Member Info for Kooba

SmithyB..the cash raised at 37p June 2022 was to take the company to cashflow breakeven irrespective of the litigation outcome …so we were told. As it goes they have spent it all and a chunk of the settlement cash long the way 2 years later …before getting anywhere near cashflow breakeven.

Oct 2022 with results

Equity fundraising extended cash runway to CY 2025, beyond expected breakeven point

· Cash of £6.8 million at year end with average net monthly burn rate now under £0.2m.

They talk of meeting milestones but not the many they miss.

Those that put funding up June 2022 thought it gave the company time to progress the organic side to be self funding as well as get the outcome in court they were confident of that fully reflected the damage incurred to the company that would be transformational to shareholder value ..from that level.

That was the sell.

They fell short on one and seem to be falling short on the other too.

Even looking on the positive side ( ie the paid for research) which is allowing for a huge jump in Gen 1 sales with no visibility they predict cash burn of £4.5m in the current FY ..if the Gen 1 sales fail to materialise ( too early to call by far) or are further delayed then that figure will be larger.

The cash left end last FY to end July £20m is far lower than one could have forecast…with little to explain the shortfall save what we are told is small outgoings on the FAB.

So serious explaining to be done on a number of fronts with the finals..and that communication should not be led by the outgoing ( at some point). CEO , if the company wants to start to regain any market confidence.

Is Terry reaching new levels of being a boring nothingness who only can job backwards.

He has zero evidence they said anything they claim yet I evidence their extremely over optimistic take and they have nothing in return to demonstrate they know anything beyond picking over the pieces after the event.

As to accusing people of claiming to know more than they do …witness the King claiming to know more about someone they know nothing about .lagain.

Someone whose case has stood up and apparently the appeals have been rejected.

I think the jury is still out who knows more about the law and securities legislation..and I am positive after a few years of seeing Terry scrabble around in the darkness of ignorance ..it is certainly not them.

One thing is for certain however this turns out Terry will claim to have got it right …no matter how very and continuingly wrong they are.

Will be undoubtedly be under another knew Id trying to disown all the crap they post.

Just a clown looking for a circus.

“In 2022, Samsung sold a staggering 9.65 million units of QLED and Neo QLED TVs, bringing cumulative sales to 35 million units since its launch in 2017.”

This was not in the models or guidance in the market that was all based up to end 2021. but from what Nanoco said up to trial date 6th Jan 2023 was what was to be considered in court…along with a potential rolling royalty.

So published estimates should be about 30% higher and a rolling royalty expected as the infringement was continuing…I doubt as some predicted £100m a year ..but very meaningful ongoing revenues on an annual basis ..somewhat higher than the £6m we currently account for.

Nb Nanoco AGM statement to shareholders a few weeks before the trial date .

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/NANO/agm-statement/15764966

“..the value of any damages award for sales of infringing units up to the date of the trial, and if a future 'running' royalty should also be awarded.”

All estimates and models were based on infringement to end of 2021…the court would have been looking at sales to end of 2022…there was a significant difference between the two with sales running close to 10m globally it could have involved 40% higher historic infringement than the Edison and Turner Pope ( marketing) published estimates on the basis of their calculations per set as a base before looking at wilfulness so what they took as a licence all past and future on a global basis of just $65m , this was no where near what guidance given for just historic infringement in the US was set.

The patent sales not something anyone predicted or factored in may well just be part of the wider settlement and thrown in for tax efficiency ..however does that fairly reflect the litigation settlement or is it just avoiding tax?? What were the patents really worth ..and can anything be read into what the remaining and core patents are worth??

There is also a multiplier for wilfulness..I guess sometimes it’s possible to inadvertently tread on someone else’s patented toes…with Samsung they clearly asked for the knowledge under a jv then just walked and copied it to mass produce displays making very serious money from the commercial benefit. Pretty bang to rights. In terms of impact I presume it also prevented Nanoco from furthering their display IP elsewhere for a protracted period and eating into the life of the key patents and almost sent the company under. All those factors could have left Samsung floundering in court. It was Samsung who had little choice than to settle .

Question also is the heads of terms they announced had been agreed on the 6th were very complicated ..and key to it was the sale of well over 100 patents ..that must have taken ages to agree..when did they start negotiating this agreement it could not have been done overnight and must have been months at the table.

“Any prospective investors looking here wouldn't stay long and I think that's a big part of the reason why the share price is where it is today.”

From the same person who says no one cares what you say and nothing you say has any impact… normal nonsense.

Do you not think the major shareholders selling down their very large holdings might have had more of an impact on the price rather than some posts!!

You did not predict anything right as far as I can see Terry…soon after your £750m infringement award and £100m a year for future licensing effort ..you departed advfn in a big hissy fit abusing

everyone and did not return till after the settlement ..under various guises. That post has been evidenced on here ..posted by NitWig who is you is it not??

I thought you left this board well before the settlement to ..or were you banned??

So where are these posts you claim ??

I see no evidence you called anything right …but a lot wrong as usual.

It’s possible you just had even more accounts and one threw a dart right , it’s impossible to know all your id’s…but there has been many. Perhaps you can let me know all your aliases as that might explain things?

Or perhaps you can just evidence any of your correct claims as I can’t see anything of the sort ..so I must presume you are just making things up…again.

Smithy you do come at this from a different angle being someone only recently invested…your account only set up in May this year. You seem to do some good research and seem to have tried to understand the backdrop to where the company finds itself …which should have given you a clue to the massive underperformance seen here by shareholders in recent years and even since May this year!! …I appreciate you don’t really care about what transpired before you invested but to be honest as Mr Churchill said, “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

I think folks should realise that litigation funders and lawyers on bonuses have a different idea of what is attractive especially for a quick “win” , a different viewpoint than shareholders funding businesses long term and seeing an outfit we worked with in good faith for many years use our IP without licence and make $100ms ..these guys just want a quick return irrespective of what might be possible . The very fact that Samsung sought a deal meant they knew they were on a very sticky wicket and a court could award far far higher amounts…it’s a risk reward game too.

The lawyers get a win and success fees…the funder gets x times costs quickly ..and were trying to raise money for a new fund at the time of the time of the settlement so probably was a lovely example of x return without having to go the distance to get more and spend another year or so maximising the case. The professional advisors were not aligned to Nanoco shareholders…a quick low deal still meant they got a fantastic and quick return …they also effectively shared on the sale of our patents ..which were not up for grabs in the litigation case at all so not just on the infringement..how good is that !!! They got a share of $150m not just the $65m given for all past …and future use. Why would you not advise Nanoco to sell some Crown Jewels if you were getting a cut !?

The CEO gets the big bucks for seeing through such conflicts and making decisions in the interests of their own stakeholders and primarily their shareholders. Decisions they are accountable for..

Don’t blame the advisors for folding , it worked well for their partners and stakeholders ..but Nanoco through their own admission had no expertise in patent litigation on the board so no one to see these conflicts in accepting the settlement against the interests of their own shareholders.

Going to jury trial might not have resulted in a better outcome jury’s are not predictable …but we will never know if this could have been a huge precedent case.

Hugh Grant case …WTF!?

As i previously posted my understanding now is that Gen 1 is definitely not dead. The first order was for an end customer that is now not progressing their expected product…hence no follow through on that initial order ..however STM has dozens of ongoing trials out with underlying customers any of which could come back for commercial orders. So the understanding is to get feedback from STM if anyone is seriously interested and try to get a new timescale.. The whole adoption and revenue build is pushed back and unless there are multiple near term adopters it seems unlikely that the cash flow breakeven target CY2025 is met. However if there are new end use commercial customers and further orders i guess that will more than make up for missing that target. It seems there was much reliance on one end customer that they didn’t know in their guidance..not sure that was wise. However there are more irons in the gen 1 fire i understand from my research.

Hopefully there will be a more open and realistic approach to comms starting in Oct results .

The commitment to a 2 year programme rather that piecemeal work orders i think should be taken as a positive that STM and the Asian customer are happy with progress and Nanoco meeting targets. So hoping for clarity not scandal myself.

Off on hols.

Well that is a waste of time as the point is that people think that Nanoco folded and took a low settlement rather than going to court for the big bucks..so finding another company with as good a case that folded just before trial for more money is not a challenge as it limits most outcomes.

The scale of Nanoco case with alledged infringement in tens of $Bs of consumer products where the patents have already been upheld has probably got no equal in terms of what is at stake. Nanoco were not going to court for the low case..all their models survived Samsung challenge.

The question one should ask is how confident were Samsung going to trial and what do you think they thought they were saving in throwing Nanoco a bone ?

Life of patent licence, past and future on a global basis , 118 patents and no fault…they must have thought that was a bargain otherwise would have gone to court surely…which often they do.

But that list of what Samsung wanted and got was far above what the case was about…which was just past US infringement …what was settled was far far more and worth far more to Samsung than the potential trial award outcome.

So apples and pears.

FlyingHigher

“TerrorWit - you talk complete nonsense and you're living in denial.“

Just the 15 likes i see..seems a popular view.

On ceo we need not only someone who has experience introducing disruptive platform technology with majors but also experience in shareholder relations as a listed company.

The appointment of a new Chair shortly after finding a new CEO also vital in having a leadership team that can regain market confidence.A new Chair should also have uk listed company experience . The nomination committee goy some very industry experienced neds of high caliber ..they now need to find top candidates for these two roles.

Worth listening to the last interview with execs in the edison note end of June on them getting themselves out there more now they have commercial traction..

https://www.edisongroup.com/research/sensing-the-opportunity/33734/

I’m guessing now that has changed somewhat..as the visability was pushed back a week later!

https://www.edisongroup.com/research/visibility-pushed-back/33783/

Think though from here surprises may be on the upside as we are again discounting more bad news it seems to me. Getting a decent CEO we can all get behind is key now.

The complete lack of visibility on sensor materials as well as new display partner may be adopting a far more cautious approach going forward , likely linked to the departure of the CEO.

Some financials on QS in here.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11349913/filing-history

Loss making and small balance sheet.

Doesn’t mean they won’t succeed commercially but Nanoco have been trying for 20 years and still can’t get commercial traction..just yet.

Yes a number of Quantum science people were with Nanoco..presume cut backs post Apple meant staff cuts. I have posted several of their blog pieces on the industry which are very good and have suggested it would be good if Nanoco did some thought leadership articles on the sector .

Whilst they seem professional and go getting they have little in the way of a patented portfolio and no revues that I am aware of. They do seem to have some good people and Cong-Duan Vo features on quite a few Nanoco patents https://patents.justia.com/assignee/nanoco-technologies-ltd.

Hao Pang

CEO & FOUNDER

Is also ex Nanoco and features on some of their patents.

Interesting company aiming at the same sensor markets , QS is private and the finances look light.

Can’t see what putting the band back together adds much or that their people have the requisite skill sets for listed entities hopefully entering commercial phase.

Probably going to be difficult to find a good replacement to take this forward ..hopefully the strong finances and the presence of two notable neds makes the gig more attractive !

Well the recipe for Cornish Yarg was found dating from 1615 ..South Crofty was already a working mine at that point..but that really is moving off what is at all relevant ..that fact that 7b and unexpected ingress is just a load of old tosh is.

The rns from 4 weeks ago does state

“The Company maintains guidance to complete NCK shaft refurbishment and dewatering of South Crofty Mine to the 400-fathom level (approximately 730 metres below surface) in Q3-2025.”

So that also underlines that anything that might interfere with the planned dewatering and refurbishment is fabricated nonsense by bad actors , the project is very much going as planned and on track to meet its original estimated completion point…which is quite encouraging!

Perhaps if the company is to make rns statements around things that do not actually exist they could comment on whether the moon is made of cheese?

In the meantime they answered my query promptly and categorically.

“I note that there have recently been references made to "7b" on certain share chat bulletin boards. To be clear, and for the avoidance of doubt, 7b does not exist and any such references are baseless and false.

This RNS provides the latest information with regard to the mine dewatering, which is progressing as planned.”

No 7b..dewatering processing as planned.

‘ Dewatering of South Crofty

The new Water Treatment Plant was commissioned in October 2023 and mine dewatering is expected to be completed by Q3 2025.“

I am sure the broker and nomad are fully aware of their ogoing obligations under AIM rules.

“AIM Rule 11 requires notification without delay of any new developments which are not public knowledge which, if made public, would cause a significant movement in its share price.”

Under easch = understand.

Https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/products-applications/patents/