Member Info for Kooba

Another Shoei group paying Nanoco compensation and Nanoco not disclosing it…not sure you have read MAR do you not think that would be deliberately misleading??

The fact they have disclosed that there is a term sheet and said the material contents does not mean they can hold back other material parts …this doesn't make any sense on any basis , and again i wish there was more to this agreement as a shareholder , frankly very disappointed with what has come out to be honest , but i’m not dreaming of there being secret riches behind the rns made. I manage my expectation and if there is something wonderful coming out …super. But i will not be the disappointed one again when as i suspect its pretty vanilla IP swap as they have said.

Not expecting much here is a better stand point and has been for many years.

A listed company is generally required to disclose the material details of binding terms if they constitute inside information or meet the definition of material information under market regulations.

Under regulations such as the UK Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) and Listing Rules, companies must make public disclosures to ensure a fair market and to inform investors of information that could significantly impact the company's financial condition, share price, or business prospects.

I dont see a carve out when you have already announced a stay and announced the material parts of it specifying no compensation.

Compensation btw could take the form of future royalty or an asset sale..which is what folks seem to think will happen even though its stated no other compensation.

Folks dont think royalties asset sales and offers for the company would be material in the term sheet that’s is being discussed.

I would also say that due to the number of people involved in the negotiations on both sides the chance of there being a leak of price sensitive information would be high ..the shares arent saying there is more to this btw and often with this counter that is aa better clue than anything the company says.

That could sound very patronising ..the company has to disclose information that is likely to be price sensitive in ordinary investors hands without delay.

Why announce a no infringement swap as a key point of the term sheet …if it wasnt. Why announce there is no other compensation if it is not and there are further material benefits they are not disclosing.

They are doing a deal to allow each other use the relevent IP as disclosed…i am fascinated why above the information given folks are conjuring up great royalty arrangements and offers for the company or other assets as part of this stay …why do folks believe that or is it just wishful thinking?

I don't mean to sound patronising but have you read MAR regulations?

Well sammy I seem to have to repeat myself over and over again…

The material parts of the term sheet are announced.

Other parts will remain confidential.

My take is there is fine tuning on what patents , what products and maybe what jurisdictions are included no small legal task ..all of which will not be released.

There is clearly no financial compensation on top of the patent no litigation swap.

If there was any future financial impact , royalties etc contained in the binding agreement they would have to be made public as would be materially price sensitive and they definately should have signalled such if it were the case.

So know I don’t think there will be anything new to come really apart from hopefully an explanation on what has happened and how much it all cost.

Well you thought the whole thing could put Shoei out of the CFQD business or even bust them..all part of a very clever plan by Nanoco .Now it seems using our IP and all the prior infringing was worth the absolute win of using their IP for sensors…IP never knowing been incorporated in Sensors for markets we have no existing turnover in. It seems from your previous posts that this must be indeed be worth enormous value to them so it must be worth enormous value to Nanoco on that thought process…unless of course Nanoco are just being very generous..or more likely knew they would no win and were looking for a climb down having been proved to have misled on their claims on their unique IP for years.

You seem to think it is a win …i have no idea why.

We paid our own legals on actions they started.

The broken record of this clears the way in sensors….how exactly. Who knew there were hurdles?

Is this why STM walked ??

Agree Sammy would be surprised if it was any less than that ball park.

Would be good if the Chair shined more light on how he expects to achieve break-even in calendar year 2027..puts a very different picture on the cash runway.

If we then go to commercial prospects Asian customer 1 is moving closer to an end commercial use one should hope.

From the Chair statement with the finals

“With the increased commercial pipeline, the group is aiming to achieve break-even and financial sustainability in the calendar year 2027.”

Now that can only be from a significant up lift in orders from this customer.

Asian customer 2 signed for a one year project which is up next month..the company expects this to be rolled to the next phase and that could move to increased revenues ahead of commercial demand 2027/8 too.

So irons are in the fire. But near term the roll of customer two would be main news. Later this year if customer 1 is serious in moving to commercial demand there should be increased orders later this year.

There was talk of multiple prospective JDAs across a number of sectors some new to the company ..that pipeline has gone very quiet but it would be obviously positive if the company managed to secure more diversified market opportunities.

Interim results mid April last year , they had announced the release date already.

We should have a clearer picture of what has transpired and where the company is going then.

back of a *** pack current cash about £13m but that is before our costs of the us litigation so figure it will be reasonably well down on that figure.

operational cash burn we are guided to £350-£450k per month down from £500k per month up to end of jan. so that is still over £4m per year.

we had £14m july year end we were burning £500k a month second half , so burn £3m second half.

we got $5m settlement lg our costs were $600k and $500k was withheld for local tax. bit less than £3m net.

we are reducing burn to £350k-450k announced end jan. 2 months burn at £400k say but there will be redundancy costs so that figure could be well over £1m to take us up to where we are.

so wonder what the costs of litigation are ? i saw someone estimating £500k but i would be surprised if it was that low, but you never know.

Yea the 10 digit fantasist who predicted £1b and £100m a year in ongoing royalties was someone called nigwit clearly nothing to do with Terry at all ..TW and NW cant be one and the same they have different user names. Glad thats clear.

Your rose tinted glasses never fade despite how often they have let you down and exposed you unwarranted optimism.

You don’t even seem to understand a simple quote relating to the ability of this company to deliver anything and that the company’s avenues of potential are getting narrower and narrower and once again we are dependent on one key JDA as a way to give us a sustainable business…if you can’t see that we have been here many times and the resultant back to square one delivery then you are kidding yourself.

The key asset of this business was the IP we were told yet we have not managed to create a business around it and now our patents like the remaining cash have limited life and they have less value as others are permitted to use them via licence or IP swap.

Wake up and smell the coffee…don’t you get tired of being so wrong for so long??

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

George Santayana

The valued at less than cash point , the issue is they were valued at a bit less than cash at 20p ..then 15p then 10p now 5p …I’m not sure if you see a pattern emerging in the underlying cash position?

We have very little income and are just doing development work for small change for two parties one of which comes up for renewal imminently. Currently burning £4m a year with no clear sight to commercial revenues and it now appears litigation the only material income generation we have had over the life of the company is pretty much exhausted in terms of worthwhile targets.

Every year was going to be transformational every year commercial disappointment.

Asian customer one could surprise on the upside and we could see pre device launch volumes crank up later this year and into 2027 which the Chair has alighted to , but we have been here many times before. The market valuation is down to serial disappointment and failing to achieve key strategic objectives over many years…it’s not because of the very valid thoughts who post on bb’s.

If it was the shares would surely be better on your constant puffing , but unfortunately like the company itself your talk and actual delivery are poles apart.

I was responding to sammys point as it goes.

And I didn’t ask what is being negotiated now as it goes….as I have made clear I think very little of any value on top of the licence cross permitting use of each others IP which is the material part of the agreement.

Why we need that ..I have no idea.

Royalties , netting ..reporting why do you think that? Nothing is mentioned in the rns to give that impression and you keep saying you will wait whilst making rather large assumptions.

My post was clear why would Shoei want to but Nanoco as part of this agreement if you have thoughts on that ?

Why do you think Shoei would want to buy Nanoco?

They have permission to use our IP for their core markets and can reassure their customers they are in no danger of litigation.

They may have superior IP in sensor applications that Nanoco need why else are they doing this IP swap arrangement unless to save face…but there is nothing preventing Shoei using their own IP in those markets as far as i can tell so when sensor market develop i expect Shoei will be there.

They have their own state of the art scale production facilities close to most end markets.

We have no commercial customers they seem to have many.

They maybe dont want to sort out the cost base in Runcorn on take on the largely duplicated burn.

They may want to buy the core platform technology but how long does that now have left to run?

What would they be buying for their money?

Using Samsung rns ‘ as evidence is a laugh…Friday settlement announced but no guidance to settlement amount ..the crowd went wild…Monday told the market it was low end of expectation which crashed the price…so they did clarify well ahead of the final settlement announcement.

Here we have no expectation in the market but we have guidance to there being no consideration to be received by either party on top of the effective agreed use of each others IP.

Any financial agreement would need to be included in the term sheet for the end of litigation agreement , the material terms we have.

Still waiting for those Samsung orders many said would flow after the settlement …

If you understood what consideration meant and what reporting requirements ate for listed companies you would have half a clue..as you don’t do the math.

Sammy what part of “All other terms of the term sheet are confidential” are you missing.

So they have given the market the key material information that could be deemed price sensitive by way of it calling a halt to proceedings , other parts of the arrangement are not deemed price sensitive and will remain confidential. They have said there is no further consideration in this agreement thats stops the action ..cash , a royalty , a patent purchase all these would be price sensitive if they were disclosed …so none of these one must presume.

The idea they would call a halt to proceedings on a side arrangement for future earnings or sales not covered in the term sheet would appear very odd and unlikely.

Think one needs to read this line and realise that anything financially beneficial in the future whether royalty or sale of assets would need to be disclosed. Nb they would have to explain what ant agreement means in terms of value now and in the future.

“The parties have agreed in good faith to negotiate an agreement reflecting the term sheet as well as other deal terms. All other terms of the term sheet are confidential.”

So things confidential will not be price sensitive it reads to me. Likely technical detail on what is covered in the material non litigation agreement disclosed.

Being right just shows that you understand before others ….lets see, I will stick by my posts and won’t change if i am wrong and they announce loads of great financial benefits with the deal. I would be delighted but here’s a thing I manage my expectations largely on past delivery ..AI is do kind!

“Nanoco Group has shown a mixed ability to deliver on its strategy, characterized by strong technical and intellectual property (IP) achievements contrasted with significant commercialization challenges and a high-turnover leadership structure. “

If only strong technical and IP achievements made a sustainable or sellable business. Alas.