Member Info for HenryHistorian

FlyingHigher makes a valid point. The big prize was Samsung and Brian Tenner despite all his boisterous talk capitulated in the end. All other cases pale into comparison. Quite frankly having an in-house lawyer just to go after these minnows does not make sense nor does paying an external litigation partner a big share of what will be a modest outcome- quite frankly I don’t think that many litigation partners will actually be interested in going after the small fry.
Like others I found it concerning that Brian Tenner focused on this rather than on new business but maybe we private investors get one kind of briefing and LOAM a different one…. I wouldn’t be surprised at all.

@Gonebroke; You might be right but as a shareholder I would like commercialisation first on existing products… and given that they had achieved that through underhand and unscrupulous Samsung evidence that they will not be fobbed off again…

@NGR: It is not and this is why Brian Tenner has failed to stand up to them at the final hurdle but it turned out that he was all bluster.

@bonzof: Yes any out of court litigation would be lower but soooo low? I mean Samsung could easily have settled for USD 250 million and still not sweated for a second….
And the one thing I don’t get is this: The fund raise at the inflated price of 37p saw us being fully funded until 2025 with the litigation party picking up all the legal costs… so why settle for a low amount when there is apparently no immediate business need for funding… unless you want as a CEO and board to feather your nest until retirement.
So to underline again: Happy for a settlement to have taken place but feeling misled and thinking we didn’t play hardball enough.

@troublesome: Haha no I did history as an undergraduate and loved it. Great and friendly lecturers during my time such as Professors Tim Blanning, Christopher Clarke, Orlando Figes etc.
Only have good memories.

@Tornadotony: I went to a German grammar school and received excellent grades before doing a BA and Master degree at Cambridge University. Granted I never got a First but at least an Upper Second in every year.
You can accuse me of some things but stupid is not one of them. And for the final time: I am not shorting Nanoco and at the current share price the immediate/mid term downside risk is very limited but I think it is only fair to warn potential investors that the CEO has no qualms to pull the wool over the eyes of private investors and that is concerning - including for existing shareholders.

@NGR: Don’t think for one second that you are speaking to stupid people here.
I listened to Nanoco presentations by Brian Tenner and even back then I was aware that not only Nanoco investors would be listening to them but also Samsung’s lawyers and maybe even Samsung staff as well. So I was aware that part of the presentation was addressed to Nanoco stakeholders but also that some of the messaging in a way was for Samsung.
The fundamental problem is that all the expectations that BT set out also with the help of Edison and the media The Times was many many miles away from what he agreed to. As some will recall many investors after the infamous second RNS were desperately scrambling to look when lower guidance was ever given - turns out hidden in some legal documents.
No, no, no - for the benefit of potential future investors in Nanoco I will continue to point out how private investors were misled by Brian Tenner and why they should exert extreme caution when thinking about to invest in Nanoco- and mind you I say this as someone who is presently a shareholder and in whose (financial) interest it would be to talk u this share.

We would have won - the evidence was fairly damming as you could have gathered if you had read through the board…and do remember that it was Samsung that approached Nanoco for settlement.
Valid question on when we would have received payout but do remember that in 2024 we would probably got injunctions in place in key markets for Samsung…
Now if you see a threat that no commercialisation would happen and this induced the board to accept this low settlement amount so why are you so confident about Nanoco now…?? It makes no sense..

@NGR: You just don’t get it do you?
I don’t advise anyone to sell at the current share price as it is already so beaten down.

All I have been saying is that Brian Tenner has misled many private investors over months. I am fine for a CEO to be confident about his/her company but not to ramp it in the way Tenner did. whilst having in the back of his mind a settlement expectation that was as low as USD 50m. He clearly didn’t mention this to Edison and was happy to have figures stated there pointing to USD 200-300m for US lost revenues.
He was happy to let articles appear in The Times speaking about USD 500m (as in the article in May) and didn’t attempt to rein in/present a more nuanced and cautionary picture.
Quite frankly Brian Tenner’s conduct has been despicable and I and others will not gloss over it.
As for my remaining 1/3 of shares I will hold as I believe the current share price is low - will I add back in…probably not as I don’t trust the CEO anymore.

Now you can add if you want but right now we have no proof that Nanoco will deliver- if LO adds back in either they have information that the market does not have (let us hope not for the integrity of the stock market) or they came to the conclusion that right now the upside potential significantly outweighs the downside potential.

But one last request: Stop being an apologist for Tenner and the board.

@NGR: Yes I am bitter but as one of the investors that have been deliberately misled I and others have every right to be bitter.
Just that you and others know: I sold ca 2/3 of my Nanoco shares but hold on to the remaining 1/3.

Tornadotony: I am not a shorter and it is up to each and everyone of us to make up his or her mind.
However, when people try to ramp Nanoco up on nothing firm but hope than all I can say we have been there before. Brian Tenner making big claims about the settlement which he didn’t honour in the end, and the fact that he had the guts to point to a low model that was never shared or alluded to in the presentations he gave to investors in 2022…

Give me a break…

@NGR: How sad to try to bait someone- I will not rise to your nonsense

I certainly don’t remain trusting of the board. We shouldn’t kidd ourselves. Brian Tenner through his rhetoric maintained a misleading picture over months and the paid for research by Edison (paid for by Nanoco!!!) also further maintained and fed expectations that were only rumbled by the second RNS.
I can only warn investors not to give any credence to the words of Brian Tenner and the board. Do only invest once there are news of any contracts.
I mean well.

@NaGR: You don’t even know the meaning of polite

Tony: I agree it is a speculative investment after Brian Tenner capitulated to Samsung by breaking all his previously communicated red lines, Quite frankly there are other speculative stocks out there which might provide more upside more quickly.

I invested in Nanoco when I HAD confidence- this confidence is now gone. I still hold as I know that the company is well funded and that the share price has found a floor.
Once I see a really compelling investment opportunity in another company I will sell up.
I honestly believe that Brian Tenner has misled investors over many months and anyone who doesn’t realise this cannot be helped.

I hold for the small chance that it rises a bit and I will sell up once I found a good opportunity.
Nanoco is now just not attractive as one just cannot trust the management team.

I hate to break it but Nanoco is a busted flash and I say this as someone who still holds shares.
Basically the big prize was Samsung and here Brian Tenner broke his word he gave to Nanoco shareholders.
The USD 150m is laughable compensation for Nanoco and we don’t even get this amount but almost half of it goes to litigation funder etc.
Yes the litigation amount is transformational as now Brian Tenner knows that his overinflated salary is safe for the next few years.
Interesting to note that sensing business is not even mentioned - probably fair to say that the fairies are looking into this.
What a sad joke.

I would appreciate it that a lie detector test is taken when confident statements are made - that would reassure me to a certain degree.

@NGR: Brian Tenner spoke about two major inflection points which would be transformational with the first being the litigation- he was very specific about this.
Really there is no excuse how shareholders were misled.

@PVX233: The share price reached 70p on the day that settlement has been agreed was published - given that Brian Tenner had raised /stoked expectations by saying things like “transformational” and “major inflection point” etc no one had thought that this would mean that Brian Tenner would agree to a settlement that does not cover past global license income let alone future license income.
Nanoco shareholders were sold down the river.