Member Info for HenryHistorian

@Musings: We as private investors are only at a disadvantage if the management of a company acts improperly.

Shall I spell it out even clearer what happened?

@troublesome: I have become too disillusioned with Nanoco to follow much of the debate here. One thing that I know is that Tenner has systematically misled and deceived private investors- no debate and no opinions on this board changes this simple fact.

If he had an ounce of integrity he would have resigned - he didn’t so time to try to push him out.

Oh and I am not a follower of Tariq and really don’t know whether he would be better for Nanoco or not. But again this does not change that Tenner has no credibility left and needs to go.

I voted to get deceitful and untrustworthy Tenner out alongside Richards.

I think that blatantly dishonest behaviour needs to be called out and sanctioned.

Whoever believes what Brian Tenner and the NoD is saying still believes in the tooth fairy.

I note that given that the share price drops despite a customary upbeat RNS tells me that retail investors just don’t believe what Tenner is telling them. And why should they? Tenner has misled them and Tenner has betrayed them.

Frankly the whole debate here is ridiculous. Either one believes in the science or one does not. If good news drops this could fly- right now we are in a period with no news so some people sell… happens all the time.

To those who moan here about bad communication well attend an AGM and make your position clearly known to LD. If she does not listen than sell up.

Look everyone: If you don’t want to suffer disappointment don’t believe anything Brian Tenner has to say. It is beyond any doubt that he has misled investors and betrayed their trust in him!

The only thing one can trust from Nanoco are clearly worded RNS with clear commercial intent - all the other stuff is fluff you cannot built a shed on.

@Nanonano: Correct and this is why the shameful settlement which really was a betrayal of Nanoco shareholders by Nanoco management basically destroyed the share price of Nanoco.

Nanoco after all the legal efforts and all the messaging to its investors basically signed away a large part of its future for two slices of bread.

Thank you Brian Tenner!

@wicky: The future of Nanoco is adequately reflected in the share price since the major inflection point from the settlement.

No multiples of current value stuck in my mind.
Anyway I can only advise any potential Nanoco investor to completely disregard what Tenner is saying as there will be a big gulf be his words and reality.

For me one thing stuck in my mind and that is Brian Tenner declaring that he would only agree a settlement that fully compensated Nanoco for past lost sales, future sales and global nature of sales and that this would mean a multiple of current value (at the time he was speaking).
Clearly the joke of a settlement he agreed to was a complete capitulation and we shareholders have still not received a clear transparent explanation from Brian Tenner.
I still think the FCA should launch an investigation.

Yes waiting and waiting and waiting.
Let’s hope that the cake is a proper one as the cherry on top that was promised by Tenner turned out to be wrinkled and tiny….

Samsung will not cooperate with Nanoco in the future. They took what they wanted and BT caved in. Why should Samsung play nicely next time? Why??? The lesson they learned was that they can rip Nanoco off and that in the end Nanoco will bend over.
And as a shareholder I feel absolutely shafted because I believed in a CEO who has turned out to be utterly untrustworthy.

I have to smile at the naivety of NGR. Yes there is always risk in litigation but the fact that 10 litigation funder were willing to fund us speaks about the odds of Nanoco if this had come to court.
Again I expect that the litigation funder would have done extensive extensive due diligence on Nanoco’s case and I expect a law firm of the quality of Mintz to have looked in every aspect of the case to have a watertight case.
BT sounded supremely confident ahead of a trial.
So again he either folded and I ask why and still have no answers for that or he only thought about his own fat salary.
The fact remains that he accepted a miserly payment for the heart of Nanoco and effectively signed away the display business. Samsung will continue to be the supplier of choice. With regard to other litigation forget it - why would anyone pay they have seen what Samsung got away with…
I don’t see a future for Nanoco with BT - the trust has gone and one must be stuck in the realm of wishful thinking to think that in the short term this will come good…and if by December there is no commercialisation than this will be another case of great British science spoilt by bad British management.

@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”.