Member Info for Kooba

Company broker estimate of damages referenced by Edison.

Citing low end royalties per unit. Royalties = revenue. These numbers just for US past infringement to end 2021.

“Although the Group has never publicly estimated the potential value of an award from successful litigation, TPI research of 6 June 2022 suggested this could be in the range of US$200m to US$300m for Samsung’s historical US infringement alone.”

“Assuming that Samsung’s US QD display sales totalled 25m units over the five years to end-2021, upon which it is realistic to estimate a low-end royalty payable to Nanoco in the range of US$8.0 to US$12.0 per display. This amounts to lost revenue in the range of USS$200 and US$300 million for the US alone. Although royalties negotiated might have been expected to taper with rising volumes, Nanoco’s annual take might nevertheless remain on a rising trend to the point of expiry of its various patents.”

Turner Pope company broker Oct 2022

Noting Turner Pope consider there estimate low-end already.

Nanogeddon..”Speak English please Kooba. I cannot understand a word.”

I figure that is rather your problem rather than mine…i try to keep it simple but obviously not simple enough for some.

At the time of QD vision acquisition they were working with a number of Samsung competitors.

“Of course, owning QD Vision will also let Samsung cut off other companies from using the company’s quantum dot technology. QD Vision’s technology has in the past been used in TVs from TCL, Hisense, and Sony. “

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1479976545

So could be just to stymie the others rather than anything else!

Was perhaps confusing posts ..someone referred to your Nanosys litigation case relative to the sale to Samsung on advfn.

“There’s an interesting post on the other board reminding that Greg Moeller was at QD Vision whilst it was being sued by Nanosys and was sold to Samsung on the cheap”

So it appears it was their biased interpretation rather than yours…so apologies.

Look Samsung are all over this sector gaining influence and access to technology in various ways ..with Nanoco they didn’t take the offer so Samsung just used their IP anyway. Most of the players including Nanosys are pretty small so Samsung can just bully them.

You are winning then ..congrats.

The price anyone paid has absolutely no bearing on the value of the company.

No need for abuse..makes you appear simple , I’m not sure if that is the impression you want to give?

Intrusive if you don’t understand points best not comment hey !

In mid 2019 there was about 285m shares in issue and £/$ 1.26..so $90m would have been 25p a share equivalent. The share price mid 2019 was down to 9p after key customer walked. So might have been attractive then…it might be attractive now !!

https://www.edisongroup.com/research/major-customer-not-moving-to-production/24465/

I was asking why you thought it a knockdown price..what was the basis of that statement?

$90m in 2019 when less shares in issue and with the cost of money would be far better shareholder return than where the company is now valued. If was not put to shareholders…or certainly to the majority maybe many would have taken the money and moved on if they were offered that kind of sum back then ?

Re QD you also need to look at the tentacles of Samsung..they want to buy out QD vision…a company called Nanosys attacks them for infringement. Who funds Nanosys?

2010

Nanosys, maker of nanomaterials used on solar panels, light-emitting diodes and energy-efficient screens, is close to raising $25 million in a much-needed fifth round of funding after limping along for several years. About $15 million came from Korean electronics powerhouse Samsung in exchange for a license to Nanosys’ intellectual property.

They know how to play the game better than just about anyone they put more money in in 2015 and are one of Nanosys’ largest investors.

I think everyone sues everyone in new breakthrough technologies ..its a thing ! As to whether they took a knockdown price because of some legal action then , how is that determined? $70m still worth a lot more than Nanoco got for past and future revenues for the core display technology used by Samsung on $Bs sales of QLED TVs.

Https://nanoco.sixdegrees.ai/

Plant Health Care ..some names we know.

Name Shares held Percentage of issued share capital*

Ospraie AG Science 54,967,950 17.70

Richard Griffiths 41,710,000 13.43

Janus Henderson 30,214,286 9.73

Scobie Ward 25,173,280 8.11

Lombard Odier 14,138,303 4.55

Check out struggling Mothercare

Shareholders

Name Equities %

Richard Ian Griffiths 187,306,527 33.2%

Lombard Odier Asset Management (Europe) Ltd. 147,104,975 26.1%

The AI generated graphic shows the multiple links.

Despite Challenges, QD Vision Laid the Foundation for Quantum-Dot Displays

https://sid.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/msid.1306

QD vision was sold to Samsung for $70m ..most likely because they were partnering Samsung’s competition and Samsung wanted to mess them up !!

The report raises many points of concern around the stewardship and governance of the company which have not been answered. If you cannot trust a board to act in all shareholder interests then you should not support them. The Samsung deal cannot be rowed back but there is really no joined up thinking on pursuing other infringers or securing new licences in display. The board has proved significantly out of their depth in the real world and there needs to be at least some serious refreshment of the board from the Chair down with people of commercial experience at building company’s not just promising to.

Collaboration *

Looking at the huge overlaps between LOAM and R Griffiths and the board on this graphic shows that the level of independence is questionable.

https://nanoco.sixdegrees.ai/

RG and LOAM whilst both holding over 10% at the time meaning they were connected parties they also held over 38% together when they put the rather expensive loan up they were obviously operating together setting terms and therefore could be considered a “concert party” for all intents and purposes. The many examples of where they invest together also points to systematic calibration. Any combined holding over 30% is defined as effectively having a controlling interest in the company as defined in Rule 9 takeover code. This would have prompted a mandatory bid.

Well worth a read for any investor

https://www.transformingnanoco.com/

Mr Hamoodi is not going away and it looks like a GM will be called shortly.

Page 37 of the scheme document

Following sanction of the Scheme by the Court, the Scheme will become Effective in accordance with its terms upon a copy of the Court Order being delivered to the Registrar of Companies. This is presently expected to occur one Business Day after the date of the Court Sanction Hearing, subject to satisfaction (or, where applicable, waiver) of the Conditions.
Hurricane and/or Prax will make an announcement through a Regulatory Information Service as soon as practicable following the Scheme becoming Effective.
Upon the Scheme becoming Effective, it will be binding on all Scheme Shareholders holding Scheme Shares at the Scheme Record Time, irrespective of whether or not they attended or voted in favour of, or against, the Scheme at the Court Meeting or in favour of, or against, or abstained from voting on the Resolutions at the General Meeting.

Quick post as requested on the compulsory purchase of shares in takeover situations.
In contractual takeovers ..standard type offer , then the bidder could go unconditional above 50% but would need to get above 90% to force dissenting shareholders out through a minority squeeze out …there is a possibility in that scenario that a share holder or group above 10% could retain share ownership and be a nuisance often resulting in a better offer to clear them out later on. This PRAX offer is not a contractual takeover it is an offer by scheme of arrangement and if the 75% is attained in the court the scheme will be successful and the offer goes through..this is where it differs..all shares are then compulsory cancelled and the cash and DCU’s will be distributed to all whichever way they voted. Although the bar is high it can be a quicker and more assured way of gaining 100% ownership.
This site explains it..but essentially if they get 75% plus and the scheme goes through then everyone is effectively taking the offer whether they like it or not.

“The main advantage of a scheme of arrangement is that, if successful, it will bind all shareholders (regardless of whether, or in what way, they voted). However, due to the High Court’s involvement, schemes of arrangement are less flexible structures than contractual takeover offers.”
Same source
https://www.burges-salmon.com/news-and-insight/publications/guide-to-public-takeovers-in-the-uk