Member Info for ddubya

Good morning all. Today’s posts remind me that a number of years ago, my wife was witness to an armed robbery. In the months that followed, the crims tried everything to avoid going to trial, including turning up before the identity parade, so they could say the witness only recognised them outside and having their mate turn up on the opening day of the trial to shout out “That’s the man who did it”. Miss trial declared , so delay and public money wasted. Ultimately, they pled guilty but only when they knew they were not able to intimidate the witnesses or get off on a technicality.

If Samsung is guilty (my sense is it is) it will do all it can to wriggle free and admit guilt only when it has to and Even then it will try to discount the settlement. If you believe in NANO this is the time to stay strong.

In one sense we have been impacted by Covid-19 because no one In the Far East can mobilise to buy us. Mr Tenner will need to be persuasive when the Bank Manager interviews him!

Under the Coronavirus Business interruption Loan scheme (CBILS) loans of up to £5m are available interest free (for the first 12 months) for companies with a t/o of <45m. Apparently firms can apply only where they would not meet the Bank's 'normal' underwriting criteria, so Mr Tenner might do well to find a participating Bank that would not normally lend that sum to NANO. £5m on the above basis would do nicely for up to 12 months and no need for a cash call? We'll leave that thought with you Mr T.

Me too J Bongo, and so far it looks like more buying than selling today - probably least said the better ??.

Hi PPE. The current Employee support package runs for three months, I believe from beginning of March, which should provide NANO with really useful funding, presuming it qualifies. However, if the Merck contract were lost rather than renegotiated it would require an extension of that scheme in June and beyond to retain staff for a further period.

I just hope Samsung has not offered Merck a deal to undercut NANO?

It could be that Merck expects all of part of NANO to change hands and has provided notice to avoid ‘lock in‘ for a further 12 months, just in case the eventual owner of CFQD patents is not one it could get along with, or not hesitate to do the dirty.

And if their concern is not realised then as the largest contract you can renegotiate on the best possible terms. Feels like a no lose position for Merck.

We shall probably take sizeable hit tomorrow, but coming weeks could yet see that reversed.

I feel sure you are right and we may learn some lessons to develop solutions earlier Hawi. For example, I think there will be big change in Pharma to develop antibiotics to stave off a looming crisis there. Hopefully, NANO might benefit from some new thinking too?

This Pandemic will change a great deal for the surviving population Hawi, as it should. Unfortunately nothing focusses the mind more than a crisis, and society/governments could have been more proactive over the Pandemic risk.

There was some limited chat on Vivodots last Friday, but unfortunately development of new medical applications takes rather a long time. Whilst Vivodots could be part of the eventual solution (certainly hope so), I understand most applications are at a reasonably early stages of development, although NANO has an imminent need for cash (from whatever source) so perhaps no short term value for its predicament?

A well rounded team.

Yes Amerloque. Success certainly requires a well team.

Hopefully NANO will be able to use Gov’t grants as a way to get through the year. If it qualifies, a few £m to save around 100 highly skilled jobs and potentially generate many times that in future taxes seems like a very good investment for Team UK but how ironic it is available only as a result of Covid-19.

You are right T it was pancreatic Cancer the UCL work involved, which is very difficult to treat.

I believe the concept is to illuminate the cancer with UV which directs the surgeon to the correct area. Similar work is taking place now for brain surgery but does not involve NANO as far as I am aware.

Itsamaybe. Can’t say I know what that Life Sciences comment means but we know the NANO is working on dyes to spot Prostate cancer early, I believe with UCL and last year the initial toxicology results were positive, i.e shown not to be harmful.

It makes sense of course that dots/dyes for use in humans need different qualities, and the ‘golden fleece’ would be dots that find and attach themselves to cancerous cells then release pre loaded drugs directly to those cells. That would require something rather different to the ‘standard’ CFQD and perhaps that is what the Annual Report references?

Yes, we all remember comments such as , ‘Working with 14 OEM’, ‘Products on the shelves’ and of course the ‘bad luck’ of Apple’s withdrawal. It is conspiracy theory of course but not impossible that Samsung used its influence to ensure all NANO projects were stillborn. Then again, is anyone aware of whose dots Wah Hong is using. They still reference NANO on their website and I would think it less likely that Samsung has much/any influence over them?

Nige - don’t follow - think you may have misunderstood my ‘Reliable excitement’ comment.

Sorry T - mainly directed to Itsamaybe.

‘Reliable excitement’ - now there’s something we could probably patent and sell in volume T.

I shall ask Mrs ddubya to commence a collaboration with Mrs ME straight away and get it to market tout de suite.

Good summary Itusamaybe. There is always hope of good news 'out of the blue' but rather more likely news will outline heavy dilution from near historical low SP.

What we are understandably missing, because it is inside information, is the extent of potential interest, casual or serious, and the amount of money they may be willing to part with.

The above does not mean there is not genuine interest, we might benefit from an immediate and dramatic uplift but there is no certainty, and so risk of continued silence, dwindling funds and dilution.

Samsung seems unconcerned and I think they will take it to the brink before settling, i.e. to wait until an offer is made then trump it, or until the outcome of the court case is determined.

Just to be clear though, NANO has set out its intention to consider all options in this Strategic Review, so the sale option is just one potential outcome.

That's exactly how I read the RNS on 4th March Nige, but the market has been firm in telling me I overvalued NANO (again).

With a current market cap of £22m, one of the majors could have taken control for a fraction of that amount and secured a place at the CFQD table. So I do find the absence of clear interest at this stage a concern.

Certain ADVFN members will say that delay is solely down to Covid-19 but I am not so sure. It is possible there is no interest in NANO's wares, and another possibility is that NANO has a preference to sell only specific patents and with it potentially NANO's rights to pursue a claim against Samsung? That would allow them to avoid 'swimming with the sharks' so they could concentrate efforts elsewhere than Display. Such arrangement would require more detailed DD and could provide explanation for delay. Either way, it would be good to have an answer soon.

PS I hope your daughter and family get a break soon and that you get to reinstate that car order.

Yes T. If NANO is the opportunity we believe it to be then you might have thought firms would have been falling over themselves. I still have belief in the NANO thing and hope that faith is not misplaced?

Yes T. That’s the problem with NANO RNS - exceptionally economical with facts but my personal view is that NANO wanted the price to fall to ensure the capital raise from LO, hence the wording used.

If remaining parties include SAGA and the Baden Powell Trust, we have a serious problem. However, there remains a possibility (perhaps likelihood) that the names that would provide much more confidence remain in the frame, such as TSMC, LG and Apple. Why would they not have an interest? Only time will tell.