Member Info for ddubya

BT would do well to look at Rolls Royce to understand what a transformation really looks like. Half year results out today and in line with expectations. It has so far not lost any of its recent and significant gains, and there is prospect of dividends returning soon. At least one part of my portfolio is doing quite well.

All Directors have a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of their shareholders and not in the interests of either a selected few, or themselves. Each to our own view of course, but when I compare performance to this obligation, my belief is they fall well short of reasonable expectations. However, I am not intending to vote for a Hamoodi style change at present. It could damage prospect of securing orders but next year I may have a different view.

I also seem to recollect NANO granted LOAM an option to have a NED at a later stage if its stake warranted it. I am not especially keen on that idea and would like a rethink.

If we did operate on the basis TM holds evidence of his allegations, he might well have presented it to the FCA already for all we know. I doubt he would make it public and he could well have legal advice to that effect?

Lets get the vote out of the way and see if the orders come in at the end of this year. If not BT should be on notice and shareholders should work together to help bring about the sort of 'transformation' we want.

That's right PP. The FCA will not be keeping any of us updated on the progress or content of any investigation it may or may not be undertaking. However, they might provide the complainant with some sort of 'inert' status update from time to time. So we may hear nothing at all if there is no case to answer, or something very late on in any disciplinary proceedings, when decisions have effectively been made.

Do we really have a strategy for suing other parties Tornado? I am aware only that after six months NANO remains at claim constructions stage, which it is completing 'in house'. It has not commenced action against any party and by BT's admission Samsung was by far the biggest transgressor. Time will tell but I do not expect any meaningful income from this exercise, and suspect it simply forms part of the 'smoke screen' to divert attention from the poor settlement. Had there been money in it surely NANO would have been actively driving the actions forward?

At the beginning of the year I did not see it this way but points 1. and 2. now reflect my thoughts Nanonano.

We can’t keep rewarding failure, as we are presently and if change is needed it would not necessarily need to involve Hamoodi, although it could.

Yes NANO - please deliver on something for the first time - we would both like and need that after 20 years, and only Careware to our credit.

The latest RNS confirms take up of the Directors share options, creating 1,985,206 new shares of which just over a million have been retained by directors post taxes. This will of course assist Directors at the forthcoming EGM vote. I wonder whose hands the balance have fallen into and which way they will vote?

I did see the link Gonebroke but I am not clear on the comparison drawn between NANO's position and Neonode? Their case is clearly weaker than NANO's in a number of ways.

I see what you mean about the fall in SP Gonebroke. You latest post suggests it retains a third of its value, but your first that 'Neonode Stock Loses a Third of Its Value'.

Each IP claim is different of course. NANO won overwhelmingly at the Markman hearing (Neonode had a problem there) and NANO patents have additionally been validated at Samsung's admission. We were also told we only needed to win on one count at Court. Did I miss something else?

@Gonebroke. Neonode fared pretty well with only a 30% reduction 😀

A settlement was always the best solution but at a level closer to that which we had been led to believe was possible would have an outcome we would all have pleased with. Unfortunately, it was not even close netting only a few £m (and less than Neonode received).

@tbow112. Those were my thought too when it was suggested around the time awareness was building of Hamoodi’s letter.

What we really need is for the business to trade at a value that reflects crystallised orders at a multiple of their value. If the share price simply reduces by the £value of the dividend it would not provide any real value to my mind, particularly since there is some level of tax charge in almost every wrapper.

The clear message is that BT needs to get those expected orders in and then some more.

@Granth. I have had the same calls from Hamoodi’s team, as have my wife and three children. I don’t know how they get the contact information either since our shares are held by a nominee but suspect they use the information available from credit agencies etc to build what they need. I have received similar calls in the past from other firms too. They want to know how I am voting but I have kept that to myself and declined the offer for another call after next Wednesday’s presentation.

Thank you for the compliment Troublesome, although there are many others on the board (past and present) far more deserving of it than me.

From a green perspective the EU and RoHS has also been a complete disappointment to me too. CF applications could have been far more widespread had the directive been fully implemented. There too, I wonder what the hold up is - self interest - surely not?

@Troublesome. Agreed - shareholders should not carry the burden of blame for having expectation of a larger settlement since we have only ever been guided by NANO and the analyst it commissioned. The narrative is now blame the victim, rather like listening to RT media.

Something about the whole episode smells rotten to me, despite what some would have us believe. It is most unlikely to be a complete accident that some profited handsomely, whilst PI were stuffed. If it is all innocent, fair enough but in my view this is the sort of situation that the FCA should be investigating and providing judgement on, one way or the other. That's how you instil market confidence and not by leaving everyone guessing eternally.

I don't disagree with that view intrusive but we shall see what action, if any, Hamoodi takes. I would vote for change that betters NANO's prospects.

Hamoodi is not offering to buy our shares at a premium, so I would vote for him only if he laid out a convincing and structured plan, one that also provided PI with assurances our money/shares would be safe (and grow) under his stewardship. There could be other suitors too?

Yes Kooba an acid test and a number of Directors will likely be up for reappointment at the AGM. I really believed our Board was acting competently in respect of the case right up to the second settlement RNS. From that point onwards it has been nothing but obfuscations and/or silence.

Had we gone to trial and won, we may not have received money just yet but I feel sure we would have received far more later. NANO has not adequately explained why we folded and the net proceeds from winning are derisory. It is the patent sale that made the money and we don't even receive that until next year. Such a poor deal in so many ways.

I have the feeling that NANO will secure the vote its Board wants this time round but Hamoodi will not go away. He will have another attempt at takeover in event commercialisation is not secured this year., and he may do so regardless of commercialisation. I would like to see selective change in the Board I but am prepared to give BT just a little more time to deliver. If he continues to disappoint I will cast my vote against at the right time.

Unfortunately, the Samsung prize, the one that had so much potential, is now water under the bridge. The Board could have secured a much larger settlement according to Hamoodi's team, an argument I strongly believe. Why did it not happen is the question and it is difficult to look past the NANO management team for the answer?

Troublesome “…more details were to come out over the next few days ?”

That part was intriguing, like I know something you don’t know. I would just be guessing what that might mean so looking forward to hearing soon.

Having seen the video it did not look quite as bad as I expected but am resigned to giving BT until the year end to turn this around, following which pressure will build.