued ourselves a speeding ticket and concern set in. So I did not think they were out of touch and I was disappointed that we had to sell ‘non-core’ patents and received our settlement in instalments. It felt like we rolled over to be honest, and for reasons unknown.

What was your user name here around settlement time?

@Terrorwit. You say that “Anyone who's read this board since before the settlement will remember that I thought it would be in the region of £50-£100m ...”

I am probably being dim but the settlement was announced in Jan 2023 and your first post on this board was 29 Jun 2024, so how could anyone here have knowledge of your opinion on settlement. Did you post under a different name at that time?

It is certainly a suspicion havealot but the balance of this case could have ramifications for the Board, dependant upon the outcome.

Thank you Terrorwit but I suspect “No one is interested”.

Here you are T. The final sentence of para 25 is the most pertinent part but the other two help to relay the story too. It is also relevant to whether 'insider information' was in use too. Not much point waiting on the FCA for that as it takes years for them to bring a case!

23. On 12 September 2022, Mr Turcan resigned from the Board of the Third Party.

24. On the morning of 6 January 2023, the Third Party announced to the market that it had agreed terms

with Samsung for the settlement of the litigation and that the parties had jointly requested a stay of the

trial which was due to commence that day. The shares rose sharply following this announcement,

closing at 55.80p.

25. On the same day, the Claimant's case is that he contacted Mr Giles to enquire whether the Defendant

was still seeking to sell shares in the third party. Mr Giles responded that he had participated in a call

with the Third Party's senior management the previous night, that the Third Party's advisers had

encouraged settlement of the Samsung Litigation, that the board was concerned about achieving only a

low settlement in light of the outcome in another recently decided patent infringement case, and that, as

a result, the Claimant should temper his settlement expectations

Will do T. I am out and about at the moment but when I get back home I will look the section out and either reference it or reproduce it.

“ Which witnesses he has so far refused to name.” It is not a flat refusal as Hamoodi does acknowledges he will need to disclose them at a later stage.

Thanks for the notice of publication PP.

some interesting comments in there about how NANO was unsettled by a decision in another patent case, which seems to have led them to accept a low settlement and also potential weakness in the professional witness statement.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2024/1314.html

It does seem to have the ‘small’ man in a powerful car feel about it T🚘

As Kooba infers, there are a few using the benefit of hindsight and conjecture to call out the investment decisions many made as being ill informed. It’s all more than a bit witless, and also pointless. Are they trying to demonstrate superiority of investment know how? Certainly looks that way.

I say that as someone who does not really have an axe to grind. I am at ‘break even’, although admittedly after 14+ years in.

I am still hopeful of a recovery but am resigned to holding for a couple more years and whilst I do I hope for more clear communication from NANO.

They must mean to Samsung TG2D. In a way, its probably true but very much a distorted statement, or alternative fact.

Yes but not to worry. I hear that ‘Witless’ is still available as a username.

@Terrorwit. If you are a lawyer specialising in PI, I might have some respect for your opinion but are you?

What does ‘..been involved in IP litigatiion..’ when you can’t even spell it.

Please tell us the depth of your commercial experience as I suspect it is even more cringing than you find my comment (which is fine and I can see that some others agree with you too) .

You tell me I know nothing. It you have the answers but without any knowledge of me, my background or detail of legal cases I have been ‘involved’ in (and won).

You are most unlikely to be a Lawyer or Barrister, as they would never speak in the terms you do but please do tell us the answers anyway.

Terrorwit. You are demonstrating your sense of self importance again and asserting belief that you have all the right answers. How stupid of me not to realise how wrong I am before you were good enough to educated me 🤪

We all know that there is risk in litigation but if we believe company guidance, as we are constantly encouraged to do, our funders were willing to meet all legal costs through the appeal process. And had we won, we would be in different circumstances and able to raise funds against the likelihood of winning our appeal.

Your stated scenario is full of assumptions too, so why claim insolvency was inevitable when you really can’t support that claim.

Had NANO gone to court and won the appeal would have been heard by now in all likelihood. And in those circumstances the Samsung “banker” would likely have made a better offer well before now, which might even been accepted. To have so little to show at this point in terms of orders and/or progress (as well as information) really is disappointing and it does surprise me that so few here see it that way. We never knew what the plan was but there is nothing to evidence we are ‘on track’ to achieving whatever our objectives are. It is difficult to believe when we are given nothing to believe in.

Unless the share price is expected to slump further on more bad news, buying them at today’s prices surely represents good value to shareholders? And there have been repurchases at much higher prices, so what’s up?

Thanks NGR but that’s just an example of the scant information we receive without any explanation why it is not possible to release some meaningful detail.

Unless we have a contract supplying the military, I can’t imagine any commercial contract that would require this level of secrecy. And it is taking forever, which is a red flag too.

Can you please tell me what he said NGR and when.

I would like to challenge BT and the Board to inform their shareholders (all of us) why it is not possible to share detail of our expected market sector and product (broad terms would be better than nothing at all).

@Kooba. I also recollect that BT said there was no exclusivity to the customer we now know to be STM around two years ago.

It does beg the question why such secrecy if we are trying to sell our wares to manufacturers?

As time passes, BT should be under increasing pressure to validate the Samsung decision, proving that it was the correct course, as he said it was. We have a right to know more about what our funds are being used to advance. Is silence simply an excuse designed to escape accountability and veil failure?