Member Info for Feeks

Terry, the sums are relative. There will be many instances of where a claimant company has settled for less than 10% of the immediate claim value just like Nanoc did. However Nanoco choosing to settle for an undervalue to its own publicly stated investor guidance is without known precedent - unless you can name one. Go on, can you? I'll wait for you to answer.

Terry

Comedy is not your strong point, except when you are trying to be serious that is

"Critical thinking doesn't mean being critical it means having the presence of mind to know what's happening "

Do YOU know what's happening TW?

Does not look good. I'm taking a pause at this stage to see how this develops.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gqr5lrpwxo

Misty

Others will groan at this question, but I've only just reappered here so why do you say that Peter lied you and why do you despise the BOD?

“ ...skin-to-skin contact and talking or breathing close to another person. ”

Did you think that was just foreplay, reece?

Interviewer: A quick question for you Brian. Given your recent experience in the US Patent court, what advice would you give to a company litigatiing in the hope of obtaining a $150m damages award?

Brian: Start with a claim worth over $1.5bn.

A 15p share price speaks for itself Terry. The market has judged and it is never wrong. Total loss of faith in the Board, and rightly so.

He is a clown par excellence who has miunderstood juat about everything - and yet somehow managed to unearth a relevant legal precedent and identify its relevance to the Samsung case. Does anyone else find that odd.. ? Did someone give it to him ?

Https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg35w27gzno

That's typical bad luck fot WSG isn't it?

Kooba you are spot on yet again. That's why I sold. Management CANNOT be trusted. The only way that belief can now be restored is an RNS of commercial agreement/ production order. The gen1 RNS delay proves it once more that this possibility is still way over the horizon

But SmthyB - My "ramping" as you put it was simply aechoing BT's own careful messaging. It all rests at his feet.

You can paste my message if it helps you make a point. My dim memory of that poat was that LOAM selling was not a sign of anything but was a risk averse investment tactic. I.e profit taking for prudent management of their position.

If Hamoodi is right they always knew far more .

So what is your point?

Surely we should all sue? Nanoco will fight like a wet lettuce it can shell out its £20m to hard done by PI's . Everyone goes home happy. By contrast the current end game is £20m shelled out on staff and Directors over the next 3 years and with nothing again for investors. But Terry goes home happy.

Not even close SmithyB. I added at various stages including on the fundraise, on settlement RNS, and in direct reliance upon BT's public comments. You are right, I really ought to sue.

Not bitter. Totally switched off from Nanoco actually as I feel very sure it won't ever come to anything. I said as much when selling out after the litigation debacle and that was a lomg time ago now. I am very happy with that decision . I have never bothered to listen to the investor conference when BT sought to explain himself. I know what happened and I knew it would be yet more BS, my view being it would be a total waste of my time amd energy. What makes me laugh though TW (and what keeps me here) are your strident and inflated opinions when in truth you seem to get the wrong message from just about every RNS and post. It is pure comedy to behold. A source of amusement. I love investing. I love your multi ID sock puppeted character creations. In my time I've taking both heavy losses and scored major gains, but win or lose I just love and enjoy investing. That's me!

Troublesome. Re TW. I had better not answer that but there is certainly no common ground

Personally, I don't find any objection to NGR or the way he chooses to express himself. Hope my view is not too controversial! I'm hopeful the Hamoodi claim is upheld in a judgment - but guess what - it will be settled out of court.

That's a sizeable market added which helps the IP value if not immediately the sales revenues

Https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/665f5d41445ee2217bfa4448?utm_source=amp&target=amp_jtext

This is what 'ordinary' PIs are up against. It doesn't look much like a level playing field.