Member Info for Kooba

The shares magazine piece I'm not sure anyone ever spotted to be fair on the day it came out can’t remember anyone bringing it up as relevant then..it came out at midday looking at it now well after the announcement and the initial reaction where the shares flew up in early trading , the same figure was in The Times I believe that also came out later during the day ..both articles were attributed to analysts in the stock. I don’t know who.

But suggesting everyone dealt on the back of these articles that came out well after the initial reaction is not factual or making any point whatsoever ..you seem to think you have some insight into events and the run up to the settlement ..if you did you would stop mentioning a piece in a magazine that had zero impact on those events.

As to whether after the initial announcement that these publications were trying to puff up expectation and the share price..maybe thats a thing you , would then have to look at who might have benefitted from trying to promote such a positive outcome?

But i guess those closer to the company knew exactly what the genuine parameters were and what a settlement signalled.

There does appear to be a strong idea among some that Brian over egged the prospects as part of the company's gaming of Samsung around the case…but at the same time saying that the company did not encourage expectation.

Was the paid for research low end estimate signalling or genuine then ??

It’s difficult to know what to believe the position ever was!

It was a risk decision made by the company there was a higher risk higher reward option of going to court that they convinced most they were on for unless a settlement that represented a fair value for the infringement and life of the patents.court could have been higher past infringement , with wilfulness multiple, with court ongoing royalty award and without a patent being lost. It would also have exposed Samsung for the serial infringer they seem to be.

Instead they accepted a low risk low ball offer that did not meet their criteria according to their own previous statements and the majority of it was from selling patents that had never been considered part of an acceptable deal.

If the patent sale was a separate transaction then why did the funders etc share.

If it was part of a licensing settlement was it designed to mislead shareholders and the tax man?

So it was the litigation funders who were allowed to sell over a hundred of the company’s patents ..that makes a lot of sense.

NGR I will get back to you shortly.

But what NGR just posted questions all the commercial “guidance” the company has given basically..something we are not allowed to do!! Is there a rule book??

To

trumpet verb (ANNOUNCE)

[ T ] mainly disapproving

to announce or talk about something proudly to a lot of people:

No insinuation of lies at all ..correct use of term exactly. A long list of achievements against a very disappointing backdrop.

Yr post

“The share price is depressed because no one is certain the company will deliver because it’s still down to the technology adoption and even then it might not be hugely profitable and / or other competitors may emerge. Only when a significant contract is announced will this move the price.”

Maybe they should use your comments to explain the valuation…or maybe will realise whose responsibility getting clarity is ??

ok ngr you win they were not accentuating the positives and totally ignoring the negatives of much smaller commercial order than predicted and a more than halving of the share price at at all ! oh and btw trumpeting in no way says it was untrue ..i never said that did i ??.but great point well made well done you.i just can’t be ****d if you don’t understand a point and keep misrepresenting.

Why is interesting in that is that they say only one of the 2 new materials has been validated…I’m guessing at least one is one and not two!!

“;and the validation of at least one of our nanomaterials for commercial use.”

So maybe are waiting for validation of the other…more bloody confusion!

NGR we’ve rather moved on there and I have pretty much explained the point so unclear your continued confusion. But as an example 2023 AGM statement you would think they had significantly enhanced shareholder value when the company’s value had halved since the last AGM. No comment of share price collapse.

Unclear what more you think you want ??

Trading update - transitioning to a commercial production company

We have now delivered the last of four important strategic milestones set by the Board in 2022. In November 2023, we fulfilled Nanoco's first ever commercial production orders with the shipment of two different materials for use in infra-red sensing applications. The initial use case is expected to be for a low volume application measured in millions of units, whilst demand is then expected to grow gradually, enabling Nanoco to become self-financing during CY25.

We had previously already delivered the validation of our IP with the US Patent Office; a successful conclusion to the Samsung litigation; and the validation of at least one of our nanomaterials for commercial use.

On 7 November 2023, we announced an extended and deeper collaboration with our Asian Chemical Customer for the development of a novel, second generation material for use in infra-red sensing. This material will achieve even higher levels of performance, enable new potential applications, and help to secure Nanoco's pipeline of product development for a number of years to come. We are also in advanced discussions for a further development agreement of a new material with another major customer.

At our Runcorn site, work is underway to fit out a significant new device facility which will extend the range of services we can offer customers as well as accelerating the development of new materials, financed by the retained funds from the litigation earmarked for investment.

Overall trading remains in line with the Board's expectations for FY24. The return of capital process remains on track for early 2024.

Troublesome ..most of these types of cases revolve around digital communications , email , WhatsApp . Messaging. TH at this point in time July 2022 was engaged with the company and LOAM as an informed specialist investor in litigation and was likely conversed with as such.

So there could be some incriminating stuff from that point.

Who knows but if it gets to court could be illuminating .

Just a quick point on commercialisation expectation as far as I can see they only shifted the goal posts with the finals 20th Oct 2022..

“We aim to have validated our materials and to have visibility of commercial production from

the customer around the end of H1 FY23.”

H1 FY 2023 is by end of Jan 2023 so still expecting far earlier than delivery at that point..this was the information available.

The big change came with AGM statement 20th Dec 2022 when they snuck out

“We have a high level of confidence that we will receive sensing-application production orders in calendar year 2023”

So in Oct 2022 they expected by end Jan 2023 ..in Dec 2022 they change guidance to by Dec 2023 ..11 months later…there was a big change in expectation at the end of 2022 that they released just before Christmas.

A point I have made before is the complexity of the heads of terms , including licensing sale of a portfolio of patents and a no fault clause was in absolutely no way agreed in days ..more likely months.

Https://caseboard.io/cases/b0ce9223-9fc6-412d-8209-6cf5f39ab01f

Says active..

I’m positive it wouldn’t land in court if there was no evidence as in pre trial it would get thrown out? Might see if I kind dig out the case and see if-when it comes up.

Again I understood TH bought stock from them and he has subsequently alleged they had such undisclosed privileged information. Maybe your point in saying it is naive to think they did not have inside information when they dealt would not exactly help the defence.

Nanonano at the time they started selling they had a board representative who would be fully aware of developments in both the litigation progress and the commercial progress.

The whole basis of MAR regulation is that there is a level playing field ..if they were aware of anything not in the public domain they should have been restricted from selling.

I understood the TH outstanding case LOAM relates exactly to this point .

Bit fluffy but expectation early June 2022 at the time of 37p fundraise..

June 6th BT

“…the support for working capital will enhance our readiness for visibility of potential commercial production orders in the second half of CY22”

Loam were selling immediately after this.

So that was the guidance mid 2022 and timing slipped by a year from then I guess…as with Nanoco you would have to look at each update to spot the goal posts moving they never say it will be later than expected earlier they just fudge a new target. Thats why I look back because things don’t line up and it can make a big difference to outcomes!

So when LOAM started offloading and RG finished…coincidence I guess.

It is also around this time that they went to their pi shareholders to stump up additional funds on the expectation of a successful litigation case ..RG and LOAM non participants..but had an interest in a settlement as they got a big bonus on their outstanding loan notes whatever was agreed that could be defined as success. Nice their debt doubled and shares halved..possible conflict there I guess.

Anyway who knew what when is a perennial issue that we might never really know..but with TH vs LOAM scheduled it’s not impossible more details emerge.

Might see what was said in the placing docs in terms of organic commercialisation expectation , it seems central to the argument they took a deal because of delays.

I am trying to remember when shareholders really became aware of there being likely delays in commercialisation..was it before or after settlement. If after how could one factor the scenarios being discussed in as a shareholder?

If you were inside you might have had a different perspective on things if you knew there would be a delay in commercialisation….LOAM started selling in June shortly after the fundraise they did not participate in…would that have been a factor?