Member Info for Kooba

One other question for fans of business plans…what is the current boards plan above and beyond fingers crossed the short term hopes of a contract come to fruition …if they don’t for any reason ‘beyond their control’ ..somewhere we have been before, what then. More of the same fingers crossed for a few years time on their next lead…been there before too.

Adding on to

The board has put forward an idea that calls were made during the final stages of the settlement agreement were to negotiate discounts on money owed…this in itself needs explaining..did this play any part in deciding to accept the heads of terms ?? And if so why?

How were they proposing to negotiated discounts on monies legally owed as they claim without the parties being made inside of the terms? We would like you to take less but we can’t let you know how much we are getting is not a strong case even if a court appearance is avoided?

The lawyers and funders were already fully briefed and involved in the settlement terms but the loan note holders should not have been…so why the call?

* are worthy !!

Tornadotony

We have also been given no explanation for certain events that stack up to convince me that many of the allegations are not worthy of investigation or at a minimum far better response from the board.

The call is still no explained to any reasonable degree…if any party has a recording of the midnight call they they could release it or the transcript so the matter is resolved. If not record of the call has be made then that would raise questions in itself. I see absolutely no reason to be making such calls ahead of informing the market.

The board has put forward an idea that calls were made during the final stages of the settlement agreement were to negotiate discounts on money owed…this in itself needs explaining..did this play any part in deciding to accept the heads of terms ?? And if so why?

What is apparent though is that the loan note holders got everything in the original agreement full sucess bonus and still £4.5m owed to them..an over 150% return on actual cash put into the business.

I agree both sides need to evidence their position…maybe a day in court is what will have to transpire to get to the full truth of the matter. But releasing the recording / transcript now could prove that nothing inside was discussed and deliver a knock out blow…if no record kept they will continue to flounder around the issue.

It’s not the boards fault that market expectation was seriously out of kilter with what the board seems now to consider a full and fair global settlement of past and future use of their core technology. That the market expectation was largely honed by marketing material that the company paid to be produced and distributed to retail investors and their own shop broker research ( widely distributed around the fundraise ) should be ignored..the only guidance that really matters was the lowest of three models submitted to court and never referenced by the company and only available by wading through payed walled court documents.

Its all the stupid investors fault that the company allowed a low end settlement figure of $200-250m just for historic infringement to be used as a base of expectation with no thought that the bulk of any settlement would be a sale of the company’s IP…bloody idiots trusting figures the company paid to be out there.

And don’t give me any nonsense about independence of Edison ..these publications are promotional pieces and need to be fact checked as paid for research is considered a company communication.

In the context of the share price action on the rns …this argument that a few investors got carried away and didn’t do their homework is just dumb..over 10% of the company changed hands in the disorderly market the company allowed to develop. As to the actions of a very few major holders who dumped everything they could on settlement news ..a point where some would say that any risk of a court trial was being removed is another very curious matter…as though they had a very different take on developments than everyone else all of a sudden.

Level playing field …it was not.

Lol at you too...here is some bedtime reading for you so you look like you have a clue and are not purposefully defaming real people.

https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary

Sanctions, in law and legal definition, are penalties or other means of enforcement used to provide incentives for obedience with the law or other rules and regulations.

Sanctions are not convictions.

Failing to produce data in discovery during a civil action.

Failing to produce data in discovery during a civil action.

They were not convicted of that ..that was not the case.

The judge said that their failure to comply “may have been intentional.”

You make it sound like they are off to prison for a crime..

There was never a charge to answer around any action in discovery.

Their actions ended up costing the defendants in a default judgement of the civil case.

They certainly were unprepared but what crime was committed that you refer to ?

Conviction – When a person accused of a crime pleads guilty, or the court finds them guilty after trial, they are convicted of the offence.

Pretty sure that’s defamation sunshine. He has never been convicted of any offence.

IT ..I’m asking you what the conviction is for …its you that say Moeller has a conviction. I reckon any lawyer wouldn’t have a clue what you are talking about on known facts ..so you must know about a separate action against Moeller that he was convicted of…I can then check that out.

Quick refresh

“Your nominated director has a CONVICTION for wrongdoing and you failed to inform us of this. FACT. “

Just fact checking.

IT can you talk me through what charge Mr Moeller is meant to be convicted of , I am only aware of the civil case that I posted the full details of earlier. If Mr Moeller has never been convicted in court of anything I guess it is you that is the liar ?? Perhaps you can explain?

Final validation underway for commercial production materials, with orders anticipated by the end of 2023

Sensing

We continued our progress to final validation of production ready materials for our European customer project for sensing applications. We are now aiming to have two fully validated sensing materials by the end of FY23 (compared to previous expectations of one validated material). Discussions are ongoing with regard to next steps on other new development materials.

Interims end March 2023;

With the requisition documentation although it was not a trading update they move from ‘by ‘ the end of FY23 to ‘around ‘ the end of FY23. The end FY 23 is Monday.

“We now expect to have two fully validated sensing materials around the end of FY23 (compared to previous expectations of one validated material).”

So looks they missed their aim from only 4 months ago on getting materials validated by end of July seems likely missed …since this validation is a pre-requisite to receiving any order from the European Customer it would be good if they managed to show they can deliver anything on guided timescales as there have been a number of delays. Such slippage around validation does not appear down to end customer as might be a usual excuse. Lets hope we have this confirmed sooner rather than later..there was a year end trading update last year mid August..they should update properly then if they are consistent in having one ..if nothing comes out before.

*sometimes !

I posted to better understand the allegations levelled by Nanoco..but more so many unfounded comments on these boards.

I think its useful.

It does not put Moeller ( or any of many co defendants) in a good light as they seemed disorganised in data retrieval and understanding court directives…which “ may have been deliberate” ..they may have just been disorganised and unprepared for court,

Something you or i might have handled better in the circumstances..true.

But somethings well funded plaintiffs can be overwhelming in data demands in discovery to smaller less well funded organisations..i don’t know the context.

What i do know is that it went against Moellers side ..and cost them. But i also know no crime was committed and nobody died!

Red Wolf Energy Trading, LLC v. BIA Capital Mgmt., LLC (September 20, 2022)

https://vimeo.com/751752564

If anyone is really interested in the case Moeller was involved in that resulted in a default judgement , it is around poor data management in discovery that led to misconduct opinion which may have been deliberate. Not found “guilty” of anything but the judgement went against as badly handled.

Judge” law is not a game in civil discovery”..think our friends samsung should note such things.

How any of this translates into some saying the Moeller was a “Convicted Felon” , though i note PVX has since disappeared is beyond me…but much posted seems to assert that they are guilty of something ..what exactly ?? Being unprepared for court seems there is case..though that is not a crime !! Folks need to have a basic knowledge of events and not make such outrageous claims.

Whereas Nanoco’s case was solid after PTAB challenge upheld all their claims and all Samsungs challenges of the case and the models were thrown out ..we still have fallen 60% on the settlement they took.

2005 fuelling commercialisation they say..not sure saying nanostory is making things up ..the idea on any technology is to make money out of it and you do that by finding commercial uses.

So 18 years ago they were raising money to commercialise..think that’s fair to say !!

Manchester, United Kingdom – 5th October 05

Nanoco Technologies Limited (www.nanocotechnologies.com) today announced that it has raised funding from three venture capital funds. The funding will fuel commercialization of Nanoco’s Quantum Dot manufacturing technology. In addition, Nanoco will continue to make investments in further developing its Quantum Dot technology into applications in the electronics, biomedical and security sectors.

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/media/snowball-effect/

They were seeking shareholder approval to effect a capital reduction that will enable the company to return capital to shareholders when it is received.

The next tranche of cash coming from the settlement is not until the end of Feb 2024 so they have no cash to distribute until then..they also have not confirmed how they intend to make the return to shareholders. So unfortunately as always with Nanoco patience is required.