Member Info for Kooba

Unbelievable they just can’t see it…lost in their own little made up world.

you are a dreadful hypocritical bore that never has anything insightful or original to say…just an awful bore with the fact ..that is far from a fact that 10 in 1 shareholders agree with you…you without a clue who likes attacking other shareholders with their fake persona but evidencing zero knowledge to back anything up ..you get your **** kicked every time as it’s easy proving you are a lying fake.

people do not seem to agree with you sunshine…check your likes..none. you are a wastrel and of no worth to any adult conversation on this share. you have been wrong on every take .

times are a changing and hopefully you won’t like it and **** off…which would be nice.

Nb the litigation funders and Epstein were appointed to act for the company when Edelman was still ceo…many seem to credit Tenner for everything around starting litigation and finding funding to go for Samsung..it was all started on Edelmans watch Tenner was CFO at the time.

In this interview they had been doing DD into a case for over a year already with his mates firm.

Seems Tenner just picked up where it was left.

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/media/edison-executive-interview-14-july-2020/

Some numbers in there on the competitive price advantage in using Nanoco tech ..TV’s twice the price and the cost only 10% more ..on 14 million tv’s ..by time we got to trial ..or didnt that number of sales was over 24mlln. Big numbers indeed achieved by using Nanoco tech.

There have now been 40m QLED TV’s sold by Samsung directly..divided by our $60m licence that is $1.50 per tv sold. Nice darts.

He “resigned” a few months later.

Oh do shut up you daft twat.

I said the people who were on different success arrangements were conflicted as they wanted a quick ‘win” the lawyers were also likely on a success fee. ..if you believe all the folks on the case including those on the litigation sub committee advising the company were acting solely in the best interests of the ordinary shareholders of Nanoco then you are more dumb than even you normally make out.

Defending a management that has failed in it’s whole strategy is one thing defending lawyers and litigation funders and consultants and bond holders with big success bonuses who i was referring too claiming they act in their own interests is another.

You said you had over 20 litigation cases you were party to , some you win some you lose and you have bills in the hundreds of thousands…pretty big cases then! On a similar level to the Samsung case i guess…more likely petty theft on those numbers. Probably some small claims court appearances there.

You were one who talked BILLIONS were you witless oh and the then CEO Edelman who was kept on in the litigation sub committee and got a success fee along with the companies egal consultant Epstein who was a mate of his. Edelman seem straight die , just unfortunate selling loads of shares just before Apple walked…got lucky there.

On a separate note insider dealing is not a victimless crime ..just wanted to put that out there.

Flyinghigher

“As for what the advisors said, that's a valid point..”

The problem with the legal advisors and the litigation funding and the others on payroll including Edelman and the effectively the loan note holders was that they were not aligned with the shareholders.

All the legal teams got great rewards quickly for taking the deal..it was a quick and very large profit for the funder ( who effectively shared on an asset sale) ..they were in the process of raising a new fund and demonstrating a quick and easy return was great for them.

Our legal reps would have set out pros and cons to continuing to trial ..i doubt at any point they said you ain’t going to do any better than $60m plus the asset sale of $90m ..thats not really how they would work. There were obviously risks to continuing to trial but Nanoco had overcome every challenge Samsung could put up to that point. But again the fee structure might have leaned towards a success fee ..taking a settlement at any level could be defined as success whether it maximised the benefit to shareholders is not the point. The loan note holders who were contacted before the settlement was agreed also got a success bonus well over double the amount of the loan..and obviously still got the capital back on top. Others involved and we don’t know who benefitted exactly but Edelman and a close contact of his Epstein (another one) who advised also got sizeable success payments it seems.

But none of these people necessarily had a direct responsibility to act for the shareholders and how they benefitted was not aligned with what shareholders ended up at.

The board recognised they had no litigation expertise ( they quoted) and if they took the advice of parties that directly benefitted from a quick rollover settlement that advice might well have been conflicted and not the best.

Who knows what they were told or how they came to the conclusion to take a low ball licence settlement and sell a chunk of patents…or how long it took to go through the patents selected to be sold..how could that have been part of the heads of terms ..a very large part without there being lengthy discussions on what was in the package? How could it have been a last minute approach? I think talks must have started months before heads were reached ..but when?

Since the day the bomb dropped they have not use the committed funds for the buyback.

My reckoning is the have used between 2.52-2.6m depending on commission costs if there are any.

So they still have up to £480k to use…if as is seems sensible with the change in trading outlook they are not going to complete the buyback maybe best to tell the shareholders just stopping it again when there is serious volumes going through needs explaining. Again maybe it is just the broker thinking the price needs to settle ..but they can still be part of large volume anyway ..they are hardly supporting the price when over 10m go through.

I think there is a serious lack of leadership right now from the executives..it really needs an NED to step up to the interim role of CEO as some real questions over the future need to be answered and some tough action needs to be taken. If we drift into next year waiting for a new CEO ..if we can find a suitable one ..which imo depends on what the board sees as the main strategic aim , then we will have got through another £2.5m cash by xmas with nobody trying to move the company to a more sustainable position where shareholders might be able to see some return from these levels.

Well a big volume day with some big prints.

Looks like a seller of 5.92m ..the exact number LOAM had left…so they are out completely.

More intriguingly at a slightly lower level appears what is likely a buyer of 6.1m shares…the price movement indicates that buyer likely goes on ..could be cable car averaging already or could be a new player…if the 6.1m goes to one buyer it will have to be announced as over 3%.

Could there be an aggressive move coming ..i doubt anyone is buying in support of the current management and the uncertain strategy ..maybe someone has another idea?

No that was NigWit and they were expecting £100m annual royalty on top of £750m for past US infringement ..i copied the post from Feb 2022 ..OH and a sales agreement with STM if memory serves. They did get an agreement with STM after the settlement of course ..but I'm not sure of its value right now.

Anyway good to see some buying especially as the company has put its hands back in its pockets on the buyback . Can only assume some are positioning for a takeover.

The company retains 370 patents and the ability to use any of the 118 sold to Samsung.

So whatever Samsung did buy an owner of Nanoco can still take advantage of.

The question might be on costs as to whether the business is worth more with the talent in place right now or more if they have slashed the cost base to more appropriate levels against the business outlook just looking for an IP buyer?

Feeks ..their estimated figures were in £..so quite a bit higher..at prevailing exchange rates that takes there estimate to a cool $1b…

But it was everyone but them who couldn’t read the tea leaves apparently.

Loam and RG held almost 40% of the company early 2022..they likely are both now completely out ..they were very long term pre IPO investors in the company.

They both lost any confidence in the commercial delivery around the time of that 37p fundraise they did not support and both started selling down from then on ..seems they never believe the cake was worth much..being inside th extent and not following the ever so confident official feed maybe helps in sifting through the bull.

They announced they were below 3% following 11m sales on friday update. They do not have to make any further disclosures below 3% so you will not hear anything further. It could be seen as likely following such a dump that they will not retain the small balance as they have clearly given up on the company.

Terry projecting hard today.

What an utter plank.

Knows nothing if its no been on Star Trek…Terry its a science fiction show !

One assumes that minimum in the initial contract was to help the company budget to get into commercial production and any increase in working capital in terms of materials. Maybe that come into play in terms of ending the contract?

“The agreement also commits ST to taking a specified minimum volume of nanomaterials from Nanoco if the enhanced sensors gain market traction and commercial volumes are required. These would be produced at the existing facility in Runcorn.”

We were told it was commercial revenue ..whether there was traction is debatable!

We were meant to have a minimum commitment for sales if Stm wanted commercial production..we got a commercial order that from all evidence ( reported revenues half year) did not move the dial at all in terms of what one might expect from just the r&d and Samsung accounting alone..that is shown again with the trading update on current year that actually was below where they guided for Samsung and r&d work alone at £8.4m. What that minimum order was must have been in the very low $100ks if not smaller as that is all that first order could have been.

and terry i knew enough to know this management has been bull****ting for years…something you still seem to be blind to , however much evidence is amassed that this has been a complete and unmitigated disaster and that the strategy is a complete failure.

maybe there is another star trek episode that proves me wrong? plank.

Terry think we should double down on our highly successful self financed r&d endeavours which have been so fruitful and increase the burn rate further to move the business on..maybe get the burn down to a year then ..at least it puts the company out of its misery quicker i guess.

Also up the marketing budget ..what we are marketing exactly and to whom is quite a question not answered. We have been round the houses with many different players over the years so im sure folks in the field know we are out there…they must know we have IP which has been used by others to produce CFQDs at scale and for much benefit in display…but it appears Samsung can provide the whole display for those who want it. As for sensors our new speciality market the big players are STM and Sony ( with Samsung coming from behind) ..we are no longer working with Stm we may be indirectly working with Sony and Samsung will just do whatever they want anyway. So who are we marketing to and with what?

The Asian customer appears to be a materials supply company themselves rather than a micro chip manufacturer so it would involve an underlying customer to be involved in that process of using the FAB i would guess…might be of use but if the annual revenues from that customer are £70k a month in total running a FAB to produce small lot runs might not be at all cost effective.

I’m sure the company will explain a new plan sooner…..or later.

But i think we are down to trying to work out sum of the parts valuations now.

Non exclusive ..theoretically .There is still the question mark over creating the proprietary QF that STM needed to test on chip and their work was far larger than the Asian customer.

How the Asian customer works or whether they want that facility who knows? It strikes me it was very much put in for the ongoing STM work.

As to getting more sensor work from a semiconductor company that might use the FAB capacity forgive me if i think that is a long shot..but not as long as the suggestion that Nanoco makes its own sensors in its FAB !

The fAB will likely be mothballed as it was set up using STM kit to accelerate the r&d work we were doing with them..it could have sped up the gen 2 work ..now cancelled.

It’s not impossible it could assist in our work for the smaller Asian customer or anyone else that comes along and wants some cheap research work done ..but it is unclear whether the kit is compatible or the ability to coat silicon microchips under the STM agreement will mean that is the case..some clarity needed.

They took more space , they bought the used semi conductor kit from STM , shipped it , installed it , commissioned it , staffed it and had a jolly announcing its launch only a month ago. Total cost likely near £3M at a guess.

Now unclear how it can be used.

Whilst not saying that i can’t see an upside on m&a resolving this situation for new investors who bought in on the warning ..you were likely buying shares from LOAM ..and institution that was the company’s largest shareholder and even had a guy on the board up to two years ago.

Since then they have tried to exit their holding on just about any liquidity event and have now gone from from over 25% holding to sub 3% having sold 11m shares on friday. They probably know the company better than most having been invested before the company even listed so by buying in from folks like that heading for the door with great knowledge sometimes think twice and consider whether you know the situation well or are just looking for a quick bounce more on luck than any judgement. I wish new comers well but do hope they have their eyes open..it is not a simple situation and there are no simple answers.