Member Info for Kooba

“The settlement with Samsung is structured as two agreements: an IP licence agreement worth $65m (£54m), which encapsulates royalties that would have been paid in the past or the future, and an IP sales agreement worth $85m (£71m)

Settling the litigation was the licence agreement ..after funder and legal obligation $60m bonus and success such as the bond holders et al left nothing to the company.so we didn’t get anything from that agreement. What we ended up with is the funds from the sale of our IP…unless the company misled its shareholders as to the nature of the agreements being separate.

So as separate agreements Nanoco got about $5m net of direct costs for settling the litigation..before their other obligations.

Has anyone got a situation where a company got more than $5m net to settle a patent case?

Nice that the funders effectively shared on the licence settlement and the sale of shareholder assets..unless of course those assets had no value and the settlement was constructed around avoiding tax?

Which one is correct i wonder?

Yeah, yeah, tell the hand Kooba!

Ha ha ha you can’t stop yourselves being the immature twerp who makes it up as they go along can you Terry …but if making up fictitious and thoroughly boring conversations that never took at great length and doing cheap Little Britain lines gives you some gravitas..I assure you you are even more deluded than even I gave you credit for.

SmithyB

I am consistent as it goes …and am far from happy at the situation.I am saying that Gen 1 may not be dead and that although a first customer that was behind the first order is not continuing into a product launch that is why no highly “anticipated” further orders ..hence warning hence no visability of when there may be next order. There are I understand dozens of trials of the sensor incorporating our materials so maybe one or more of them may want to adopt the product into an end device. But as far as things stand there is no end customer as yet. The company are buying for time in terms of hoping something turns up so they can try to give so guidance. But the target of cash flow breakeven CY 2025 seems along way off to me.

The benefit of the doubt is that they were not directly involved in pausing the buyback..that apparently was down to Cavendish alone for unknown reasons..having aggressively bought shares close to 21p on average they just decided to stop one day.

The benefit of the doubt on Gen 1 from me is that I don’t see Gen 1 as dead as others do and that they could still see some commercial traction , thought obviously delayed and still uncertain.

Thats what I posted and still believe having spoken at length to an informed party ..there is nothing inside in it ..it’s reflecting the delayed nature as they published in an rns.

Perhaps if others did their own research or just read post properly it might no be so tedious on this board?

As if Tenner ever takes shareholders calls with valid concerns or responds to e mails…only his ex mates who have now left stage left having supported him on speed dial undivided attention when following their instructions. The new neds are clearly of a much more decent calibre and he has been rumbled very quickly…when asked on what guarantees of revenue did he have exactly when he massively increased the cost base and he had none ..just hopes and hot air that were used to set a budget that now look far too optimistic. But ..but ..they said they might have a customer is not a basis to increase costs ..and now cash burn by over £3m a year. We were to,d the company had cash to breakeven before the settlement ..we were told the staffing and cost base at £100k a month burn was good to move to commercial production.none of this has transpired and we are left in a position where we have no idea of when and if Gen 1 sales might be more than a one off order. The typical position of a company that finds itself well funded …they just find ways of spending it. you might have thought Nanoco of all companys might not make the same mistakes relying on a single direct customer again….maybe not learning such lessons cost him…not as much as shareholders though.

Terry I know all the stuff you have written under various id’s im sure there’s some I have missed it’s difficult keeping up especially when you deny that it is you only to then get caught out lying.

You do absolutely nothing but defend Mr Tenner and say he has done so much for the company and what a smashing chap he is…really rather odd.

You never have anything negative to say when the company disappoints ..apart from that should be expected and seem delighted in the never ending value destruction …maybe you are short that might explain your love of Tenner as he has delivered for the shorts nicely.

In terms of paying shareholders out…they bought shares back..mostly far lower than they issued them at..you have to net off the cash at issue and the subsequent fundraises if you want to talk of net distribution.

Evidence that he has lost investor confidence..l try the bloody share price for one..then there’s the exodus of long term holders that previously backed him..then there’s him getting pushed out.

Your fetish for Mr Tenner is quite disturbing !

From the resident fantasist who never lets facts get in the way of anything they post.

Anyone who sees no issue with the delivery of value from this company to its shareholders over the past 2 years and over most timescales since they listed is living in cuckooland..shareholders have every right to question the narrative that has been given and the actual delivery because they do not align.investors have every right to expect the management entrusted with running the business to increase the value of the company in absolute and relative terms.

They down about 60% in absolute terms and 70% against relevant index.

The principal aim is not to just have a happy well paid workforce it is to build a sustainable and growing business ..not make excuses why not.

This can still emerge as a success but Tenner having lost investor faith now has lost the faith of the board. A change at the top was very necessary and rather overdue.

Hopefully can find a competent and experienced CEO who can make some genuine progress..it’s easy to see the potential in QD technology ..less some how Nanoco shareholders benefit as yet.

It is the company’s role to manage expectation of likely significant events rather than boost them further. They had ample means through they paid for research to do so but they wanted to raise money so keeping the price puffed up on bullish notes around the fundraise was more important. They continued with a very bullish assessment of prospects as they cleared every hurdle and looked forward to their day in court. They clearly were aware of Edison peel hunt and turner pope research out there that formed a basis of market expectation ..all were significant above the settlement and all related only to a court outcome for past US infringement. So miles off in terms of what was taken.

They could have tempered expectation at any point if they thought that market expectation was out of kilter. They didn’t …and in particular with their January rns ‘s again gave scant idea as to what was coming around that market expectation.

So every opportunity to have managed investor expectation but instead fuelled the fire.

Terry

“Anyway, who told you? Your tea leaves perhaps; or did you cast asparagus?”

I have not argued they are running out of money…and the information is from someone who knows far more than you…which to be fair is a very open field . But even you would have to accept their credentials on the matter. I will not disclose private conversations though but am confident on this and the position of Gen 1 as I posted.

You are so third rate Terry ..tidy up your act ffs.

Terry

“It's also wrong to assume that the award would grow during the appeal. An appeal is always an opportunity to reduce the award by negotiating.”

That was a point taken from your beloved Brian who was super confident of the case …if award survived appeal that the award would grow by the ongoing sales during the appeal process .. if that is wrong then it is Brian that is wrong..he clearly stated the position pre trial…not mentioned much post settlement just the cost of money mentioned then..which was a dumb reason to fold.

As to the shenanigans of US patent cases one of the best known and public fought cases was Apple vs Samsung…

Apple vs Samsung (2012) – $1.04 billion

This patent war doesn’t need any introduction. Everyone under the sun working in the field of patents knows to sue and a counter-suing game between Apple and Samsung. Apple sued Samsung in Apr 2011 for a patent infringement suit and by July 2012, both companies were involved in 50 lawsuits around the globe.

Sort of difficult missing Samsungs reputation as they lost one of the biggest cases in tech infringement in the USA. Also Samsung Electronics has faced 404 patent infringement lawsuits in the United States alone over the past five years (2019-2023)..no one could have read the business pages for years not to know their history.

I am told the buyback was totally at the discretion of Cavendish ..I have never seen a broker agreement where a broker chooses not to participate for such an extended period unless the price runs away or the conditions of shareholder approval are not met ..here the price was falling and fell further once they suspended activity. It makes no sense but that is the narrative.

Nothing to do with the company.

The company though chose to return the minimum promised and retain more cash than they originally planned ..they wanted to hold £20m…but kept £23m ..we are already back at £20m at end of July with the capital distribution yet to be completed.

So the only take from what we know is the company kept back more and distributed the minimum (range was £33m to £40m) of £33m.

One could take that as a negative if one wanted to.

They reiterated commitment to the buyback with the trading update and profit warning.

The fact they are completing it does not show confidence..but if they cancelled the last £1.5m because they thought they might need the cash that would have sent a very negative signal on prospects they say are merely delayed…for now.

Every patent litigation case is different in circumstance , strength and scale of infringement.

Since the strength of the case had survived every Samsung ruse and the patents had been upheld and the scale of infringement was absolutely clear in the number of units that contained out technology that had actually been sold (at significant premium prices) in the USA it was as we approached trial as low a risk position as you can be in…never guarantees sure with jury trial and if up against a US corporation I might have folded…but against an overseas company known to be a very regular fixture in infringement cases Nanoco could have seen a very serious award with wilfulness and an ongoing royalty awarded..it could appealed but the award would grow during that period and it seems to me Samsung had exhausted its case anyway.

We were told the funds raised in June 22 would see us through to cashflow breakeven from sensor technology unaffected by the case anyway .

Then took a dive before even getting in the ring.

It’s standard wording when someone agrees to go..he’s likely negotiated good leaver terms to keep incentives and consultancy terms..all should become clear with report and accounts . He finally negotiated a good deal , for himself…he is one of the few who has benefitted from his tenure on the board.

He has been pushed I clear to anyone level headed.

He is staying on until a replacement found and has offered a period of consultation and handover..not someone who has another role lined up.

He did not want to leave clear again from recent interviews..”resignations” after surprise profit warnings and sharp share price falls are not often voluntary unless the position becomes un “tenner” able ..not his choice.

Well I wish you luck with your investment approach..and I hope it pays off as I own shares too.

As I have posted following more in depth research I believe that there was a gen 1 underlying client ..who changed their plans hence no follow on and build up of orders…however I believe that STM are actively trialing the sensor containing our materials with many other underlying customers so no visibility that might have been but still a number (dozens) of potential end users…so am not as negative as some. I also believe the neds have taken matters into their hands around leadership and communications ..there are far too many slip ups and misleading comms to be able to turn this around without significant changes…now in train.

Do I believe in QDs being a major and mass market opportunity ..yup.

Do I currently have confidence that Nanoco will be a major beneficiary ..not so much.

But the opportunity is there under the right leadership to be an interesting U.K. success story even after many years of running up blind alleyways.

Investor confidence is earned.

The problem is SmithyB is you are now invested presumably from what you have read from the executives communications ..there is precious else to go on save the paid for “research” ..so at what point does your cynicism of company communications move from likely misleading to I believe that ..it seems to be the point that you likely invested!

By dismissing the earlier acceptable misdirection you think occurred what made you confident that the latest upbeat comments earlier this year were not from the same stable?

It is a genuine question…personally if I think a company’s management have been exposed as misleading however good the underlying technology and potential market is then they need changing …I think the Ned’s have agreed that position myself.

Just another fact on the Hamoodi case ..BT stated it had nothing to do with Nanoco ..they were not involved.

In the court papers Nanoco are a represented party in the proceedings …far from uninvolved!

“Tenner says: 'Ultimately, what [Mr Hamoodi] decides to do is what he decides to do - he's currently got legal action ongoing with one of our other shareholders [Lombard Odier] that doesn't involve us.”

April 2024 https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-13243763/Nanoco-eyes-new-chapter-Samsung-settlement-attempted-boardroom-coup.html

https://vlex.co.uk/vid/tariq-hamoodi-v-lombard-1038419749

Between:

Tariq Hamoodi

Claimant

and

Lombard Odier Asset Management (Europe) Ltd

Defendant

and

Nanoco Group Plc

Third Party

[2024] EWHC 1314 (Comm)

Maybe just understandably misleading as part of his job again ??

SmithyB

“Well K you can say all that with a straight face if you wish and meanwhile businesses will behave as they always have done.”

If you think executives and boards can just make it up as they go along misleading investors into parting with their money why on earth do you trust any company communications and investment in listed companies? You basically are agreeing with any investor here who feels they were misled though..the difference is you think it’s ok..and others who 7nderstand securities regulation and law do not.

“Is there anything to support Hamoodis arguements in the legal case that Nano had at first received derisory offers from Samsung and were always minded to settle or is that all him? Even if it is all him, seems to suggest that it was never going to court”

I reckon you must say yes there is evidence..this is not a bulletin board we are talking about it is submissions to the high court. Submissions that have been accepted and survived appeal that a case should be heard.

I have no idea on Mr Hamoodi’s legal bills to pursue this case but they would be substantial and I guess that Loams are higher. They wanted it thrown out and it wasn’t , they appealed and lost.

Someone posted it will be settled before court in an ironic situation…who knows. But it’s fair to say the guy did his homework and that if he says offers were received then I would tend to believe…one has to remember TH was more inside the tent on good terms than many ordinary shareholders so what the company , loam et al gave away might well come back and bite their asses.

as has been pointed out

“…it's the type of crap companies say to get placings away.”

is in breach of securities regulations …terry made similar comments that the ceo needs to puff the story ..thats his job.

no it’s not ..the job is to reflect a fair and realistic picture to the company’s shareholders not play some game of spoof to get money in. the idea that executives can say whatever they like to secure funding without a secure basis in doing so is fallacy…there are rules ! not as rigorous in terms of investor legal challenge as in the states but maybe there should be more challenge such as ****odi …what you say to your shareholders needs to be accurate …and also needs to be the same across your shareholder base irrespective of holding.

simply accepting that company’s puff to get funding when it does not reflect realistic business delivery should not be a thing to consider…and leaves such company’s in danger of litigation and losing investor confidence and suffering a rating that reflects the resulting lack of trust.

oh !

Security Encryption

Semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) have enormous potential for lighting quantum light in quantum information technologies. In the quantum world, QDs are known as artificial atoms.

https://www.azoquantum.com/News.aspx?newsID=10421

Good to see some still pushing the envelope in solar too.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-024-01608-5

There is a vast amount of r&d in QDs ongoing in a variety of areas , it may prove difficult to remain “A world leader in the development, manufacture and supply of quantum dots and other semiconductor nanomaterials. “ especially when some of the protection from their core patents validated comes to an end.

Troublesome ..bloody hilarious..not sure I will get that image out of my head in those fleeting moments I give our Terry any consideration.

Terry holds shares long term that have performed like a lead balloon and defends every over optimistic communication their soon to leave under a cloud of underperformance CEO has ever uttered…apart from explaining it’s the CEOs job to puff the story and investors should not have believed him ( total hilarity ) so I would have to caution anyone taking any investment advice as evidence suggest they only hold one share that has underperformed by more than 60% in the last few years.

And he thinks he can give anyone advice.

Billy Smarts finest.