Member Info for Everbroke

A lot of conjecture but in truth we won't have any really sense of where things are at until we get a further litigation update RNS, and even then we can't expect detail around the intricacies of how the settlement has been arrived at. I am however confident that Nanoco will be in better commercial and financial position after the settlement. Why? Well they will no longer be distracted by litigation, the markets will accept that the Nanoco patents are valid and enforceable and there will be funds from available from the settlement to suppoort organic growth - to the last point referencing 13Jul20 Litigation funding agreement RNS:

Under the LFA, the Funder will fund the costs of the litigation against Samsung. The LFA removes the funding burden for the suit from Nanoco and its shareholders. In return, the Funder can expect to receive a multiple of their invested capital in the event of a settlement or judgement in favour of Nanoco. Patent infringement cases can take 2 years or more to get to trial and cost many millions of dollars to prosecute.
The Board is confident in the strength of Nanoco's IP portfolio and the suit against Samsung. Damages models indicate that the Group will retain the majority of any financial award or settlement and the Group's relative and absolute share of any award will increase with the size of the overall award

I've been in NANO since 2017 and sitting as another lurker on the board. I'm holding 68K @28p average. Held 78.5K up to last Thursday, but sold 10.5K as I've been burnt too many times with investments where I've over-committed. Still NANO sits as the largest part of my SIPP and I made money on the shares I sold last Thursday. I'll await the settlement details with interest and then plan to hold the investment as I see brighter days ahead given that the company will have cash in the bank, royalty payments to come from Samsung (and potentially others given that this case has settled), and expanding markets for CFQD's beyond TVs and monitors.
As said by other lurkers thanks for all posting all the research and insights over the years.

That's a highly plausible suggestion KeithOz, with an excellent summary of the touchpoints that suggest Rio would be a realistic partner. I've been invested here since 2017 and have grown to accept that mining exploration and progression to production can be a drawn out business, and the advent of COVID certainly hasn't helped with timelines! If we have to wait for progression to Bluejay standing up production on their own I figure that we are going to be waiting some time yet to see a revenue generating company, but with a joint venture deal and / or partial sale of assets hopefully we should be seeing something in the nearer term, and with that an uplift in the share price.

Article in most recent AJ Bell Shares magazine covering 5%+ yielding stocks to buy - Diversified Energy (DEC) comes out top of their table for high-yielding , well-covered dividends. The article calls out a forecast yield of 10.8% and notes that normally a double-digit dividend yield would be a clear sign that the dividend is unsustainable at current levels, but that they don’t think that is the case for DEC and believe there is scope for the payout to grow further.

Good to see such coverage in the investment press, and here's hoping that it interests a few more people to dip their toe in the water with Diversified.

Picking up from BC I have to confess that I've never thought about why companies appoint Non Executive Directors, so I went on a hunt to find out. Looking at a number of articles on the topic I would distil the typical reason down to:
1) Commercial experience and knowledge - It’s quite common for businesses to look for non-executive directors who have particular expertise in a specific business area, or experience in an industry that the business is targeting.
2) Strategic Direction – NEDs bring a wider view of external factors affecting the company / can act as a constructive critic of the objectives / plans set out by the chief executive / executive team.
3) Contacts - NEDs will generally have built up an extensive network of contacts over the years. They can introduce the company to people they otherwise wouldn’t have access to – new customers, business partners, suppliers, team members, or investors.
4) Accountability - NEDs are responsible for holding the entire board to account. They help with the company's performance and strategy, and ensure that the board is operating effectively and acting in the best interests of the company and stakeholders, including shareholders. For example, the board must present the company accounts to shareholders in a way that accurately depicts the business’s actions, financial performance, and internal control systems.

Clearly Henry brings significant financial expertise to the table, and as has been noted effectively gives Lombard a chair at the board.

As PIs I would take from this that we now have a representative for investors who will work to ensure our interests are acted upon, given that he will act to ensure the financial investment by Lombard is protected. He brings his financial knowledge, expertise and contacts that could be used to secure funding, advise on investment or introduce partners / investors. To me the appointment works well for both the new business opportunities / partnerships being explored and to support determinations around possible settlement scenarios in relation to the Samsung case.

I agree that it's been excellent discussion today, and thanks Hawi for providing the link to the response. I had some time on my hands so I've read through it, and while I can't claim to be a chemist (closest I got was a 'B' grade at 'O' level!) it does come over as a very well constructed rebuttal of Samsung's assertion that the process could (and has) been determined by a person that is competent in this field based on prior art , thereby invalidating patent 365 (my paraphrasing of their claim).

Reading through Nanoco's response they point to many factors including the citing of many different methods which are reliant disparate processes, using 'markedly different experimental conditions, reactants and synthetic goals' and that produce a variety of products including quantum dots, nanorods, quantum wires, ribbons, tubes or sheets. The paper points to the variation in temperatures, materials used and intended outcomes that debunks the grounds for citing these various different methods as a coherent basis for the patented process to be obvious based on known prior art. It points to direction from Nanoco's expert witness, but also utilises testimony provided by Samsung themselves to undermine Samsung's assertions. Noting the above Nanoco assert that in their view the only plausible reason for these various cited methods having been drawn together is based on hindsight achieved through the knowledge gained under Nanoco's patented process, and notwithstanding the fact that Samsung's claim suggests some adjustments are made to the described methods (e.g. the changing of re-agents) a position based on hindsight is inadmissible.

I'm sure there are many twists and turns to come but I have to say I'm heartened by this rebuttal by Nanoco. At the same time I have to also note my appreciation for Lobo87's insight to the legal process, and for the wider reasoned observations by all other contributors to this board, particularly in relation to potential new lines of CFQD application and potential product tie ups.

I'll now retreat to my passive reading of the board and let the rest of you that know what you are talking about continue to informing me (I've been invested and lurking around this board since 2017) :-)

While we await the Markman hearing I thought l'd share the attached which gives thoughts on the above subject https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2020/05/practical_strategies_for_markman_hearings_amid.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj76t-x4PjuAhXVgVwKHSHIBCMQFjAEegQIDBAC&usg=AOvVaw1ckoJZTsF6y0Vlh0xLU9mo

Would help if I included the ink! https://www.ii.co.uk/analysis-commentary/10-shares-give-you-ps10000-annual-income-2021-ii515175

Good article by Interactive Investor calling DGOC out as a reliable dividend play, and one of their top 10 picks for dividend payments for 2021.

Meanwhile you have to wonder what acquisition opportunities are presenting themselves to the board given they finance significant finance available and the move by many oil and gas players to divest themselves of all or part of their assets in the current climate. Any thoughts on this topic?

Thanks Morbox. I'll admit to no understanding of what this means, and how it applies in the context of this court case. I've found a definition which resolves what it means, but I'm still unclear how it applies here.

Protective Order

A court order, direction, decree, or command to protect a person from further harassment, Service of Process, or discovery.

A protective order can limit the time and place where a deposition can be taken, restrict the inspection of documents in the possession of a party, or regulate or modify the enforcement of a judgment.

I've got holdings here and in DDDD Valuefinder and think both are great but different value propositions. I wrote off loses on VAL under the old management and then more recently saw the transformation in share price, but having had my fingers burnt previously was slow to regain a position here.

VAL has some really promising drugs and is now progressing well with trials (unlike before). Where I see the difference with DDDD is that they are exploring a pretty untapped area (use of bacteria from the microbiome), they have multiple treatments they are progressing covering a variety of diverse afflictions (including IBS, Cancer, parkinsons and COVID), they have a major partner for the IBS treatment in Merk, the treatments are being tested to be used to partner with drugs whose effects have started to wain to boost their efficacy, and they have a proprietary tech platform to assist their search for new strains of bacteria for further trial pipeline). These reasons I think help explain the difference, but I still think VAL has plenty of legs!

I've got holdings here and in DDDD Valuefinder and think both are great but different value propositions. I wrote of loses on VAL under the old management and saw the transformation in share price, but having had my fingers burnt previously was slow to regain a position here.

VAL has some really promising drugs and is now progressing well with trials (unlike before). Where I see the difference with DDDD is they are exploring a pretty untapped area (use of bacteria from the microbiome), they have multiple treatments they are progressing covering a variety of diverse afflictions (including IBS, Cancer, parkinsons and COVID), they have a major partner for the IBS treatment in Merk, the treatments are being tested to be used to partner with drugs whose effects have started to wain to boost their efficacy, and they have a proprietary tech platform to assist their search for new strains of bacteria for further trial pipeline). These reasons I ghink help explain the difference, but I still think VAL has plenty of legs!

Hi Orphidian. It's available from the 4d pharma website

I too had a watch of the recording of the webinar and will also put my hand up to having a good amount of it going over my head. What I'd add to what Wondergoals said is that they had a great panel leading the discussion, obviously enthused by what they are working on.

As not everyone has the time (or necessarily the desire!) to sit through a 1hr15min science focused webinar I thought I'd pick out some things that I took as of particular note from the session:
37min20sec: Summary slide - 'The MicroRX platform enables identification and characterization of LBP candidates that target functional pathological pathways to provide novel solutions for diseases with limited treatment options
- 4D pharma has successfully merged traditional pharmaceutical drug discovery approaches with our novel microbiome LBP screening platform
- Our proprietary technologies and focus on function have been validated in multiple disease areas
- Development of strain-specific engineering tools to characterise LBPs answers key questions about their mechanism of action'
38min05sec: Drug Pipeline Chart - a clear chart showing what is the pipeline, at current stage for each of drugs currently being investigated - this shows the breadth of areas currently under active investigation / trial
1hr10min59sec: From the Q&A session Patents - 'We have over 1,000 granted patents...... Far and away the largest in the microbiome space'

The pharma space is typically a high risk high reward space, so we shouldn't allow ourselves to get too carried away, but it's great to see and here of the potential in a wide range of applications through the relatively novel approach of exploiting the microbiome. I'm looking forward in particular to news relating to conclusion of Blautix phase II trial.

Motifbio was a very different situation - I got my fingers burnt on that on but learnt a lot in the process. Motif were born through the purchase of a single drug (Iclaprim) that had been advanced by another company which ran out of cash through the trials process when the FDA raised concerns and therefore looked for extended trials to be conducted to address their concerns. Motif both the drug rights along with an amount of Iclaprim and set about constructing trials to address the FDAs concerns. All seemed to be going well until the results of the Phase 3 trial consideration came back. The FDA didn't reject it but asked for further trials around concerns on liver toxicity to be conducted. The share price lost about 95% of its value in the first few minutes of trading that day. Why was it different to DDDD, well (1) they only had a single drug that they were progressing,(2) it was a novel action antibiotic rather than bacteria, (3) they did not partner with a major pharmaceutical company which presented cost and access challenges for generating large enough trials and also for finding a viable market delivery method,(4) as cash reserves dwindled there were raises and then a loan facility arranged through a firm called Hercules - when the share crashed Hercules took on the first rights to any value being realised from Iclaprim.
Ultimately pharma is a risky business where many drugs and associated companies fail for each one that gets through. To mitigate against failure I would contend you are looking to a well financed company, with multiple credible drugs / treatments contending for trial, a strong management team and support from a major pharma for the trials process. To my mind DDDD fits that criteria and hence I'm in, but at a more cautious level than when I was with Motif.

Hi JonnyGee. I will not pretend to be well researched on this topic, rather I've been invested in here since 2018 based upon my liking of the target business model, and bouyed by their execution against their stated intent and the continued buy in of the directors. To your specific questions I suspect that this will not provide the clarity that you are after, but i would recommend that you watch (if you haven't already) the presentation that f15jcm linked to (thanks f15jcm!). In that I've noted some key points of interest:
1) 7:30 Capex consideration
2) 11:15 Hedging
3) 12:18 Smarter Wells Programme. In relation to this:
a) 13:40 Swabbing. This includes a guide on cost for swabbing being hundreds to a couple of thousand dollars - doesn't indicate return on this but is illustrative of low cost actions taken.
b) Statement made the majority of expense is operating expense not Capex due to the nature of their model
Hope this is of some relevance/interest to your points.

After a Shares magazine article back in 2017 I dipped my toe in here, and then accumulated to the point of having this as my largest holding in my SIPP. I've read all the posts with interest and in particular your insightful posts, Ivyspivey. I'm hoping and believing that this will come good for us all, despite the auto trade sell shennanigans - the science is good with a much needed new AB. Looking forward to hearing FDA approval and fingers crossed for a partnership deal soon after. GLA

Announcement of another proposed acquisition which constitutes a reverse takeover and under AIM rules means the share must be suspended while the deal is hopefully hammered out (I say hopefully as it can't be seen as a done deal at this point). For further details read yesterday's RNS announcement). Further evidence of DGOC executing their strategy.

Liked the proposition here when I bought in and have seen steady sp growth, backed by a clear plan of targeted acquisitions to provide increased production and a dividend - a plan which can be seen to be being delivered. Not bad for an AIM listed stock! https://www.ft.com/content/2b76ab0e-5452-11e8-b3ee-41e0209208ec Always DYOR.....