Member Info for HenryHistorian

@GigaWitt: Just for your benefit: Edison spoke about USD 200-250m for lost revenues only for the US.
Again for your benefit the US is only one third of the global past sale.
Dress it up like you want it but this settlement is shameful, shameful, shameful and an utter betrayal by Brian Tenner.

He has intentionally deceived investors.

@GigaWitt: I and other investors have every reason to be indignant as Brian Tenner has intentionally deceived investors.
May I repeat that BT stated that he would only accept a settlement that would be multiples of share price, that would be transformational for shareholder value.
Investors were lied to and were betrayed and there need to be consequences.
This is very close to fraud that has happened here by Brian Tenner.

I am at 100% agreement with BeContrarian, Feeks etc.
This was a complete capitulation AFTER repeated strong messaging from Brian Tenner that he was happy to go to court and would only do so if he got an agreement that was fair. Today’s deal is anything but a fair compensation and it takes some guts for Brian Tenner and others to even try to dress this up as a success.
There need to be consequences as I have never seen repeated wrong messaging from a CEO.
Also like many other investors here one cannot believe in anything Brian Tenner says. The way this case has handled just speaks volumes.
So my heartfelt advice: Sell Nanoco shares at a decent price if you can and don’t revisit.
No point in investing in a company where the CEO is happy to betray the trust of investors.

No GigaWitt it was not clear as Nanoco has never published the model that they are now drawing out of their black box.
BT has repeatedly deceived investors there can be no mistake about this.
He has zero credibility left.

I think time has come for investors to get rid of Brian Tenner.
Do others share my view that given the betrayal of investors his position has become untenable?

@Yuri: Yes a win that got Nanoco investors a slice of bread with some butter on top.
The only one celebrating today are Samsung, some lawyers and BT who knows that his big salary is safe.

@Sammy and all: There is absolutely NO case for optimism left.
The bottom line for any investor should be trust in the management of the company he or she invests in.
After today’s betrayal of investors no such faith can be placed in Brian Tenner. It is now abundantly clear that he has deceived investors with the messaging that he repeatedly put out. Quite simply no one can or should Trust one single word coming out of Mr Tenner’s mouth.
With regard to Nanoco’s damages model: Clearly none of the many investors that have studied this company here and that read through all the research and presentations that BT gave was aware of this. Brian Tenner probably scribbled it on the back of an envelope and kept it in a drawer to himself.
So zero marks to him and my advice to other investors: Stay away from Nanoco!!!

@lejjb: I share your thoughts entirely.

No matter what spin BT and Nanoco BoD try to put on this this is a sell-out and a betrayal of investors in the company. BT has deceived investors.

This company’s management has zero credibility left and needs to go ASAP.

@Nanonano: The Nanoco cake will be 1 inch in diameter and old. Anyone have a bite at your own peril.
Management has disgraced itself today and is not trustworthy. There really cannot be any other conclusion from this “settlement”.

One word: Betrayal

@Buzzfledderjohn: IF (!!!) the outcome is as you believe it to be than this would be in direct opposition to BT stressing that he would only accept a fair settlement that would be a) global and b) stretching to all the years into the future where a patent is still valid.
If one would accept a settlement under which Samsung would pay only effectively for US past sales and not even for global past sales let alone future sale than this would be an unpardonable and quite frankly hard to comprehend breach of trust to me.
We will see - two camps are here on this board and all to be revealed soon.

@Screenlearner: I hold a lot of Nanoco shares and I will use how this settlement was handled and what settlement amount as test case whether I can trust Nanoco management’s messaging.
We all remember that BT spoke about two major inflection points and which would be transformational in value - well this is the first one. If this does not fire up I honestly don’t think that one needs afterwards trust that the second one will be either.
At the moment the jury is still out.

@FH: I answered specifically to the dual use question.
I still believe that we will get a decent amount of money that will see an upside from the current share price.
Having said that the way the two RNS were handled and the unclear communication has left me a bit confused and disappointed.

I referred to my gut feeling so it is just my hunch.
To be honest the communication of the two RNS has dented my confidence but maybe I am just being ground down by the long wait.

My gut feel is not positive on this. Samsung clearly already have their sources in place. Right now they try to get away with a single payment to do as they please - and it is up to N management to make sure that the payment will be sufficient in size to be transformational for company and shareholders.

Strange the number of buys is more than the double of sells and yet the share price falls…??

Reading the board here this is my impression:
People are emotionally and financially invested in a company that can/hopefully will do tremendous for patients and shareholders.
However a lot just rests on the company and here we need to rely on the excellent scientists of LD and team.
Of course a company loses credibility and some percentage in share price but I can guarantee that all the current frustration on this board will be swept away and forgotten if one very good Modi RNS lands.
So you either stay in or you stay out - as easy as that.
One thing is certain: If a big Pharma wants this they will not care whether the share price is 18p or 25p as they would need to buy at multiples anyway… say 80p, 100p…
I am just making the point that the big scheme is what people need to keep in mind.

Dear all,
I will now discontinue following the forum here until we get the RNS - mainly as the tone here has become more childish and more personal.
As a final message here my thoughts why one should be cautiously optimistic:
1. Nanoco had a strong case (they wouldn’t have found a litigation partner if this was not true and remember the PTAB clean sheet win) and a strong legal team as Mintz so far have executed perfectly.
2. It is clear that Samsung approached N very shortly before start of trial - the Samsung executives are not nice people, they did it because they didn’t want this to go to court.
3. BT has always said that he preferred a negotiated settlement and for various pragmatic reasons I and others here would agree.
The crucial point here and I guess this is also a question whether you trust BT and the BoD what numbers they agreed on and deemed fair.
At various points in time BT spoke about the legal process being a major inflection point in time and transformational for shareholder value.
Now we all know that for a settlement N had to shave off some of their expectations but I expect that BT throughout the settlement negotiations is conscious of the words he used and ensures that the final amount is not far away from transformational- his credibility is at stake here.
And to give GigaWitt a bit credit the second RNS was funnily worded and could definitely be interpreted to manage down expectations- the question (which no one can here answer if we are all honest) by how much

That’s all folks from me. Take care.

@GigaWitt: But what impossible position could that have been? I mean their legal case and team was strong otherwise Samsung would not have approached them for settlement. Nanoco was fully funded until 2025 and so is not under pressure to accept any deal/terms.

@GigaWitt: I am sure that Nanoco and Nanoco’s lawyers must have done dozens and dozens of tests and simulations to test the strength of their case and indeed what Samsung might come up with. With respect I doubt that your scenario is therefore correct.
One point that I am making and that left me a bit wondering: in one presentation this year BT stressed very much that he would like a negotiated settlement. I recall that back then and even now I wonder whether he was too keen on a settlement. Again I get the advantages of a settlement but maybe our messaging in this case was too much of an invite to Samsung.
However I also find strange that this seems to be a really a last minute agreement- could it be that Samsung corporate chieftains decided to play hardball although they could have reached out for a settlement on say 11th September?