Member Info for Kooba

Are you not trying to influence opinion by posting your extremely strong and biased views on a public board…i know they are for discussion but I’m not sure there is much discussing with you , you just want to belittle a shareholder who is exercising their right in asking that there is a vote on who runs the company . You get to vote and if you are right they don’t have a chance of unseating anyone…what are you so worried about you have to post the way you do?

If folks were convinced that the allegations were true and not completely made up ..or even a large part was true around whether there was a level playing field, or did certain shareholders have better access to information and the senior executives and likely therefore more detail to be able to fathom the meaning of the first and second rns’ that the market generally and retail shareholders in particular could not. Before the 1st rns the company were very confident of a transformational outcome for shareholder value , all their models were upheld in pre trial all their patents fully validated and they were going to court on their highest model. Why would anyone think that they would settle for a fraction of the figure for US historic infringement alone put out in market material ..the settlement reached was all past and future globally for $65m licence. How could anyone think that was even ballpark?

I’ve seen it said the patents sold for $85m were of no great value ( although described as being retained for their near term commercial potential ) could anyone who believes that explain why that would have been done? To disguise the true value of the licence or to avoid tax ? Any other take possible?

Anyway anyone who could believe any part of the detailed allegations especially around level playing field ..would you still keep the current board even if you thought they had disadvantaged retail shareholders to the advantage of connected parties?

NGR

Thats great everyone is entitled to opinions on their investments and you vote according to your wishes if/when it come down to it.

“Until I see a compelling reason for change I’m not willing to debate the merits of the action TH is proposing because I don’t think it’s the right course of action just now and I simply don’t trust the motives behind it.”

I shall expect you not to post on the proposals from TH and the GM then should i ? As you are not willing to debate them…unfortunately if you trash them outright then you should be prepared to debate your thoughts. Opinions are opinions and are not facts and can be challenged.

Glad you are keeping busy..i’m off to a school play.

NGR

Perhaps if you stick to facts rather than derogatory comments at shareholders that might disagree with you you might find more of a constructive exchange.

Unfortunately

“You are deliberately obtuse. Or stupid. It can’t be both.”

“i suspect you have your head down the rabbit hole tm has created”

Is not the kind of crap i will not respond to..i have a lot of experience in markets and in investing in technology as i said your level in trying to prove some authority does not really take into account what appears limited experience and your observations and name calling need to be wound in a lot.

A submission from the United Kingdom says the name Hamoodi means "Short version of Mohammed in kurdish" and is of Kurdish origin.

I am not entirely sure of Mr Hamoodi’s heritage but this could look highly inappropriate and very ill advised ..kind of thing that can lead to serious repercussions.

Toogood ..hear hear..I have pointed out the same myself…IT thinks some casual intolerance of different heritage is just fine …I might find out if LSE do.

NGR

“You are deliberately obtuse. Or stupid. It can’t be both.”

This is the post of someone who has no rational argument..either lazy or well out of their depth…or both.

IT

Maybe, perhaps, possibly, what if............... the Comical Ali school of speculation. Maybe they obtained all they neede to know by osmosis? Maybe, perhaps...

Not always your best time of day by your own admission..cheers.

NGR point 1 you are not engaging with me..

Point 2 I am invested in a number of private equity situations including first light fusion… British fusion company…very long term view not tomorrows world.

I rather think your Janet and John posts are not really on the same wavelength.

Good luck out there..you might need it.

If only the valuation and commercial failure were an illusion ..it is where the company finds itself having been down many roads without a single commercial application since inception …but hey ho this time will be different because they say so.

The Samsung escapade ..maybe just maybe the original Samsung agreements and the level of IP shared under them were not a great way forward with a serial infringer?

Maybe some commercial nouse on board might have been an idea in protecting shareholder investment and the technology.?

Past performance and all that reflected in the market valuation..is that just an illusion ?

Great song for the defenders of failure

https://youtube.com/watch?v=qB_I1YBAozE&feature=shareb

What has been the strategy of the company since inception? To commercialise the technology they have developed …have they ever received commercial orders for their technology ??

That’s your best shot is it…

And before the spelling police descend with nothing of relevance ..amateur it is !!

Nanonano

“Management is more than just strategy, it's about relationships and trust between various parties. Bring in a new broom and that trust may not be there. “

How has that theory worked in the past 20 years …we obviously trusted the serial infringer Samsung ..it worked well for them!

I figure having people running the company who have a clue about commercialisation , infringement law and licensing agreements might be a better way forward than an armature approach that has not provided any commercial traction since inception. Past returns are no guarantee of future performance ..but in my experience they are a bloody reliable indicator !!

Seems TH and his group own more shares than the official (ex loam) management group ..who is more aligned to shareholders? Since float the only ones who have really benefitted from this company’s funding have been the prevailing management.

Who provided the funding last year at 37p , the management ..tiny (BT £5000!) , loam nil , RG nil ..it was retail that coughed. Meanwhile when a lower than expected low ball settlement is taken everyone benefits but the retail investors!

It’s difficult to understand the loyalty some have when it could appear that the retail investors who own about 80% of the company are taken for mugs over a long period of time..while those close to the company do well . When close to a ‘transformational ‘ deal who gets stuffed again by an allegedly better informed institution..it’s the retail again. Picking up over 10% as the better informed exit stage left. It appears the retail are just used as a piggy bank to raid when it suits and a liquidity solution when certain parties want out. And yet some want to continue trusting the management that led us to where we are. A company not trusted by the market with a serial reputation of over promising and under delivering.

But you reckon that ST could walk away from Nanoco and therefore fail to deliver the product that has been developed for years because a new management team takes over ? ..the proposed ceo STMicro head in the field knows very well.

Would that mean STMicro let down there biggest customer in a sensing product key to their latest and important device?

It appears some are not exactly supportive of the management ..ie the if they don’t get the contracts this year they should go.

But why do people think that a change of management would mean that they would not get a contract if it was in the offing. .there is a development and supply agreement with the company and the company owns the IP and facilities to manufacture not the current directors.

Also how long did it take to develop the materials that are due to be incorporated in a device we understand and how quickly could a competitor come up with a alternative bespoke material. Does anyone think that they can just go round the corner and find another supplier with the appropriate technology…and why would they. Seems the fears of a change of management might be somewhat unwarranted from a commercialisation point of view. The new management having relevant Ip license management as well as commercial QD experience might better be able to maximise the opportunity and protect the IP than the incumbents.

The lack of experience in dealing with global players has cost Nanoco shareholders dear already!

I would take offence..its all the rage !

Do you have a copy of LOAM company contact protocol , i imagine it could vary from firm to firm.

Also if a call took place at 12 at night who do you think was in the office to record the call to any compliance standard? The fact that the call also had an “ independent” hhmmm other shareholder on the call in RG apparently would also not be normal protocol for a one to one meeting with one or more of their managers on a pre arranged call..why together if they are not in concert? Why not other shareholders..TH had more shares than RG at that point why didn’t he get an invite..might have saved some hassle!

Anyway unfortunately i do not agree your basis of there is clearly no guilt because no one has gone down for it..there is a smoking gun and no clarity around why the call was necessary or what was discussed right in the middle of the company agreeing the Samsung settlement. What do you think was the legitimate purpose of the call??

Bluerill

It appears that LOAM are alleged to have received information not in the public domain on the call that took place before the first rns and then acted on it in the market. If you think that is not accusing anyone of anything i think you need to look more closely at potential insider dealing which is a criminal activity. You might think they would respond , but certainly take the allegation seriously…as should the FCA.

A member of the company ie shareholder is duty bound to report such suspicions to the FCA as the market action led to a disorderly market on 6th and likely 9th January.