Member Info for Kooba

I think Hamoodi from my info exited just about every share in the tender and elevated aftermath..well done him.

If one remembers talking of downscaling to a “patent troll” downscaling operations and using the funds in the business to chase down other infringers agressively ..that was the Hamoodi game plan and the company and many investors said that would be an awful thing to do as it might jeopardise the great prospects with STM and finally making bundles commercialising the IP.

Maybe he was actually farsighted and onto something !!

Seems the seller no done ..more dumping.

Whether they know anything or are just aggressive who knows..but the print at 7p looks like someone who does not want to wait around for the results to finally be released. I cant think of any valid reason for the results to be delayed . Mostly counting central costs and the dwindling interest coming in ..as said before they are buying time to conjure up a new narrative of how the business goes forward as i read it they have not received any acceptable offers.

Quite a few clues from the limited comms coming out all focusing on commercialisation of the IP. But seems the selling is already discounting the lack of interest in buying the operations…

The seller still printing institutional size clips ..doesn't look good.

I would imagine any commercialisation of the latest in house r&d they link to the great new thing will take just as long to get commercial traction as their previous mass market great new things !

Again this does not smell like a company on the brink of sale it sounds like a company looking for a new rainbow to chase because they have lost sight of the last few.

I thought Nanoco had said they continued to do self funded work in the area but have never mentioned any partnership or r&d programme for any outside interest. I think if they were working with someone in any formal capacity they would have announced it as they are always striving to have some carrot to dangle. Not impossible something has moved on since last update but unlikely in my view.

I agree looks news…so if they have gone full circle back to CFQDs who is supplying them …Nanosys??

Been there and we arent doing that! Another great lead that fell away…i thought it was because Plessey was working exclusively with Meta?

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/211949/nanoco-forms-partnership-with-plessey-semiconductors-to-shrink-pixel-size-of-microled-displays-211949.html…

Was all over a year later

“In March 2020, Meta signed a deal with Plessey to dedicate all of Plessey's microLED manufacturing operations to support Meta with its own product development. Facebook pretty much acquired Plessey's microLED operations with this exclusive deal. “

On a separate note i understand that Mr Hamoodi having proved that a case should be heard in high court that Loam were dealing with inside information and their objections being thrown out have settled out of court …terms unknown.

Probably a good thing for Nanoco that they were not dragged into a court case that alleged that company executives allowed information to be used for the benefit of a small group of shareholders. I’m suer noting like that happened LOAM were just better informed through public access documents that the rest of the entire market of likely outcomes to the Samsung settlement and it was a coincidence they spoke to the management ahead of the news release.

I didnt say every banker lawyer and accountant on the deal is bent …far from it…but it only takes one with a few mates with a few accounts and no risk…amazing what folks will do for money….well not really. Liquidity is indeed an issue but with Nanoco where all but a small percentage are in inside hands and the majority in pi ownership when there is a bump you get a few sellers providing liquidity ..see yesterday and today.

So again whether we like it or not there is still a lot of well informed buying …and selling out there in most transactions…or knowledge where there will be no transaction.

I think having followed Nanoco for a while the counter is no immune to such activity…but maybe less so now the register has changed somewhat!!

I also was a director of a member firm and its corporate finance company and was a nomad..so touché

If you do not think that there is any price movement before just about every price sensitive transaction then you must be looking at a different market to me!

If you think the toothless fca actually puts people off engaging in such activity then again i would have to disagree…they catch very few and ones they do often get off Scot free on technicalities ..there are easy ways folks get round it with burner phones and the like..I think it’s still rife but is now less organised than the days of the boys with the dark glasses down in Monaco ..the money laundering laws rather upset that route.

Anyhow..i will expect some serious price action before any deal if it presents a big jump in value…yesterday was just an overhang clearing and a bounce from oversold levels…nothing that sniffy to me.

All fair points but im not sure what business as normal might look like..as with your licence comments which seems very reasonable how can they commit to any development or even perish the thought sales agreements if the business changes hands …i am fully aware they planned this as a parallel exercise of running the business and selling the business but in reality its rather tricky doing both as any new owner might not want anything but the IP after buying the business …so thats why i thought the at pace was essential…almost 6 months ago !!

They should in any normal process where there were acceptable offers be past a data room stage and in the final stages of DD and refining terms and timetables.

I think if it was an acceptable offer which would have to reflect the value the company places on if IP and therefore a significant premium to the whole market cap let alone the current nil value attributed to the non cash assets the share price would not be where it is. There would be many parties involved by now and i have hardly ever seen a successful resolution like above without the shares at least partly reflecting the incoming value jump. Maybe im wrong its as tight as a drum and there is an advanced offer that values the equity at. 30-40p plus the cash in the business which is then distributed within months of the sale and we are all happy at such a smashing outcome.

I think it’s best never to get too confident on Nanoco ever delivering anything that positive relative to expectation…saves further disappointment.

But if they do deliver 30p cash out of this ..i will be as happy as a sand boy ..whatever that is!

What is slightly difficult to know is whether the company following the press release..not a communication direct to its shareholders is far more focused on commercial development now and less so a trade sale of the assets?

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250211770290/en/Nanoco-Refocuses-on-Strategic-Growth

The Chair

Jalal Bagherli, CBE, said:

“With a world-class technology platform and a strengthened leadership team, Nanoco is now poised to deliver on its commercialisation strategy. With Dmitry and Jai on board, I look forward to seeing progress on the commercial front. We are focused on accelerating engagement with customers and investors and scaling our breakthrough quantum dot technology into high-value applications.”

No mention of the decision and ongoing process to try to sell the operations and IP!

I notice

Jai Subramanian joined Nanoco as Global Business Director.

Is off on another industry shindig in China having done a west Coat one recently …the company seems to be trying to get itself about …again if they were close to any disposal would such expense and positioning for commercial growth be that appropriate??

No problem ..my reaction was maybe OTT but there is so much BS on these type of boards its not surprising folks make such comments. I try to stick to the truth! On the possible future litigation comments i have posted i did have a few quite in depth conversations with the previous Chair towards the end of last year and comments are based those conversations. There was nothing price sensitive but fairly clear idea of what would constitute a situation that was worth pursuing and that was very much around actual sales volumes of products that they considered had infringed. When asked as to the previously identified party and why it hadn’t been followed on it was that the sales 2 years ago were not sufficient to build a meaningful case…but they now were.

Since there has been a complete change at the top and maybe strategy and although the new guard seem to be following the outcome of strategic review actions , what they really want to do in terms of sale , litigation and commercial development ..who knows . Hopefully some clear insight with interims after the new CEO has has longer to come up with some clear ideas on how he will deliver value.

In the meantime i am pleased to see the overhang cleared and indeed if things are still moving ahead in the background then there could be pleasant surprises to come..that would be a first!!

The seller clearing perfectly explains the volume ..look at the sell prints this over 1m in blocks around the 7p level..that appears the end of the order to me. That stock was absorbed by some lumpy buying and then buyers went on taking the volumes up as the price went better.

A fairly classic end of overhang situation..just look at how the shares had been taken down over the past several weeks by constant selling..as soon as the seller is done buyers jumped in.

I doubt there is more to it..but delighted if there is a positive update on the sales process but not holding my breath.

17/03/2025 bought b012735444 6.52 12,500 831.36

17/03/2025 bought b012734244 6.45 12,500 822.62

17/03/2025 bought b012732834 6.45 12,500 822.62

14/03/2025 bought b011806744 7.55 25,000 1,907.78

14/03/2025 bought b011805884 7.55 15,000 1,149.45

14/03/2025 bought b011805714 7.55 10,000 770.28

05/12/2024 sold s928904483 15.08 30,000 -4,511.60

my bag i added 87500 at an average of 7.14p ..apologies for the slight inaccuracy !!

call me a bull****ter again.

i made two recent purchases just over 7.5 and under 6.5p and even posted them live ..if you can read i said i had added at 7p average…so not bull****ting but am able to read and tell the truth…multi-skilling me!

Looking the prints looks like the seller has been cleared…highest volume for a while.

Maybe we finally get a disclosure on who’s been dumping them out.

Anyway pleased to see the turn around having been adding averaging 7p..

If it is a precursor to a deal coming out the the better but i think its just a line clearing.

I think that TP vision is a thread worth pulling at!

TP Vision, the company behind Philips TVs, explores and potentially uses quantum dot technology, including QD-OLED panels, but it doesn't explicitly state a specific supplier for its quantum dot technology.

If one goes back a few years

Danny Tack, director of product strategy and planning at Philip's parent company TP Vision. "We are also exploring the quantum dot OLED panel from Samsung," he told HDTVTest…

So not only Sky Glass but any Phillips models are TP Vision and its unclear where they get there QD panels..or maybe just QDs from…its also unclear whether they are using CFQDs but since still a European based company for innovation with European sales one would hope so.

Very difficult to work out the supply chains on some of these companies ..but that is no accident.

Sony also produce QD classified TVs again haven’t dug into that but could be another one that is using CFQDs …where from?

Often end up with dead ends but certainly TP Vision sales of QD enabled TVs has jumped over the past 4 years and continues to launch such products.

“All 2025 premium LED sets are now QLED models and feature the latest Quantum Dot panel technology to offer extended colour reproduction”

https://www.tpvision.com/blog/new-2025-philips-ambilight-tv-range/

I think it was pretty clear who had the whip hand in the final negotiations..then quantum was at the low end the terms were Nanoco had to wait a year to get any meaningful cash in their accounts….that it was a no fault settlement even though there was strong evidence of willfulness and they also lets not forget Samsung got 118 patents thrown in including one of the four key ones in the forthcoming trial ..again details of what was sold were never really disclosed and whether they were worth the valuation attributed or very little. But all these things were a Samsung want …..so im pretty sure Samsung got anything they wanted and can use the IP however they see fit.

Nanoco is once again in a weakened position to chase anyone else ..they have dwindling funds and without some revenues a limited life just on working capital.

Perhaps a grey area..as to Hansol from Nanoco marketing 2024

“Hansol provides captive supply of quantum dots to Samsung and, therefore, we believe is unable to supply quantum dots to competitors to Samsung as relationships currently stand. The litigation process did not conclude on whether Hansol’s products infringe Nanoco’s IP or not.”

A large part of Samsungs business is Samsung display which is owned by Samsung…their business is supplying panels to Samsung and others. I find it strange that a fully owned subsidiary that makes the panels is not included in the licence agreement.

Since i have not seen the licence agreement it’s rather difficult to have a fixed view on what Samsung can and cant do with the IP.

As i have said before having spoken to the company towards the end of last year i believe the infringer they have identified comes from when they did breakdowns on other QLED displays from other companies ..indentified one they said was worth going for but the scale of sales made it uneconomic..2 years later it understand that that infringer is now worth pursuing..that would eliminate some of the other theories. Look for a TV manufacturing brand that advertises its wares as containing QDs where sales have picked up strongly in the past 2 years.

It will still be tiny compared to Samsungs hold in the market ..but now worth going for apparently.

My interpretation is it covers Samsung display products …so if Samsung make panels using Hansol QDs and sell them that’s covered…if however Hansol supply QDs elsewhere that would not…anyway as said I’m pretty sure it’s not Apple and it’s not Hansol ..it is another display manufacturer ..maybe using Nanosys dots??

I doubt it is anything the size of Samsung that had sold almost 20m units if there is a target infringer…maybe though any infringer might just buy the IP and save the risk.