Member Info for Kooba

You cant seem to help misunderstanding everything to suit whatever desperate narrative you want.

Nothing is set unless they get the validation…a condition to get any contract..so nothing is certain.I point out that a change of management would not impact where the validation and likelihood of getting a contract is , something you made up and you manage to turn that into me confirming they get an order under current management…not something i said at all.

If it goes ahead it goes ahead irrespective of the formation of the board ..I therefore disagree your take on what a change of management would bring. Pure work of fiction.

I’m really not sure where you are going here…my post was in response to this work of fiction you posted..you are saying the European client would withdraw…I am saying I doubt it very much ..how simple do you want it without misinterpreting ?

“Just imagine Tariq Hamoodi wins the vote. He and his team then announce a week later that the European client is withdrawing from cooperation with Nanoco due to the uncertainty with the new management.”

QD

Seems I don’t need to explain what was I thought quite straightforward because you seem to want to explain my posts for me with a twist. Just straight, do you think the device would be delayed because they couldn’t supply the material because there was a change in board membership. That was in your story..I think your story is a load of rot so was making a point that they cannot go and source a key material developed over years from around the corner .

If you think they can or would wish to delay the customer product because they couldn’t deliver on the spec ..I think you are wrong. Simples.

I used to like Jackanory tales..I’m a bit old for it !

I’m trying to understand where STmicro go and develop a new material that took many years to get to a validation stage to present to their underlying customer or having to explain that they can’t deliver because there were some board changes.

Operation fear strikes again.

They also didn’t mention Samsungs model defence case was well below even our low case claim.

Again that might have had a material impact on the price if shared…but it might also have pitched shareholder expectation at a level that made their eventual settlement go down well rather than hugely disappoint and halve the value of the company.

I also would draw attention to the Chair statement with the interims oct 2022.

This seems hugely at odds with the narrative having taken the low ball around potential appeals.

“We expect that our confidence in the merits of our case against Samsung for infringement of our IP will be vindicated when the trial takes place in Texas in the near term. While undoubtedly there will be appeals and further delaying tactics deployed by Samsung, we will be able to manage those with full confidence and from a position of strength without ruling out our willingness to entertain a fair value early settlement proposal from Samsung.

Our focus remains to build a self-sustaining organic business as the best way to deliver enduring shareholder value. We will also work to protect and realise any value that is delivered by a trial verdict, and to ensure that it reflects not just the USA and the past, but the rest of the world and the future lives of our patents. Achieving both goals will deliver the Nanoco for which we have been striving for many years and a significant increase in value for all stakeholders.

Dr Christopher Richards

Chairman

20 October 2022”

Brian Tenner, Chief Executive Officer of Nanoco Group plc, said:

"So we are going to trial. We are in a strong position: the net result of rulings on the pre-trial conference motions preserve all of Nanoco's damages models and their expert testimony, as well as the full testimony of our technical expert Dr Brandi Cossairt. The earlier rejection of Samsung's motion to re-open a Markman definition was also an important finding in Nanoco's favour. Being able to selectively choose the claims to bring to trial on the back of the emphatic win at PTAB has also undoubtedly added to this strength.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/NANO/litigation-update-pre-trial-conference/15592838

There seems to be confusion that by correctly informing the shareholders of the various models including the low case (DOW) would have tipped off Samsung of the various models the company had prepared. Whilst at the same time folks are saying it was guidance as publicly available behind a pay wall.. do people really think Samsung were not able to access court papers themselves? Since Samsung challenged the various models to no avail in pre trial and our high case model was the one we were going to court with , it seems a rather odd argument that they would be alerting the opposition to the low case….they knew all the models from the pre trial submission's.

200% of salary now means rather more shares should be held than at the start of the year!

BT has been an executive for 5 years now and has C £200k of shares taken up almost all as a result of share option awards.

“The increase in pay for Brian Tenner on taking up the role of CEO was made in two tranches: the first increase to £250,000 occurred in FY22 eleven months after taking up the role, and the second, to £275,000, commences in FY23.”

He has been an executive for over 5 years now , how long to get to the in service requirement shareholding of 200% of base salary ? He has received

“To align Directors to shareholder interests.

In service requirement”

“A requirement to build up and hold a shareholding of at least 200% of base salary.

50% of vested shares under the DBP or LTIP (post-tax) are to be retained until the shareholding requirement has been met.”

Nanoco 2022 report and accounts

This is a minimum expected ..most companies require some evidence that the director uses their own resources.

The trading update today should mean they are not restricted…as to whether they are aware when the customer might come back on validation could be an issue.

The GM itself doesn't prevent directors dealing..though they may want confirmation that they are still in post before committing their own capital.

I just don't think they want to spend their own money as they say they have options ( nil cost)…what came out in the last presentation though is that they say the options have a 55p target threshold so not entirely sure they will vest as things stand. If they think they will then they should be buying some in the market as that would take a 200% share price rise to get them to vest!!

NGR

Yes folks like to see directors sharing the risk that equity holders do.

With Nanoco there is no great evidence of directors especially executives aligning themselves with their shareholders..there have been many opportunities for the directors to buy shares ..evidenced that they considered a directot Turcan not to be inside to any information enabling share transactions for most of last year.

BT put £5000 into the placing last year…im not sure if that is showing confidence or not when on the renumeration package and are out trying to convince others to invest…but i guess not.

The executives have made no purchases using their own resources since the settlement and trading update in FEB which would have cleansed them…see Chair bought a few so not restricted.

BT has basically stated he has exposure through the nil cost options so doesn't see the need to buy more shares….the optics of saying such things whilst saying the company is in the best , transformed , cusp of inflection etc etc etc…is very poor. Its not the need to it should be seeing the opportunity to put some of his hard earned salary back into the business because he believes his own hype and that the company valuation will increase markedly on the narrative he keeps peddling ..unfortunately he is not prepared to risk a penny.

“The directors DO NOT HAVE to buy shares. They already have vested shares. They will be rewarded in time if they deliver so why buy more? “

Executive share ownership especially funded out of directors own resources is positively encouraged by most companies, many now having set requirements for executives to hold percentages of salary ..often multiples of salary . It also encourages directors to use their own resources to build holdings not rely entirely on nil cost share incentives (and then selling into the market to pay the tax and dealing expenses !) They should be at risk along with their shareholders not just getting freebies.. on what appears low hurdles that do not overlap shareholders returns.

Troublesome,

Dr Chris Richards joined the board 11th Nov 2015 (share price 54P) and was lifted to Chair 18th May 2016 ( share price 40p) he certainly has experience as a director of Nanoco .

Allow for cost of money over time !

He’s now focusing , which is nice.

Https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/nanoco/news/rns/story/xjeqekr

Nothing much new…update brought forward ahead of the GM.

Still anticipating commercial order before CY end

Still awaiting customer validation of the two materials

Discussions on deepening collaboration

Financials in line with previous guidance.

Lots of optimistic talk at size of markets they could address.

Pretty standard Nanoco fare.

Nanonano

True enough.

Do you think they will deliver it and when?

The market currently is not placing any value on them achieving sustainable commercial traction with visibility/orders within the guidance of the next 4 months or so ..i think the potential alone is worth a decent premium over cash and i think any similar situation with the funding and potential would trade higher relative to cash.

Maybe the shareholder profile maybe a lack of trust in the management maybe the allegations and activism all contribute to what i see as an unusual discount rating but until some meaningful commercial delivery or some peace around governance however it is achieved it seems not much is going to budge it for now.

They might well have voted for the capital distribution..but all i know is they didnt vote against.these are just facts..things that are seemingly over your head.

I never said a shareholder vote didn’t count at all as you make out ..i merely pointed out less than a 1/3 of shareholders actually voted..its a fact.

“99.8% were voting for a capital reduction “

Yep

Of the only 32.3% who actually voted but it clearly shows TH and group did not vote against the capital reduction. So in no way tried to prevent it.

Yawn…1,2,3….