Member Info for Kooba

I very much like to see executive directors using their own resources to buy shares in the company they run ( and take large amounts of shareholder cash out of) it is also seen as an important part of good governance that the executives align themselves with their shareholders by doing so ..in many cases building holdings of a certain size relative to their renumeration over a period of years. Here this is not the case and the bulk of exposure is through nil priced options ..not at more challenging preset strikes. If a CEO goes around saying

Brian Tenner, said: “We are closer to commercial production than at any time in our 20 year history, with orders anticipated by the end of 2023.’

and

“Our organic growth runway is now underpinned by a firm financial footing following the monetisation of the group’s IP portfolio as a result of the outcome of the lawsuit.“

After previous comments that the litigation was the cherry and the organic business the cake…we now have certainty around the very modest cherry but have ‘ free cake’ with the best prospects in 20 years …he is not tempted to back his own calls with his own money.

The whole board has less equity than TH ..and seem to have no intention of taking advantage of the opportunity they believe has been presented.

This seems aequitas big one ..an infringement against Apple and Samsung filed in West Texas in 2020..big numbers .

https://neonode.com/newsroom/press-release/3690153

Rather think looking at

https://aequitastech.com/

Is more relevant as that’s the company listed as being his operation since 2012.

I am not sure you can blame the ceo for the performance of a company years after they left…and seems he left in 2012 when the company was riding high on the Patent strategy… 10 years later they are more known in private equity , they bought a big chunk of Woodford private assets…so much has changed. The last ceo was also thrown out last year for misconduct , again I’m not sure Dooyong Lee can be held responsible having left 10 years earlier! But I’m sure it has impacted the price.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20221230005222/en/Acacia-Announces-Internal-Investigation-into-Former-CEO%E2%80%99s-Apparent-Misconduct-and-Releases-Preliminary-Findings

IT.. https://youtube.com/watch?v=igILhbNWvlk&feature=share8

Saves having to say anything of worth i guess.

Your theme tune ?

Though posting The Smiths songs does not appear a rational way of responding constructively.

If it does go to a GM you have every right to vote as you see fit..no one is forcing anyone to do anything! Your rights are not impacted by posts on a bulletin board ffs!

If in a vote enough shareholders prefer to stay with the existing management then that’s sorted…if a majority chose the alternative then that’s how it works ! If a large minority vote against the board they will have to acknowledge concerns and make proposals to address them. I’m not sure why so much offence is taken that someone should have an alternative view on the best management judging from the current valuation after serial disappointment. But who the F does anyone think they are is strong…i guess they are a shareholder with an opinion and irrespective of how long anyone has held have exactly the same rights as any longer suffering holders.. Indeed if a number of shareholders have over 5% , they have more rights..they have the right to to call a GM to propose board changes.

Nanog. “ Samsung and Nanoco managed to hammer out a shat deal in 30 days.”

I think they actually spent much longer in discussion , remember they had heads of terms drawn up on the 6th January and extremely complicated they were with a large part of the settlement involving over 100 patents …i believe the deal must have been worked on to that point for many months ..but until they got to heads obviously nothing could be announced.

Will we ever find out when talks started ? Not from current management i reckon…it might also expose the fact that those on the litigation committee might have know of low ball approaches months before the original court date.

Its not really from the 3 Feb that they had the patents around CFQDs fully validated..that really happened with the PTAB ruling over a year ago ..certainly enough to be going after any other known infringers..since they say they don’t believe anyone can produce CFQDs in scale without infringement i would have thought they can relatively easily identify culprits if they are producing them without further detail of procedures. It is indeed disappointing there is no follow on with the IP strategy ( save for a fluffy interview that gave no detail) , if nothing else publicising how you are going to target infringers across the industry might be better than a lawyers letter to get folks to the table. For the scale of Samsung infringement relative to the past and future licence agreement of $65m might not scare anyone into doing anything as they have effectively received such a tiny royalty relative to scale of infringement.

Love the Smiths saw them at the Brixton Academy back in the day..

Maybe more appropriately directed for Brian though

“How can they look into my eyes

And still they don't believe me?

How can they hear me say those words

Still they don't believe me?

And if they don't believe me now

Will they ever believe me?

And if they don't believe me now

Will they ever, they ever believe me?

Oh, oh, oh, oh”

If the company was aware it was a mass market application like an iPhone from the scale of anticipated production demand then i would have to venture that the share price would be better and there would have been some holding rns’ from certain parties by now ! Perish the thought.

I would have to say Maxi although they claim to not know the end product they have been engaged in testing for years and in that testing one must assume that the ability to deliver scale product must come into play long before now..so i reckon their assumptions are based on far more knowledge than anyone in a chat room..if they were aware that they are looking at a mass market device with production likely early 2024 I’m pretty sure leaving a recent assume a low volume case out there could be seen as misleading..not something that a company under rather close scrutiny right now might want. If folks sold because the guidance is in essence “low volume” and i guess therefore relatively low revenues due to the size of potential devices and it turns out they knew it was far larger that doesn’t help much in terms of comms.

You could do worse than listen to the company presentations especially on the Q&As

Their assumption is a low volume case initial order…though they have no idea of application they say…they do give some examples of what various applications could mean in terms of volumes though ..what that means on revenues is a different matter.

https://youtu.be/AwdE4xAf6xY

1’03’’

Another quick point on visibility..Nanoco has always said they do not know what the end use device is..save that they anticipate that it would likely be more modest than an initial mass market product..so if this is the case visibility must be rather obscure not knowing when certain potential applications could be aimed at production.

I think the company has had such visibility before and we have all learn’t that is not something to hang your hat on! Obviously arguable that they are being far more cautious in their guidance this time to better manage expectation ..but judging by the litigation outcome I’m not sure that stands up to scrutiny either!

Richards has been on the board for over 7 years 7 as Chairman , much has happened and not much good or delivering value during that period however he seems to have enjoyed the support (prior to appointment )of LOAM and RG ..so was never really independent as could be seen to be beholden to them ..not a good look especially as they controlled over 30% of the equity for periods of time. Although the current guidance from the company is don’t expect order visibility on material 1 ( save validation next month) some refreshing of the board is overdue. There has been no new independent director in 3 years ..boards can get cosy and self serving without new challenge in my experience.

I concur also that i would not want a wholesale immediate change in the organic mission…but i would welcome fresh eyes on whre we are with it.

Also where is the strategy to chase down other infringer…again words with no apparent deeds ..we had the patents fully validated by PTAB over a year ago ..and nothing further seems to have been done to prevent any others infringing.

So whilst the position of recieving any orders is down to third parties it would be good if a coherent strategy was in place to maximise shareholder value in various scenarios. Unfortunately we are medium term a one trick pony on the adoption of material 1.

Personally i would not advocate a wholesale change in the board, but i would immediately look to see a change of Chair. The current one has been in position for many years and appears too close to the c suite to have any independent ability to be able to assess the performance or hold them to account. He also has a close relationship to LOAM and RG from other enterprises and LOAM apparently “got him in “ if the TH files can be relied upon…he is also alleged to have been on the highly inappropriate midnight call to those parties…something that has not been correctly addressed. A new chair could hopefully help restore some confidence and could look to initiate a strategic review of where the company is and the true prospects. They could also independently review the allegations made and hopefully restore shareholder relations agreeing on some common goals. I am sure the majority of shareholders including TH would like to see the market valuation better reflect the “apparent” prospects but that is highly unlikely until their is a concrete visible contract or leaks ahead of it. Unfortunately the market will not take the boards word for anything right now judging by the share price.

Pretty sure i said a few ( vocal ones) not the majority of investors believe in an unlimited timescale for BT. We already know the largest independent shareholder wants him out. Unfortunately being a shareholder who believes there is greater value than the cash under the right management it is disappointing that many shareholders have exited as have lost faith ( see share price) ..so have indeed voted with their feet. The current valuation shows a negative E enterprise value dispite the best placed for 20 years new narrative…it shows a total lack of faith that the board can be trusted to deliver long promised commercial traction …when trust goes so should the management.

It’s a sorry and poor argument ..if you don’t like it sell. Why ..it’s as though some think shareholders ..the owners of the business have no rights. No right to question the stewardship of the company or the failed delivery of transformational shareholder value that was the narrative for years when they went cap in hand to the shareholders. Many close to the company seem to be winners from what has transpired but unfortunately the shareholders convinced to back a fundraise at 37p a year ago to help deliver said transformation have seen a halving of their money. If anyone thinks that performance is what was expected then they are in denial. Having seen to have significantly disappointed the market with the damp squib settlement they also seem on the current valuation unable to to convince their shareholders and the market in general that they will deliver anything much on the organic side either..with six months to the expected first commercial order the market values such a prospect at basically nothing. The management seems to have lost all faith in creating value as demonstrated by the negative enterprise value , except for a few who seem to believe BT is doing an excellent job and will give him an unlimited timescale to do anything and believe anyone who doesn’t agree to his staying in post and continuing doing a poor job in delivering shareholder value should sell. Remember who actually owns the company..the board own 4%, retail investors 70%..who is it being run for exactly?

Lackofthought ..Well done you you must be proud.