Member Info for HenryHistorian

The only thing that is good is the science and the share price.
The management cannot be trusted so I can understand why people don’t rush to buy shares.

@Nanogeddon: Correct! I mean I have so often seen CEOs or CFOs dip into their pockets to buy shares - especially at times when the market or investors wanted to see a clear sign of confidence from the people running the company.
Brian Tenner does not need to appease me but he needs to step up to the plate and instill confidence in Nanoco by ACTIONS not words.
That he cannot even think that at a share price of 24p Nanoco is worth an investment over say 30-40k should provide food for thought to anyone on our forum.

@GuardianAngel; You betray a strange eagerness to overlook some things:
1. Right now we only have Brian Tenner’s words for the future: Given how his big confident statements and pronouncements played out with regard to the settlement/litigation I wonder why anyone would still believe anything he is saying???
2. By almost giving away in practice the display business to Samsung this business area is pretty much gone…so our only hope is sensor and that seems to be very early days.
3. I find it curious that Brian Tenner does not invest any significant amount of his own money right now.
After all we receive some cash and the share price is low despite a settlement that he called transformational. Many other CEOs buy shares in such a situation to give a clear signal to the market in general and to demonstrate to investors that the CEO is in alignment of interest with investors. However no investment was made by Brian Tenner, not even a modest one over say GBP 25,000.00 - given his very substantial salary he could easily do one.
Nah all this does not inspire me with confidence.
Sorry.

@Nanonano: And let us remember that US sales are only one third of global sales so to take your number of USD 90m for past US sales one would need to take this by 3 and get USD 270m for past global sales… and that is still excluding future sales.

No matter how some people try to twist it in this forum the settlement outcome is a joke and I have only very little confidence in Brian Tenner left.
It is clear that he was following this board and he was happy to have many private investors lose substantial amounts of their hard earned money.
I took a hit that is bearable and still retain one third of my shares but BT has behaved in a despicable manner towards his investor base - let’s make no bones about this.

@FlyingHigher: It is but let’s face it the trust had gone from ca 90% of investors and only ca 10% die hard optimists would still believe Brian Tenner.
I mean the fund raising at 37p is a complete joke if all along Nanoco had internally envisaged a scenario of USD 50m…which of course was never shared or communicated in any of the presentations that Brian Tenner gave.
This man has zero zero zero credibility left.

@FlyingHigher: You hit the nail on the head. The Samsung litigation case was the golden pot that turned to be a pot made out of bronze.
All the other cases will not yield the same results and to be honest if you need to pay lawyers and don’t get enough money as cash-out what is the point of suing in the first place.
Yours,
a totally disenchanted Nanoco shareholder.

@bonzoful: Really- let’s say Nanoco cost base is GBP 6 million and ST Micro or someone else gives us orders over GBP 6 million- that would cover it already…
I think all this is rather lame excuses…after all enough parties are happy to team up for research projects anyway.

@NGR: I am just wondering where the gaps are as there is:
1) A gap between the messaging and rhetoric of Brian Tenner and the modest settlement amount
2) Potential gap of alignment of interest between Nanoco CEO and BoD and investors: It seems to me that in the end they cared more about getting the money in than realising what Nanoco could have realistically achieved.

@Gonebroke/NGR: The injunction in Germany and one or two other major markets that Nanoco could have got in 2024 would have focused Samsung’s minds so I don’t believe the spiel about 4-5 years of appeals.

@Gonebroke: Trial risk in my eyes was very small as the resounding PTAB verdict as well as some of the emails that were quoted in this forum were very strongly pointing to a Nanoco victory in court if we had gone to trial.

Again I note that USD 150m after all these
efforts and the potential amount awarded feels like capitulation and not a fair settlement at all - especially as Samsung could easily have paid out say USD 350-400m.

@Gonebroke: My very rough calculation was simple:
We were repeatedly told by Edison that lost revenues for US past sales alone were ca USD 200m and that the US sales were only one third for global past sales so by deduction we were led to believe that past global sales would be 3 x USD 200m = USD 600m.
Now I in my head told myself that if this is a negotiated settlement Nanoco would have to sacrifice something from this figure of USD 600m, so let’s say maybe write off USD 200m or so.
However as there are also future sales I roughly calculated that easily there should be another USD 200m be possible as licence fee income when considering that patents have at least another 5 years to run and that ca 10m QD TVs are sold annually.
I hope you understand that my expectation of ca USD 500-600m as settlement amount for past and future global sales should have been achievable.
I also not that in the Times there were two articles that had stated that in the City people believe that this could be the value of the litigation.
So all I can conclude again is that Brian Tenner was happy to have research put out there for which Nanoco paid and for which Nanoco should have some moral responsibility that grossly overstated things - or which failed to flesh out what a low level outcome could be.
If this information was buried in documents submitted to the US court and thus should also be have seen by Samsung lawyers I fail to see why Brian Tenner was not more straightforward and transparent with Nanoco shareholders.

Let’s not be nasty to each other.

I read a lot of comments but none convince me.
For example court case here or there what would stop Nanoco hiring a business development director?
Court case here or there what would stop Apple from orders to Nanoco. Apple and others know the cost base of Nanoco and by placing an order of say GBP 6 million could easily secure Nanoco viability.
I think too many people are desperately trying to defend Brian Tenner.

BT must have had many conversations over the months and to believe that he was bumped into this deal is wrong. I genuinely believe that he misled investors and that there is no viable excuse for him agreeing to a deal that signed away a lot of Nanoco’s worth for a song.
Sorry but for me he has no credibility left and quite frankly so have Edison etc.

Frankly I don’t understand the criticism of the RNS.
Scancell is a science company and as such I prefer clear scientific non-rampy RNS.
In my experience CEOs that ramp often have no good products to sell.
A high stable (!!!) share price of Scancell will depend on scientific success when more institutional buyers and Pharma take note and not on hot money from retail investors.

@Torpedo: The vitriole, alas, is merited. Over months Brian Tenner’s messaging was very bullish and confident. He informed investors that he would only accept a settlement that would be fair value and compensate adequately for past sales and future sales on a global scale. His messaging was flanked by paid (!!!) research by Edison that put past lost revenues for the US alone at ca USD 200-250 million. I repeat this was just for the US alone. Many investors took the view that one would need to times USD 200m by a factor of 3 for lost global revenues. So arriving at a figure of USD 600 million.
And this is just for the past!
So in this context you will hopefully understand that many investors feel that they have been misled by Nanoco and Brian Tenner and that USD 150 million is actually a disappointing outcome - mind you the USD 150 million don’t even go fully to Nanoco but a very big chunk to lawyers etc.
Again I was not one carried away and hoping for 150p or even 120p but an outcome placing the share price somewhere in the 80-100p range would have been an acceptable outcome and one that would actually have fulfilled Brian Tenner’s words of “major inflection point” and “multiples of current” share price.
The share price past settlement is maybe even clearer indictment of how the market views now the company and the credibility of its management.

@I trusivethought: Patents are only worth something in a commercial sense if they can be used to create sales and profits. BT has signed away for a glorified sandwich one big source of income that could have been achieved if we had gone to court or if he had accepted a settlement that was actually a fair compensation for past global and future sales.
Brian Tenner should resign - he has misled and betrayed investors.

Unfortunately I am very sceptical for several reasons:
First the apologetic tone of the 09.01 RNS. It seemed to me that Nanoco management tried to shift “blame” / acceptance to the settlement to their external advisors.
Also in the final RNS reference could have been made in general terms to “looking forward to working with Samsung in the future” - this would not have given away any commercial secrets but have been a pointer - but nothing.

My sincere thanks Nanogeddon and Screenlearner.
Your words help me to overcome what is quite a mentally challenging situation for me.

@intrusivethought: The crater in the share price is largely due to the exaggerated messaging from Brian Tenner over the course of months. I don’t think it is too much to expect of a CEO to go out and present and explain the settlement and the reasons behind it to investors.