The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
@peregrine: Surely the litigation founder would have done extensive due diligence on the strength of Nanoco’s case before committing to funding it? They didn’t detect any weakness it seems otherwise their investment would have been deemed risky. Again Mintz are very experienced lawyers - did they not look at every point in their preapation for trial?
What had struck me as striking is that Tenner in one of his presentations actually had forecast how the settlement might be in nature: A one off payment for past and future and a patent peace. So he was spot on and the only thing that he misled his investors were his noises about his red lines and that we would see “multiples” of value…
Honestly I think he either deliberately misled investors or he did indeed just follow his own self interest: Get money in to cover your fat salary for the next couple of years.
@peregrine: So we have a top notch legal team and they suddenly realise that they have overlooked some vital piece of evidence????
Look it just doesn’t make sense.
I mean we had a very strong case otherwise not 10 litigation founders would have been willing to finance our litigation. We had a high class legal team and we won the PTAB panel outright.
I expect that in the many long months of litigation proceedings that preceded the settlement Nanoco and Mintz would have war gamed and look at everything to make sure there was no weakness.
Quite frankly if we just rely on Tenner out of his goodness of his heart to give us an honest and transparent account we will wait until kingdom come.
Oh and he has already won…I mean he is getting a royal salary and it is just ordinary shareholders that have been shafted.
@peregrine: I just feel that we were never given a frank realistic picture- neither before the settlement or afterwards.
I honestly think that someone independent and neutral such as the FSA needs to come in and look through all the past communication and afterwards decide.
Quite frankly I don’t trust BT to give us investors an honest account unless he is being forced by a higher authority.
@NGR: The only person that should feel ashamed is the CEO who shamefully consistently misled private investors- if he had any integrity or sense of honour left he would step down voluntarily.
I still hope that the FCA launches a thorough investigation into the communication of Tenner
The transformation is gathering speed.
Tenner is more confident than ever.
Update: Once we hit 10p Tenner MIGHT put in some more money…. Yes pure speculation but I really wonder and ask myself how low the share price needs to go before our CEO thinks is a good entry point.
@buzzfledderjohn: There were ca 10 litigation funding party ready to fund our case.
I expect the CEO (and highly paid as that) to find the best litigation party offering the best terms and I as a clear thinking person would get a second independent law company in to check the contract I am signing with the litigation party to make sure that all my bases are covered.
The problem here is that the whole story stinks - it is clear that we have not been given a frank and transparent account of what went on.
Sorry but either we have a really incompetent CEO (who should be sacked) or a reall dishonest and misleading CEO (who should also be sacked).
Right now the marketplace continues to give its verdict and it is clear that they are not buying into Tenner’s narrative of “transformational”.
I really doubt that in the short term we get good news.
Fact is that Tenner would buy shares in significant volume if he saw a real chance of an uplift. He has not done so - not even GBP 20k…
Don’t trust cooks who are not prepared to eat their own produce.
@ddubya: It WAS a complete Nanoco/Tenner capitulation. Tenner is all big mouth and nothing but.
And off to trial we go….. haha yeah right.
@Nanonano: Given that Tenner likes to use very strong words when very small words would be appropriate maybe exchange “accelerating” with is “contemplating”.
Sorry once misled the trust is gone.
@NGR: Normally you write more substantial replies hehe.
Anyway you quite studiously chose to fail to address my point: Why did Tenner from May 2022 onwards fail to bring a more realistic picture to shareholders? He had many many months to interact with investors in a more honest and transparent manner but he continued to ramp and ramp and make statements/promises that he already knew he would not keep.
To any shareholder out there: If there is an EGM I would vote Tenner out - he has systematically misled shareholders and should and must be sanctioned for this.
@NGR: The Times is a serious paper - with as much credibility as the Financial Times in my and many eyes. I know that sometimes figures that are stated in the press don’t come true but given that Edison in a research report commissioned and paid by Nanoco (and surely read by Tenner) came at a figure of lost USA sales of USD 200m as being one third of lost global sales than the USD 500m figure seems reasonable- doesn’t it NGR?
Also the point that I made and that is a very valid one is that Tenner saw the Edison reports, he saw the Times article and yet he never corrected the market expectations through the long months from May onwards….and suddenly he urgently needs to correct it. Give me a break!
NGR: How much money do you get from Tenner to be his mouthpiece on this board?
@Valueformoney: The Times is a respected paper is one thing I would underline. The second thing is that the article also clearly had Tenner input. Whilst the USD 500m figure was not from Tenner he had ample time afterwards to correct or address this figure in communication to investors- this would have been managing expectations- you remember the second infamous RNS when Nanoco suddenly wanted to manage expectations???
Tenner is not trustworthy - really that is all there is to say.
Dear NGR also known as Brian Tenner in real life:
No you have done nothing wrong at all except ramping your own share with no substance behind it and consistently misleading many private investors who have now either realised losses or are sitting on unrealised losses due to your misleading and empty words.
Oh and I know that share investing is risky but what I don’t expect is for the CEO to be the person misleading me.
Shame on Tenner, he is a useless CEO and time for a clear out at Nanoco.
Oh and I keep wondering: With a share price at 18.4p after the transformational settlement where do I see an RNS informing us that Tenner has invested GBP 40k or 50k in the company that is going to see multiples of value? Hm I do wooooonder.
@NGR: No one on this website spoke about becoming millionaires so stop making this up.
What shareholders should be able to expect is honest and sincere and factual communication.
What Tenner delivered was misleading, not sincere and as it turned out rampy.
Tenner needs to go.
@NGR: I will be in a rocking chair by that time…
@Tornadotony: I have to side with FH.
Brian Tenner made some very clear and sweeping statements ans these cannot be retracted.
Hammodi/Pallas please start legal proceedings against the despicable person impersonating as a CEO.
The chief tamper was Brian Tenner! There is no doubt about this.
Ok a fund raise was done but how fair or honest is it to do a fund raiser at 37p when you know you are willing to settle the Samsung litigation at an amount that justifiably would lead to a share price in the low 20p range? Not at all.
Given the fact that no organic business exists at all they can hardly claim that as justification for a raise at 37p.
No Brian Tenner stands disgraced and needs to go ASAP.
There also needs to be an investigation by the FCA into all this.
@NGR: Your passionate defence of a disgraced and misleading CEO leads me to think that you have very close ties to Nanoco management.
I actually agree with FlyingHigher this time.
We disagreed in the past but I fear he is spot on.
Even if sensor business might be a good area I just don’t have any faith that the current management and board can manage it.