Member Info for ddubya

Nice words RJT. What a journey, but we now know both that Samsung was guilty all along and that current NANO shareholders will be sharing a reward.
Well done all :)

Interesting discussion regarding BT attending the trial in person. Almost all do seem to agree he should be there and personally, I would have been disappointed or even a little concerned had he not been attending. What's a few extra K, to ensure he is in the loop and liaising directly with Mintz, to take key decisions on our behalf? I am quite sure we shAll be picking up the tab for other attendees too, possibly including former CEO Mike Edelman?

If he feels the need, he can dine on steak and wine as far as I am concerned.

Surely markets estimate the share price by reference to a perception of fair value including discount equivalent to lack of certainty in receiving any settlement value or a Court award? ‘Fair value’ increases as uncertainty decreases and a Court win will provide a substantial increase even including a discount for risk.

Yes. If we win, we can’t expect to realise full value until the award becomes certain and is paid. Meantime I would be very content with upwards of £1.20 and headroom for further uplift in event of orders related to IR sensors.

For better or worse, we shall have a decision and also the benefit of hindsight on or around 12 Jan 2023, although the decision is of course be subject to appeal and the PTAB review too.

We also have the possibility of ‘Nano particle’ orders via STM and possibly renewed CFQD interest, so whilst any award may not be received for some time, holding feels well worth the downside risk to me. Each to their own investment decision of course and good luck to all whatever your strategy.

You may be right Kat but I suspect many will be unable to resist the possibility of turning a quick profit. Personally, I can’t see the price languishing at this level for too much longer.

Re today's RNS, I would like to know what the potential sales volumes look like but it seems sales will flow from this agreement, which can only be to the good.

A typically fickle day for NANO in terms of share price. Not that I should know but I had expected we might see incremental increases this week, so not try encouraging to see sub 50p. I can’t imagine we shall be at this level pre trial!

Hansol founder Lee In-Hee is a daughter of the original Samsung founder Mrskeith, so very much in the family.

The Korean Times article below outlines the relationship and also some other goings on. If you are part of the Chaebol, it might appear you are above adherence to State rules?

https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150224000658

Personally, I can’t believe anyone at Hansol knows what a Quantum dot looks like and I feel sure Mintz will find ways to cast serious doubt on the workings of that arrangement at trial.

Great news today team. Still quiet in terms of the share price although it is early days and interest should mount as we close in on the trial date.

What really matters is the share price post verdict, which we know will be in early to mid Jan (and post issue of judgement) so not much longer to wait :)

So the game is take PI money to develop the product and when it might just be successful, remove the ability for the PI to trade so you can keep the proceeds for yourself. In my personal opinion the company can afford to retain the listing but certain individuals might just prefer not to have it but to play the ‘game’ instead?

Who knows Dicky - It could be just about anything, or nothing at all. A rebound after a 40% decline from recent highs, further developments in connection ongoing commercial discussions or agreements?
It is also possible NANO has secured one of the two December trial dates?

It has always been volatile here but let’s hope we can hold on to today’s gains and even add more tomorrow. Some positive news would be very welcome!

Samsung is the undeniable go to manufacture of CFQD products in display. NANO does not have capacity and always intended that Dow would produce them.

With take up of CFQD becoming more popular, perhaps Samsung needs a settlement, or will cough up following the loss (I hope) of the forthcoming trial. Can’t have anything interfering with sale of display products to other manufacturers surely?

There are several ugly parallels in this article to NANO’s experience, and of course we would not have got to this point without access to TP funding. Perhaps this is why NANO is now using secrecy alone to protect one of its innovations, rather than filing a patent for all to see?

Hello Fatface. This is a truly annoying share which I have held for over 12 years now, so I share your frustration and sometimes think the same is happening to me. I still think we shall have our day though.

Meantime, if you can sell a very small number every day at 16.29, I for one would be very grateful. If your theory is proven correct, I am sure that many on this Board will collectively compensate you in the form of drink when the price shoots upwards!

The 70p estimate does not include an assumption of any ‘Display’ revenue Nanonano since that flows from winning the Court case and claiming licence fees from Samsung which is and will be the main CFQD manufacturer. It is based on the announcement of a trial date and expectation of IR sensor revenue alone.

If Samsung settles or is forced to pay up the share price could be many times today’s value which would be nice to say the least. Must not count chicken though.

Sure is Nanonano.

The market always marks NANO down in the absence of income generating news, which is understandable. However, if orders for ‘nano particles’ are confirmed before end Jan, and a trial date announced it should provide upside we need, possibly to around 65 or 70p ?

A positive court judgement will take value closer to where we all want it to be, so perhaps only a month or two to wait.

Good morning Feeks. Ultimately, as you infer, business relies on trust to create a mutually beneficial business relationships, and we are led to believe that NANO took reasonable steps to protect itself both a development agreement agreement and NDA.

If one party decides to do the dirty, there is little the other can do, except to pursue the legal remedies. Samsung is simply demonstrating why other firms (most particularly the smaller ones) cannot trust entering into a collaboration agreement with it.

My personal take is that Samsung decided to do the dirty on NANO because it could see the industry changing value in NANO’s technology and patents and thought it could get away with stealing it. However, Samsung still needs the tech for Display and other applications. It continues to double down on its Hansol for now but it seems to be running out of road and destined to lose the arguments soon.

The value of CFQD (and also IR sensors) is something Samsung cannot remain fully competitive without, so I remain confident very confident that NANO will come out the other side with a big win.

I also thought it interesting that NANO has chosen to protect a new innovation solely by way of trade secret and has not applied for a patent (at least not yet). Is that because it does not want to provide Samsung with a head start in the patent filing and wants to keep it as a surprise for Samsung?

Certainly is a shame Veteran but on the other hand the fundamentals (other than share price) appear largely unaltered from the heady days of 33p. Largely for that reason, I shall be sticking with both TEK and BELL in the hope that we see news on a number of fronts, starting I hope with news of major Salarius contracts?

That’s interesting JBongo/Bonzoful/Mr N.

It might be useful having a production engineer on the manufacturing side, for example, for quality control purposes and managing any QD related processes that take place during manufacturing?

If linked to NANO, it might suggest we remain several months away from production too.