Member Info for Kooba

It was all rather garbled in the rns on strategic options in my view.

If they don’t find a buyer the company will have no excess capital to distribute as will have to again go it alone in meeting niche sensor demand ( much more info required on how they might) and to continue the Asian Gen2 work programmes or indeed in pursuing licenses or awards from infringers.

The founder might know the technology inside out but academics running business especially ones that have failed to gain commercial traction over decades will not give any confidence to shareholders in my view.

The two new non executives should be leading on sale options as difficult decisions might be needed…and they have both got experience in M&A transactions. if the company fails to find a buyer and goes it alone they need to get a new CEO and Chair lined up pronto to explain how they might succeed in building value when so much has failed before.

See what Tuesday brings..hopefully some answers not just more questions !!

I understand STM r&d total cost on the qd SWIR sensor product (s) ran to €300m.. even for them it was a serious investment and they were committed to the solution. The issue seems to me to be more from the underlying customer end with the first major customer deciding not to proceed with Gen 1 leaving the smaller niche interest uneconomic for the scale STM operate their FABs at in producing smaller scale production runs…so they drew a line. But still odd why they pulled Gen2 which always was the real scale opportunity we were told . Unclear to me if that is to pursue another approach being developed in parallel or to wait to see how the market develops and when. STM have been under pressure and likely had to look to cut some R&d work without short term routes to meaningful sales …maybe they revisit in years to come?

On the Emberion product I note …” new ultra-low cost SWIR (Short-Wave Infrared) sensor that brings the sensor production cost down to €50 level in large volumes” … that is just production cost not sale price …seems it will be far higher than STM were targeting and would be a major factor in devices with multiple sensors…so they have a product but is there a market?

I see no clear line that their products have anything to do with Nanoco materials ..though they could be infringing something I guess!!

Hopefully the results from Nanoco on Tuesday will be open honest and concise in where they are and what they want to achieve and on what timescale.i is clear to me they are trying to sell the whole QD business leaving the company as a cash shell. ..great if they get a respectable offer…but what if they don’t what is plan B and who will lead the company in trying to recover shareholder value??

They only need to explain the complete failure of their commercial strategy and why they think ..although there is much potential still ( rinse repeat) that selling the whole QD business lock stock and barrel is the way forward. Last message very garbled.

The key for me is what if there are no buyers? What is the strategy ..including who they partner on sensor niche markets ..zero clarity around that…how they go after infringers and most of all who will be Chair and who will be CEO going forward.

The whole future of the business seems to be in the same hands right now of those who have so successfully destroyed value through their efforts that im not sure anyone can take much more ..but the incumbents are clinging on for all they are worth …why??

The company do their presentations through Investor meet company..like many am signed up for invites to their meetings.

https://www.investormeetcompany.com/companies/nanoco-group-plc

No meetings scheduled yet

Follow to be notified when that changes

Thanks i see it at the end of the year end trading statement now..expected to be, though if it is changed from that they should inform the market.

Is there a date for the results? Not sure who would give a presentation Tenner has made no comment since he “resigned” even when the commercial strategy fell apart so im not sure he has much to say ..might be too busy with the cfo in unwinding all the large cost base increases they built up since the settlement.if he does not face shareholders what is the point of being a caretaker CEO on full pay…not doing a key role of the job. Maybe can also update on getting a decent successor in?

Interesting company ..quite small but i note the company

“ produces high performance visible to short wavelength (VIS-SWIR) infrared cameras with its in-house developed unique nanomaterial based sensor solution..”

So no indication there is anything to do with Nanoco here , i also note they seem to be targeting industrial and defence markets which might not be so sensitive to the materials used ie doesnt need to be CF ? .i think if Nanoco was anything to do with their development programme they would have said.

Maybe they could be interested in buying Nanoco or maybe Nanoco can leverage off their “ in-house designed CMOS read out integrated circuit” to try to find a way to address the niche markets they have referred to , but they may just be a competitor.Nanoco are so desperate for anything positive I'm sure they will tell us anything that might be a positive as soon as they are able.

What was the settlement again ??

You forecast $1b you witless wonder and it was $150m ( inc $85m of patent sales) not $130m..you get it wrong every time..are you just thick ?

Net to the company was $90m (£75m) they said but that has evaporated quickly £33m to shareholders and less than £20m left…bonuses , EBT , fab and god knows what else has gone out the door in double quick time.

Tenner has done well for himself and his mates no one else…and now he’s being kicked out ..but still he hangs on sponging for as long as he can in the mess that he has made …total failure for the company.

Morbox the numbers reported do no take stamp duty into account ..stamp on £2.84m is £142k.

No idea where “indexing event” came from ..should be involving sales

True..but it reiterates that any models and any research estimates were for historic infringement only and indexing event only in the USA ..all the estimates were based just on historic infringement up to end 2021.

Historic infringement by settlement would have been higher taking in 2022.but there was also no accounting for the future use in any estimates given in the marketing material Nanoco funded. We are where we are though ..we “threw in the towel” to get cracking on the large commercial opportunities that would add greater value than the “cherry” the litigation was on the Nanoco cake.

Looking at the success of the commercial efforts does anyone think going to trial would have been preferable route having spent so long getting Samsung to court?

If we had gone to trail with our exceptionally strong case then if successful the award would have just been for past infringement and possible multiples thereof for wilfulness ..where again there was a very strong case. The judge also had authority to grant an ongoing licence award to nanoco which was very likly as there was ongoing infringement . Yes it all could be appealed but the negotiating position with such an award would have placed Nanoco in a far better position and could have included an ongoing licence fee arrangement. Unfortunately how the settlement was structured appears that Samsung pays an absolute pittance for using the technology on a per unit basis ..something that might come back to haunt them if they ever chase anyone else for infringement.

Buyback should be completed this week very little left from the committed £3m now on my reckoning.

Good spot but hardly that up with events by them when it has been covered in detail over a month ago on a chat room like this…it does expose the nonsense around the RHOS “impending “ legislation which has been impending for many years and has undermined the CFQD technology to an extent as it has allowed the continued use of toxic materials. Still understand there is one major display producer selling QLED screens that they believe infringe but they have pointed out the muddy waters around what companys are actually producing and unless the alledged perpetrator folds quickly and takes a licence or buys product it would be a long haul to force any legal settlement.

Hoping there will be an update on the search for a new CEO too…there seems little point in resigning or being pushed for your failures if they then just stay on full whack effectively sorting out the mess you made. As a strategic review it was headed by two people who will not be around that long ..if there is an offer i would prefer some new appointments overseeing the process if there is no offer again a new broom is vital to regain any confidence in any new model.

Difficult in the current situation i grant you but important that shareholders are represented to ensure the best outcome…maybe Milkwood as the largest independent shareholder should ask that a director is appointed so it would be someone new to the whole saga overseeing events?

Samsung now have a licence over the core IP for display so it is not really worth as much to them…they have made fortunes already ! They could buy to protect their leadership in QLED and maybe useful MicroLed applications …they also have ambition in sensors which could be covered. Both could enhance their market share by stymying their competition.

Other display companies could look to gain access to Display IP same as Samsung.

Maybe Chinese buyer or chip company with SWIR ambitions.

But I am not that confident there will be interest to be honest.

Important to their business strategy ? It appears they are paying £600k a year for the r&d work with Nanoco , far less than STM were spending.

Also the line around STM was they had one major customer for Gen 1 which would have been meaningful ..they walked and other interest was from smaller niche ( to STM) applications not worth pursuing …if one major moves away from an approach for something else others can tend to follow often…so there is no certainty in the Asian customer following through …now they are Nanoco’s only customer it does place them in a strong position though.

Just hope someone even Samsung put something up that is acceptable and gives a decent premium to current levels ..we can then all move on !

In terms of putting the trading business up for sale and who might be interested ..it also would give the opportunity for the management to try to come up with a plan to buy it out …but that would obviously have to be carefully disclosed. With both the ceo and the Chair soon to depart there would need to be very clear lines if there was any such move.

There also could be suggestions of scorched earth in terms of what has transpired and where the company is now valued ! Perhaps RG and LOAM could help fund a buy out and get the team back together jettisoning the shareholders ?

I get the impression that it would be against a display manufacturer rather than a qd company .. the sales of displays easier to quantify. So likely far east then. I imagine that it could be the same party previously identified buy now the economics of challenging make more sense as commercial sales of infringing products have likely added up. Still a fraction of Samsung alledged infringement at the time of settlement ..but any kind of rolling royalty licence would be valuable.

Hansol manufacture under licence to Samsung display anyway so i think they are covered by the existing Samsung licence.it could be TCL where Hansol has recently exposed them not using QDs…the truth is more likely that they are not using Hansol QD’s and Samsung displays…but could well be infringing on Nanoco IP if they are.

My understanding following some clarity.

The whole of the qd business ..plant IP is up for sale..Nanoco Technologies effectively ..if the trading business was sold for cash the listed holding company would be left as a cash shell..for distribution to shareholders if that was the best option at the time.

The commercial opportunity and litigation ( i understand one specific target) are predominantly backstops if the trading business cannot find a buyer ( something i think is quite likely)

So there is no retaining IP , there is no going on to develop new materials etc etc

The Board has determined that the best way forward for the business and IP is to sell it now and give the proceeds plus remaining cash back.

I would expect more clarity with the final results shortly.

More information needs to be given if plan A fails to attract a sensible offer…commercially what terms on STM end of agreement…who do Nanoco partner with to make sensors for the niche markets they describe and how long to have marketable product ..months or years?Nanoco just makes a coating that enhances performance of sensors.

Litigation how do they fund any move to protect their IP from the identified infringer?

If a buyer is indentified and pays a reasonable sum for the business then there could be decent upside from current levels i guess…if no buyer is found then we are left with a bit of a flakey model burning £5m a year ( less than £15m July 2025) thats needs some serious padding to make it an attractive investment from current levels.

What do Milkwood make of it all ?