Member Info for ddubya

I was thinking the same about those II shareholder comments Kooba. Some holdings are not especially large and nor is the length of their shareholding at 5 years. I am sure many of us could join in concert with one or two shareholders to amass 1% of shareholding. Yet BT courts their counsel and presents their views in an RNS. I can't see BT has learned anything so far. The trouble is he never consults with PI and engages in his own brand of mushroom management, whilst also feathering the II's nest.

Yes BeContrarian. We just want sensible answers instead of the rubbish/radio silence we have received so far. This is BT’s chance to provide PI with something meaningful, so let’s see how he performs.

I am looking forward to hearing/seeing the Board’s rationale for rejecting the Hamoodi bid but as others say, I really want to know what the Samsung story is. Perhaps he can answer at the AGM but the questions are vetted in advance, so will he accept the challenge?

@ TwoGood re "Directors have no restrictions on buying shares..." There are of course timeframes that Directors are specifically prohibited from trading in shares of their own company, and the public would not necessarily be aware when this is so. For example, if they were in receipt of information that an offer was to be made for control of share capital.

Not that any of us really needed it TwoGood but the video is a great reminder of the Board’s commitment to ensure that settlement should include fair value for patents throughout their lifetimes in global terms not just the USA. Also, that we should not be afraid of the appeal process since mounting royalties would put Samsung under pressure to settle.

So what changed their minds, and why is it not possible to explain to shareholders in non price sensitive terms, rather than with the BS received so far?

When you layer on the apparently ‘unusual’ trading and profits enjoyed by LOAM and absence of any positive company developments since February, I believe we could be forgiven for forming a view that it smells rotten.

Sorry to say it all again folks!

Or perhaps Inogen, which is a direct competitor and really struggling?

Hello Morbox. There is not too much value any of us can add, so can’t say I blame you!

I am in a similar place, so fingers crossed again, and I look forward to hearing from you again when the timing is right.

To my eyes BT’s reputation can only be redeemed, if sizeable commercialisation is forthcoming in the near term - but will it?

With an oiler, you always know success depends entirely upon striking oil and until it flows it could be water.

NANO knew its CFQD worked and are making £millions for Samsung, also that Samsung was using IP it had received from them. So a known value was and is there, it just that its 100% rightful owners are receiving only a fraction of it. Entirely different to your analogy NGR.

Samsung has purchased some of NANO’s patents but does not pay for at least 50% of them until 2024. I’ll bet it has been using them since January (or before). Does anyone else think this Buy Now Pay Later deal suggests Samsung had the upper hand, for whatever reason? I can’t imagine why BT and the Board agreed to such a deal on patent sales?

Spot on KoobA

I share the view that the settlement was on the exceptionally low side and well below any of the inferred numbers. It was certainly less than the market valuation had factored in to the share price at the time, or at least the side of the market that was working without inside information.

I agree that Intrusive’s comment to effect that certainty over patent validity could be correct, although you might think we should know why by now ? Perhaps not but the level of settlement and payment by instalments, suggests to me that Samsung had the upper hand in negotiations, so if the rationale for a need to secure patent validity does not become known in the next year or so, I suspect it will be clear that BT has been keeping something back from us.

The perverted LOAM bonus remains unforgivable though.

@nanostory

“Look at the track record of the proposed chairman at Acacia in the presentation. $4M revenue growing to $251M, loss turning into $50M net income, $110M market cap becoming $2.1B.”

It is not that I underestimate the potential value in NANO. I believe it is there, which is why I have been invested (for 14 years) but I have concern some would like to relieve us of much of that potential. BT seems to be doing his best to that end but Hamoodi could be the same or worse? I don’t consider that past performance can be relied upon as a future indicator either, so I remain on the fence and look forward to BT’s response. I do feel the information and misinformation issued under his tenure has actively contributed to needless destruction of share value.

Hamoodi’s plan may not be the right way forward but that does not mean we have no cause to be deeply disappointed in the Board’s performance, for example, overstatements and suggestions, ‘excessive’ remuneration, LOAM ‘Bonus’ and failure to commercialise.

On the other hand, I fail to see that we can trade below cash forever, provided that orders (even small ones) are received.

Hello Bluerill. Certainly LOAM and NANO will have completed their own reviews and if the FCA is doing its job they will have been fully appraised of their findings by now. However, I am not sure it follows that firms would deliver their own verdicts and take against any ‘naughty’ employees.

Hamoodi’s alleges wrongdoing at the top, and if guilty they are not leaving without playing their hand and spending their firm money on top lawyers.

Truth is we do not know if the FCA is taking Hamoodi at all seriously and a good deal of time could pass before we heard anything at all.

I suspect you are right about Hamoodi’s prospects of a seat on the Board and his motives were always questionable. My main concern would be that he took the firm private but having witnessed BT’s performance, I am not sure it is beyond him either.

Hello Bluerill. Unfortunately, the wheels of justice at the FCA move very slowly indeed. If there were no case to answer we would hear sooner but if there were serious charges to answer the process becomes protracted and legalistic. Only when certain of wrongdoing would the FCA publish its Final Notice, which the accused can appeal (firm and or individuals). Occasionally, news of a discipline can leak out but mostly it is not a leaky process.

In short, no news might not mean no wrongdoing.

I recollect several years ago, during a live web meeting (which included both PI and analysts) the Deutche Bank analyst inadvertently suggested NANO should ask “ST Micro” for an up front payment to fund product development and tide NANO over. Hearing the name of a customer was big news to many (but clearly not all analysts). He blurted out inside information he should not and thereafter separate analyst meetings have been held. It is possible ST may no longer be involved but I suspect it is.

Sorry if this has been covered before but I bought a multi pack of Walkers crisps the other day and on the bags it stated they contained 50% less salt.

I am not aware there has been any tie up with Walkers, but how have they managed to reduce salt content by 50%?

PS the crisps still tasted great - thanks for asking.

7shares @ 12.59.

Agree with that and now is opportunity for BT to convince us his team is able to secure better shareholder return than Hamoodi. He should be convincing, so we may forgive awarding ‘performance’ bonus that was entirely unconnected to the loan itself, and with LOAM’s inside knowledge, involved virtually zero risk. The amount was not linked to the settlement value either.

My take is that there is much greater chance of BT keeping us informed, if he is unable to take PI votes for granted.

Bonzoful. I am not sure who has asked for commercially sensitive “…information…regards future contracts”. Can you please point out what gives rise to your perception.

Shareholders do of course have a say, normally to the extent of their shareholding but they can of course act with other shareholders if of similar mind just as Hamoodi is doing to require an AGM.

Not sure if you saying that a majority of shareholders are satisfied with the current level of communications, which I doubt is the case, but if you are saying there is no evidence shareholders want a change of Board I absolutely agree. The vote will provide a measure the extent of that desire. For my part, I am as yet undecided.