Member Info for ddubya

@PRK

Yes - half a chance is something but unfortunately, I am in at over 20p !

Quite so Nanonano. We are six months down the line and NANO has not taken any substantive action against the infringers, and when they do it will be done 'in house'. BT made clear that Samsung was by far the biggest infringer, so there really cannot be too much money (or inclination) to pursue other parties. The exception might be Nanosys, if they are in that number?

I did not manage to log in to the Hamoodi meeting but form what I hear it seems like it was a shambles, inferring a transformation without offering any form of structured business plan - so my take is they are asset strippers.

And as you say T the crux of the issue is that our incumbent Board has not satisfied many PI that it has our interests at heart. Many pertinent questions have gone unanswered and it looks like the Board is being highly selective in terms of those it responds to. What do they have to hide I wonder?

If BT and others survive this vote (feel sure they will) then they need to shape up, otherwise there will be a next time and their chances of survival will be far slimmer.

PRK Is the key point not really that even if a white knight arrives, existing shareholders will be diluted to the extent they may never receive back the value of their investment, even if it became a roaring success?

@Rook. I take it that you have access to your online HL account. If so -

1. Log in and on the Home page you will see heading ‘Shareholder meetings’ title in a grey box to the RHS of the page.

2. Click on ‘View shareholder meetings’ and you will see a list of your shareholdings with current actions open.

3. Open a NANO item and the voting slip will appear - just complete and file and you are done.

4. Complete for holdings you have in each account.

Hope this helps

I have decided my vote is against most resolutions but to abstain against certain ones proposing removal of existing NANO Directors. I don't want them drawing conclusions to effect I consider they are doing a great job - far from it - they score very low marks so far. As Tornadotony says, BT must be incredibly naïve if he thought the share price would be unaffected by the settlement RNS. There are a good number of unresolved matters that do not sit well and have destroyed confidence in the entire Board.

Same here tbow. A good start and I can't get through on the telephone number either.

Pirate Pete. BT's argument is that all Court documents are public information, even those which we need to subscribe for and pay for to see. I am sure that is legally correct but don't like it!

He has basically said the Board is satisfied the settlement provides fair value too (I beg to differ).

I understand that delay and appeals would serve to reduce NANO's ability to develop the IR sensor market - hence a settlement is helpful. However, with a licence, Samsung is now a bona fides competitor, so a question I posed but was not answered is - What confidence can NANO shareholders have in NANO's ability to compete with Samsung and bring new products to market?

My take on BT's comments re infringers is that whilst NANO may be putting claim constructions together 'in house' there is not likely to be much value. After all BT stated Samsung was “...far and away the biggest target”.

He also confirmed that the anticipated 2023 order is going to be low volume with larger orders following, with profitability in 2025, so I am not sure we can expect much price action in the near future, unless something fortuitous and unexpected comes our way?

Nice to have them confirm Hamoodi's 'untruths' though.

Morbox. I note BT has not selected a question to answer on the value or geographical scope, or at least not yet.

The 70p conversation reminds me of NigWits regular comment that the “…market is always right.” I wonder what he would say now? It was either right at 70p or at 18p but it can’t be right at both levels, which I feel is proof positive that statement is invalid - there are sometimes additional factors in play.

TwoGood. As this is the time to be preparing questions we want to put to NANO, do you have evidence to support those comments? If so, can you please share.

Also, which particular rules or guidance in the MAR section of FCA’s Handbook do you consider NANO has breached?

I give up on successive UK governments, which simply allow great British inventions to be starved of investment, whilst foreign competitors are permitted to either push them aside or/and acquire PI at low cost. And the government is willing to assist them with financial backing from the same taxpayers that invest in the British tech.

Sunak needs to completely revise the UK government's approach to all innovative tech companies. What is the incentive to invest and innovate when even your own are doing their best to strangle it at birth?

I don’t like the Bold caps strap lines either. All very unprofessional and presents a jaundiced view. Not saying there is not much truth in what the paper says though.

I agree we have been mugged at the expense of II but I also think we have a brighter future and share price will recover if and when order follow on and ahead of break even.

Question is what can we do about it? The FCA probably is not interested and we would need to have clear evidence of wrongdoing to make them act.

We could try to vote BT and the Board out but is that going to realise a return or take us from frying pan to fire?

“… it was not the one the company were going to court claiming…”

I don’t disagree Kooba but that’s the defence they are airing.

Kooba. I think they are saying because the lower estimates were on Court documents (behind the paywall) it was public information known to everyone. It did of course require positive action, to subscribe, in order to be aware though.

Whether it is public or not is an interesting debate but my guess is that they already have legal advice that states it is.

Can’t say that I consider the above is playing with a straight bat but my guess is that the law will agree with NANO. Not that is the way any firm should treat its shareholders I would say. As a consequence there were two types of market participants, those with knowledge and those without, which allowed the II with knowledge to offload to the PI without. Is that the way the market should work FSA?

NANO previously provided no indication of a settlement at this level to my knowledge, which falls some way short of the Dow basis (lowest). Neither did they mention it in any RNS, interview or Edison research.

Whilst I see many problems with Hamoodi, I also see many problems with the current management. Shareholders are fed up with being stiffed by the Board and II, who have been in a position to know which way the market is going before us.

Would a rights issue not have been a much lower cost alternative than the LOAM loan, when you consider the ‘Bonus element’. Why not offered to all existing shareholders?

All simply my personal view of course.

Malcolm55. The Nanoco paper issued yesterday includes some instructions on how you can direct nominees to vote according to your preferences. HL is one of the nominees included.

@Kooba I see the patent that was sold is the one that had an unfavourable outcome in the Markman hearing. The sale agreement also entitles NANO licence to continue to use the IP, if it wishes .

On a separate point, I see in connection with the Asian Chemical customer, it is pleased with the NANO offering, describing it as delivering “world champion” levels of performance. NANO suggests the market is "potentially over one hundred million units per year." We have heard those sort of statements before but it would be nice if even part of that market, whatever it is, was serviced by NANO in future.

BBC reporting TATA (Jaguar Land Rover) set to announce a battery plant investment in the UK on Wednesday, with hundreds on £m of government funding. What does this mean for AMTE I wonder?

I know the answer to the first part of your question NGR. About 38p (without a settlement) which is 20p a share more than today.