Member Info for ddubya

Good afternoon Sammy. It is good to have the views of a solicitor to draw upon.

I don’t know what your particular specialism is but to my mind, being of the legal vocation provides greater insight than simply engaging members of it. Some, including myself, appoint firms (sometimes using the services of a Barrister) and the reason we do so is to obtain the best possible understanding of the relevant laws and regulations, to obtain the best possible chance of securing a good outcome.

If I read the situation correctly BtB was hit hard when ME sold his shares and the SP tumbled, eventually getting to just over 6p.
- many of us were impacted in the same way too but I gained the impression it stuffed his portfolio.

His more recent posts were much more chipper, so perhaps he has cashed in at a profit he is happy with. If so good luck to you BtB.

I am a little more greedy and picked up a few more today at 36.25. In normal circumstances I don’t average up but made an exception in light of a weak SP despite all the positives.

Always rated the Mail on Sunday coverage Intrusive!

There are a few that have admitted to holding over 1M here, so perhaps one of those is moving funds elsewhere hoping to get a better return and/or simply to de risk?

I am sure there are institutions only too happy to buy 1M at market price, which to my mind does not presently reflect fair value. Suspect we need to wait for orders that say “profitability” before it really comes good, of a positive trial/settlement if that precedes orders.

Over time quite possibly a few orders for similar cars NGR1616. Bavaria might be busy for a while.

I took a quick look at the latest FCA list of short positions this morning and could not see any on NANO - have I missed any?

We are all entitled to some sort of treat this evening. What are you having BtB? Think I might have a glass of Champage myself.

The war is not over but this is a significant battle won.

See you all at 7.00 and again at 8.00 tomorrow morning. Looking forward to that and also to hearing the outcome for the other two patents.

Thanks Intrusive…that is exactly the comment I was thinking of. We just need the right decision to provide lots of blue sky, in which case the SP will settle at a level that includes a % of likely settlement (albeit a substantially discounted one) and to which any good news from IR sensors can later be added.

In event of favourable PTAB decision, we still have the court case to win too of course, so not suggesting we count chickens.

Agree Hawi. We have reached a watershed moment where the risk is greatest, so whilst concern and trepidation is natural, this is the time to Chill and have faith in our investment decision. Whatever the outcome, there is a way forward for NANO.

Also Feeks, it was amiss of me not to enquire after your health. I hope you have fully recovered, or at least escaped from the basement?

Good morning Feeks. No more anguish or panic than any many others are experiencing :)

Certainly BT suggested they were confident of securing a contract (for IT sensor nano particles I expect) but I believe there was also mention of greater confidence in the PTAB success.

Reading your recent posts made me smile Feeks. Like you I am overweight in NANO and counting down the ‘sleeps’ to the PTAB decision. I am sure there are a good number of long suffering shareholders in the same position, as well as lots of more recent entrants.

I have tuned out from NANO in recent months because I can’t influence anything and the PTAB decision will no doubt be made on technical arguments I could never fully understand or have predicted.

I do hope we all wake up more wealthy one day next week, I have a feeling we shall but I can’t know for sure. Otherwise, the daily grind will continue for a while longer yet.

I take some comfort from the fact that BT says they are more confident than previously, that is presumably more confident than when the TP funder opted to take a punt, fronting their hard earned on the strength of a less well informed position - GLA.

There is so much positive news in the TEK portfolio and it is making a decent profit too. If it can continue to convert promise into £ we should see the significant increase in total market cap that we all want - this RNS is evidence it is getting there so a little lift today would be nice.

There is a strong sense of both commercialisation and increased confidence in the PTAB outcome as well as an extended cash runway. If it comes to pass as BT hopes (and I trust it will) it represents a bright new dawn for shareholders.

I am hoping there might be more hints within today’s presentation, so I shall listen, unless (as is likely) work gets in the way!

Annoying as it can be, many argue the ability to short is a legitimate practice. What is not legitimate is to offer a service to buy and sell shares for customers, whilst also lending the same share out for additional profit without need to disclose that fact. That feels like a conflict of interest to me.

The right way forward might be to permit ‘lending’ of shares only where explicit consent of the underlying owner is obtained not the nominee. I doubt it would be a ‘Thing’ if consent was mandatory because most will simply refuse to provide permission.

We have known about Eunjoo Jang’s request of NANO for a couple of years but both the e-mail and more importantly the subsequent period of close co-operation with Samsung (spanning several years), is likely compelling evidence in our favour.

If and when the Patent validity is upheld by PTAB, I suspect the court case, to demonstrate that Samsung used our patents and consider damages, will be pretty much ‘slam dunk’ in NANO’s favour.

Samsung might well concede immediately prior to trial and I feel confident that any agreement Mintz accepts will compel Samsung to settle quickly. Can’t rule out the possibility of going to trial though, as Samsung will be reluctant to settle on a basis that provides the equivalent of punitive damages.

Understand you Hawi and I agree. My first purchase was at over 150p, even before rumours of a Samsung contract. Overvalued? Certainly was but then again another way to look at it is that SP has represented exceptionally good value at various times since.

30p is not on my agenda either, and my expectation is of a 10 bagger from there and quite possibly a lot more, dependant upon the £value of the nano particle contracts, if and when they are secured and the £value of any legal settlement.

It has been a long time coming but confidence is growing and our time may be close?

Hi HAWI. I don’t doubt NANO could be valued at a similar or even much greater level than Nanosys, although I suspect we also need to list on NASDAQ, to derive the max value? I expect a dual listing is on BT’s mind and longer term we may move to NASDAQ for that reason alone. If we think we are going to win (I do and recent movement in SP might suggest the same) that’s another reason to hold for the longer term by which I mean 3 to 5 years from the court case.

I agree Frostbar. It is good to know the minimum we can expect but also necessary to consider the potential ceiling too, which is Many multiples.

If the validity of patents is confirmed, I doubt that NANO will have too much difficulty persuading the jury that we were wilfully robbed and in a premeditated way. A bit like Vladimir’s shameful attack on the Ukraine.

Thanks for this link Morbox - very much appreciated.

The RNS does not provide a measure of the size of the additional order, so there is little or no information to allow the market to quantify its £value. That is likely why the SP is not ‘on fire’.

More broadly though it is a pointer to the take up of NANO technology and in time value will be factored in. The right PTAB outcome will have the desired effect.

I agree Basscadet. An interesting focus on production in the RNS which does not seem essential solely to communicate the new contract.

Well held everyone, including you BtB. I sense this will come good for all of us. Perhaps so good that we no longer have need to take much of a gamble on any other stocks either?