Member Info for Faliran

That's why I'm hoping for a buy-out by Schurter - so I don't have to lose sleep over whether I am selling out at the highest price available.

Confirmed.

ChatGPT has given me the following ranked shortlist, but that's just a higher form of speculation:

🥇 1. TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company)

Why Likely:

World's largest and most advanced chip foundry (3nm & 2nm processes).

Operates extremely high-tech fabs with demanding reliability and thermal standards.

Contracts top-tier suppliers for fab tool components.

CAP-XX could be supplying components to TSMC directly or via its tool vendors.

🥈 2. Intel (USA)

Why Likely:

Operates massive fabrication plants in the US, Europe, and Israel.

Aggressively investing in fab modernization (e.g., Intel Foundry).

Known for working with specialized component vendors for fab support infrastructure.

Could integrate CAP-XX's supercapacitors into fab control or backup systems.

🥉 3. Samsung Electronics (South Korea)

Why Likely:

World leader in DRAM, NAND, and advanced logic chips.

Operates cutting-edge fabs with high thermal demands.

Has in-house engineering teams that value energy resilience in fab tools.

🏅 4. Applied Materials (USA) – (Semiconductor Equipment Supplier)

Why Likely:

World's largest supplier of semiconductor manufacturing equipment.

Makes high-temperature chambers, plasma etching tools, etc.

If CAP-XX is supplying equipment components, the design win could be with Applied rather than a chipmaker directly.

🏅 5. Micron Technology (USA)

Why Likely:

Heavy DRAM and NAND production involving high-temp processes.

Investing in fab expansions (e.g., Boise and India).

Would likely adopt energy-resilient technologies to minimize downtime.

Not Hale and Pace?

Which one was that?

Thanks. Yes, rather unseemly.

Could you provide a link to that exchange as I can't find it - many thanks.

Forgive me for being an old cynic, but it seems to me that if chartistry really worked as an investment tool even most of the time by now someone would have set up an investment fund making decisions based exclusively on its predictions. Then we could all dump our life savings into it and retire wealthy after a few years. I am of course happy to be schooled if I am being excessively dismissive here.

Noted, but it is the recent judgment on this subject that confuses me (sorry to post it again):

https://www.rossmartin.co.uk/sme-tax-news/6260-distribution-of-share-premium-subject-to-income-tax#:~:text=In%20Alexander%20Beard%20v%20HMRC,and%20not%20capital%20gains%20tax.

I might write and ask HL what this is about. I will share the answer when I get it.

I've been wondering about this, as this law report suggests it's just a dividend by another name, and that it might not be possible to use it to reduce the acquisition cost and/or treat it as a capital gain:

https://www.rossmartin.co.uk/sme-tax-news/6260-distribution-of-share-premium-subject-to-income-tax#:~:text=In%20Alexander%20Beard%20v%20HMRC,and%20not%20capital%20gains%20tax.

I am very happy to be corrected, though.

It's quite late in the day to be arranging litigation funding, although it is possible that the merits have only now reached the point where such an arrangement would be available. The question arises why CPX is (presumably) offering a slice of the anticipated damages as the incentive for entering into the scheme. I can only imagine that CPX is seeking to de-risk the legal costs of the hearing - litigation risk never disappears entirely, and hearings are expensive - and/or retaining 100% of the damages is less important than showing the market that CPX will challenge any infringement of its IP in court.

These arrangements come in different varieties: maybe "no win, no fee" with the service provider getting a percentage of the damages in the event of success, or a "success fee", where they charge a lower hourly rate with in uplift in the event of success. Other arrangements and variations can be agreed. Two key points are: if the loser is going to have to pay the winner's costs, an arrangement should be in place to cover this, e.g. "after the event" legal costs insurance; and also to draft the agreement so that the lawyers only get their full reward if the damages are actually received, rather than just obtaining a paper judgment with no-one to enforce it on.

I'm a litigator by trade (please don't hate me) and my experience is that litigation funding for a contentious matter like this is extremely hard to come by unless the prospects of success are very high indeed. So I'm cautiously optimistic, but hope that the quid pro quo for the funder in the event of success is not too excessive.

FWIW, I sent the following to Avenir on Sunday:

I understand that you are the registrar for Contango Holdings Plc (“Contango”), and as such will shortly be making a distribution of Contango shares to holders of Consolidated Growth Holdings Ltd (“CGH”).

A number of shareholders in CGH (myself included) maintain their holdings in nominee accounts provided by Hargreaves Lansdown. May I therefore ask you to confirm that Contango shares will be distributed to those CGH shareholders, who do not of course possess paper share certificates and are unlikely to be named in person on any list of shareholders. In this regard I understand that some other nominee shareholding entities have already informed their CGH shareholder clients that they will receive their allocation of Contango shares in due course.

Thank you for your attention in this regard, and I look forward to hearing from you.

I have written to HL again asking them to confirm that they are in contact with Avenir regarding the CGO shares and advising that they have a duty of care as a nominee shareholder to take these steps in order to ensure that their customers get their shares. No response yet.

In the meantime, I understand that interactive investor and Charles Stanley have stepped up - are there any other nominee shareholders which have communicated with their clients in this regard?

Next step for me - a message to Avenir, I think.

Call me Mr Pedantic, but I might go back and suggest that HL should proactively approach Avenir Registrars now to ensure that nominee shareholders are included in this distribution, rather than just holders of physical share certificates.

I wrote to HL last night including the Dropbox address in the message, and just received the following:

"Thank you for your message.

Once we have full confirmation and information from the company rest assured we will be in contract [sic] with clients confirming the details and the next steps.

I hope this has been of assistance. If you have any other questions, please get back to me."

JT,
Many, many thanks for sharing. Is there any objection to my sending a copy to HL to say (in more formal terms): "This is what's happening, you're the nominee holder on our behalf, please do whatever is required to get us our CGO shares"?

Many thanks, all well noted. I will get something off to them myself.