Member Info for Kooba

Many thanks ..could be interesting!

It’s all getting rather personal now .

I must say I don’t like the Chair and CEO cowering behind the CTO to protect all their positions . I still think the Chair and maybe the CEO should go and fresh experienced people brought in ..the current senior team are tainted and basically have mess up market communication ..saying today they didn’t expect any movement on the back of the 6th announcement is just plain stupid. There seems zero remorse for allowing a disorderly market and zero empathy for retail that got stuffed in the circumstances they allowed to manifest . They do seem to care very much about what a few small institutions think but not about the 70-80% retail holders who they still seem to treat as think with their big red arrows ..really quite demeaning! They like us when they needed to raise money last year at 37p. A proper charm offensive.

50% down ..so guess that’s why they take us for fools.

Meanwhile the loan note holders will be over 150% up.

Sweet.

What platform is TH on ? Is there a link?

Did the company basically say the technology would not be in mobile phones till 2026 today..the company previously said it could be this it could be that but struck me they ruled out mobile phones for a few years which narrows down the field. Still think pro vision with small initial contract fits the bill especially with the delays in launch. The odd thing there is the material is still not validated for the end customers satisfaction ..they stated it is in the process of validation but no timescale apart from around the end of July as they put in the requisition doc rather than the FY end.

Maybe from what they were saying we are all barking up the wrong tree on initial end product ..is it even Apple..STM supply many other customers.

They seem confident of orders ..as always. But they seem to be trying to managed expectation down on organic side to me both in sensors and display despite all the confidence. Maybe if they get any order it will be an absolute triumph ..if they had managed expectation better on the litigation maybe what they ended up with might be seen as rather more successful than the market has taken it.

They also seem to be damping down any expectation of receiving any display revenues in anything like the short term..still thinking about it to identify potential licences and infringers..how long do they need?? Also talks before any action nothing doing for a few years and then they point out although the non Samsung market is growing it’s still rather modest compared to Samsung, what can they even ask on the basis of the Samsung deal…peanuts?

They seem to big up expectation then “cool it” back down!

Oh well salaries safe for many a year..that’s the main thing.

No one can be removed or the CTO will go..a CTO that has never over seen any paid for commercialisation in 20 years..it’s a like it or lump it kind of approach by the company.

Academics are often the worst at overseeing commercialising of their technology….they get it nicked !!

Oh well let’s see what TH has to say tomorrow…what’s the login anyone , losing track of all this !

Lots to take in positive an questionable. I asked 3 questions no answered.

The main thing I took away though was when they released the 6th Jan rns they were not expecting and share price reaction…hence they came out with the 9th rns to cool it down.

This strikes me as really quite bizarre that on the eve of trial they announce heads of terms for a settlement had been reached and did not expect it to have any material impact on the price.

They left a huge information void that led to a disorderly market.

The main thing is they never in any way acknowledge the market reaction to their super settlement , the stock fell 60%…how could the board and their advisors have so little feel for market expectation that resulted in such a collapse.

Sheer incompetance.

Another interesting line in that piece posted ..

“Nanoco asserted five patents against Samsung in the US prong of the legal action, which got underway in 2020. These cover fundamental inventions relating to cadmium-free quantum dots, which, Nanoco claimed, are used in Samsung’s QLED TVs. “

Nanoco now say post the “non core” patent sales for $85m they retain 4 of those patents ( see requisition blurb)

How can something be fundamental to the infringement case then when sold is described as part of a number of non core patents sold?

Well trouble , an article that was meant to make them look good…there has been precious little in the way of coverage considering the board think it’s a right result..but that article was meant to be positive for the company..but they end up saying they have no competency in litigation having just spent years on a litigation case that seems to be seen by the market as the main value in the company…and ended up looking like they completely folded the day before trial.

The company is burning £100k a month they say ..they want to keep £20m in the bank..i guess they will be racking up some nice interest on that ..about a £1m a year ..so cash flow break even is not exactly a stretch with that in mind. Any extremely small order swings it for there I guess.

*Pursuing

In terms of what was required and continues to be required on a board whose main perceived value was in perusing an infringement case and commercialising IP someone with some experience might have been an idea in the world of patent licensing and protection.

“But, because litigation is not currently a core competency of Nanoco’s team, the company is now asking itself how to best move forward with its IP strategy. “We are thinking about who our advisors would be, how we would structure it, and whether to set up an in-house division,” Tenner comments.”

I thinking a bit fecking late!

https://www.iam-media.com/article/nanoco-eyeing-further-assertions-following-big-money-samsung-pay-out-says-ceo

Maybe something folks might want to consider in terms of the ability of the current board and where the company ended up with the Samsung case. No core competency in litigation …and this was meant to be a puff piece!

An argument seems to be that shareholders should have expected a settle to to be based solely on the lowest of three models as all the models were easily available and were once vaguely mentioned on a chat site.The company could not guide towards the models because it might have alerted Samsung to court documents they were fully aware of and challenged the models in pre trial. All the models were upheld under that challenge and Nanoco was claiming the high case still heading to court.Why we should have based our expectation on a low US only historic model to end 2021 taking no account of global or future sales or agreeing a no fault statement for a party that had outrageously stolen the company’s IP is beyond me. To say they could not guide better to what was seen as acceptable as it might alert Samsung is clearly nonsense.

Good to know..I won’t be mentioning them again.

Elizabeth:

Good night, John Boy.

John-Boy:

Good night, Elizabeth. Good night, Daddy.

John:

Good night, Son. Good night, Mary Ellen.

Mary Ellen:

Good night, Daddy. Good night, Mama.

Olivia:

Good night, Mary Ellen. Good night, Jim Bob.

Jim Bob:

Good night, Mama. Good night, Erin.

Erin:

Good night, Jim Bob. Good night, Ben.

Ben:

Good night, Erin. Good night, everybody.

Good night Brian

Good night Henry

Good night Dr Christopher

Good night Richard

Good night Rob

The telephone call referred to is not a board meeting ..even more inappropriate if a couple of shareholders were on a board meeting call!

The allegation confirmed by the chair is that a conversation took place at midnight between the chair ,BT ,loam and RG ..maybe more maybe less but broadly a chat in the middle of the settlement with two investors ..one who had sold down below 3%. They both were the only holders of the loan notes that stood to benefit from a successful settlement but in no way should they have received a call regarding the settlement for any reason.

Re board approval broad terms were set out in the heads and the board would have given authority to CEO and Chair to negotiate the finer points I would guess whilst approving the detailed heads as a board. They could have had a virtual meeting in the middle of the night if sufficient directors available and company Secretary to record agenda and discussion. All such documents would be fascinating to any new board!

The call was not a board meeting (officially!) though the details of board minutes and the litigation committee would make fascinating reading should there be a change of management.

This is an out of hours scheduled call with two shareholders in the middle of the night! Unusual!

It would be best practise to do so.

A taped line …many think almost definitely by LOAM. I doubt very much that anyone especially RG would want anything taped…and who had correct taping facilities linked in ?

Often a representative of company broker Peel Hunt would be on such a call ensuring there were no breach of MAR rules …but who’s up at that time !!

All we know is a call took place , confirmed by the chair.

We don’t know how TH became aware of such a call in the first place but his intel on that has been confirmed , it was hardly made public !!

Whether he has more intel around what the point of the call was and what was discussed is difficult to know , wonder if there is whistleblower or whether a party to the call was indiscrete before knowing how peed off TH is around the whole thing?

Maybe we will find out in due course..certainly if there was ever an action is is something that would be grilled in court.

I’m presuming they would say it was just a night night call like the Waltons and although they were in the middle of accepting the settlement they found time to say good night to a couple of shareholders!!

PVX

PPE and Kooba

“Why don't you just sell up and give us all a rest. Your strategy of multiple posts all day with a negative slant is just irritating.”

Well I’m sorry you are getting irritated , but that’s how the cookie crumbles ,

No strategy just often need to straighten things out that are incorrect..hence multiple posts.

Are you authorised to give investment advice , if not suggest you keep your share advice to yourself.

Perhaps avail yourself of the block button..that might alleviate your irritation?

Alternatively you could always just stop moaning.

Btw I am nothing to do with PPE on advfn .

One premium ID there for over 10 years ..same ID on here ..haven’t used it much but folk are so friendly here it seems a nice place.

Chin chin

Well out of your depth their fella.

There are regulatory tests on what needs to be approved by shareholders.

A disposal of $85m of assets , ie the patent portfolio should need shareholder approval.

The litigation settlement itself ie the licence would not need shareholder approval.

Some of your examples are being a bit silly..directors are their to run the business at the gift of the shareholders., but they are subject to FCA regulations.

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/LR/10.pdf

Tbow good point Turcan was undoubtedly inside in his role as a director and on the litigation sub committee up to standing down on 12th Sept 2022. As previous poster pointed out( even if you have left the board ) if you have inside information not yet in the public domain then you are or certainly should continually be regarded as restricted.

But it also begs the question how they were in a position to be systematically reducing their position albeit quietly since the fundraise at 37p. I find it impossible with all the information they had in that role that everything was fully disclosed to all shareholders before or even after the settlement.

They had direct access to the lawyers , the funders , all the advice ,all the submissions and if any approaches at any stage by Samsung were made.

When I was regulated a director could be considered inside for up to six months post resignation and should seek board approval to deal.

But one must presume even being on the board for a year when LOAM started selling after the fundraise they must have had board approval even though they continued as a board member and one presumes on the litigation committee. If they did not have inside information how could they be able to do their role?

This is something I raised with the FCA and posted long before Mr Hamoodi emerged , they acknowledged my communication.

As to whether there was more recent communication over the litigation with the named parties (and others) including the midnight chat that might have impacted the level playing field ? I do not have direct evidence of such wrong doing maybe Hamoodi does …but I think such a call ahead of the first rns is wholly inappropriate and one must question why it was necessary to discuss at such a time when the company were finalising the settlement.

Highly inappropriate and highly suspicious ..I’m not surprised with the activity in the market many retail investors smell a rat. It needs explaining in some detail with evidence to show what they discussed…should be nothing !? Is that likely?

Any reason why they have been restricted since the interims?

There has been no price sensitive news they have not been in the close period .

They have openly given time frames on getting an order (end CY23) and as pointed out have said they don’t know how large any order might be but that they assume initially modest..a few $m in revenues a year…so accordingly to them they know nothing inside.

They have also guided on the validation…now if they got the validation on 2 products and didn’t announce it and bought some stock..now that would be naughty, as would be telling anyone else who then bought stock!

So everything seems out there , nothing has come out so they have been free to buy at these levels for months. Just didn’t seem to want to.

Most listed company directors are not permanently restricted…but there are optics behind directors buying and selling to consider too.