Member Info for Ginodog

Yep - good work Lej.

What a DimWitt.

Spot on again Bluerill.

PS the question marks are actually hand clapping emojis (they show up as question marks for some reason!)

Bluerill - I’m giving you a full standing ovation. He may be much more subtle than FH but you’ve absolutely nailed the Gig to the wall with your summary. Bravo!????????

Crisplex - I agree but she knows what she meant when she wrote that. So if it stops the Stock Bashers keep pulling out that Edison sound bite, then all the better.

FH, Gig - I have fired off an email to Anne Margaret Crow who penned the Edison note to ask for clarification on what she meant by “If the company retains any of the final settlement money….”

Will await a response and post here so that we can all get some clarity.

Gig - the market will be pricing in the worst case scenario of the settlement and has found its level in the mid/high thirties. Ergo, the market doesn’t believe that this could settle without Nano retaining any of the settlement. Pulling out a sound bite from the Edison note - when people have already pointed to what it likely means, the RNS is clear, and the market has reacted in a way that £0 isn’t realistic - is pretty irksome.

I find it unkind when the Stock Bashers suddenly appear from nowhere here - intent on overloading this board with their tirade of negativity. So will find myself fighting back.

All well balanced opinions formed using evidence at hand are welcomed.

*excuse the iPhone typos

“Litigants often get into situations they later find they can't handle. There's always at least one party who comes out of it badly and very often there are no winners except the layers. It happens every day”

Not denying this but bit that is pretty easy to follow if there a few bits of grey matter between the ears is that
1. The RNS statement was released 13 days ago
2. This statement was released AFTER an offer was presented from Samsung and accepted (subject to landing final loose ends in the following 30 days)
3. The company used the words “fair value to the company and its shareholders” in the RNS
4. They would have know EXACTLY how much of the settlement will be dished back out to the lawyers and finders at this stage.

If you think that, with the above in mind, that Nano can still end up retaining £0 then you either need to book a trip to the GP pretty sharpish or your motives are very obviously questionable.

Thanks JBongo - well stated.

He’ll probably just ignore but it appears as if he may have a head injury.

The company have seen the settlement on the table and have agreed it and have stated that it provides fair value for the company and its shareholders.

I’m not sure whether to believe that OR believe someone who’s appeared out of nowhere three weeks ago and is peddling that fair value to the company and to shareholders could well be £0!

What an embarrassment to this board.

“ Nanoco will pay full legal costs from the reduced early settlement and a multiple of that will be given to the funder.
The reality is zero is a possibility.”

Can you please explain in English how your suggested outcome of zero being a possibility equates to the “fair value for the company and its shareholders” specifically stated in the RNS put out by the company?

“ Retaining nothing is now entirely credible.”

Apt that this statement actually dissolves any of his own credibility.

The Monday RNS said “ In evaluating the settlement offer and concluding that it provides a fair outcome for the Company and its shareholders”

If you are suggesting that the “fair outcome for the company and its shareholders” involves £0 retention of the payout then you are even more embarrassing than your string of posts suggest.

Nano make the decisions, not the funder nor Mintz. Any poster supporting the theory that Nano may walk away after all of this and having agreed to settle, without retaining any of the award, loses all credibility. (Regardless of the Edison note). Not that the posters in question had any credibility in the first place (all activity straight out of the stock basher / shorter playbook).

Ah makes sense now. Sold at a loss - now wants to see others lose.

So a slight variation of my previous metaphor.

You’ve lost all your chips at the poker table but instead of leaving the casino, you are standing next to the poker table shouting at the other players in hope that they will also lose all of their chips.

Class act.

It’s not DULL FH is very important in the context of your narrative. If you are fully behind your own convictions then what is your issue with sharing the price you sold at with the board?

Of course, I 100% know that you won’t, as this is the MO of what you (and the like of you) do.

……occasionally check in on this board prior to the RNS due.

It’s just full of clap trap from the Johnny Come Lately bashing crew.

Really don’t think that anyone genuine here is unable to see right through these posters motives.

You’ve got up from the poker table with your chips but you are still standing around the table, willing those left at the to lose their chips and shouting loudly at them that they are going to lose. That’s not spectating.

You aren’t spectating though are you?