Member Info for Kooba

Such a coincidence! Having had two months to publish the details as soon as practicable , two days after it was pointed out on here up it comes !

Tw said would be with results or with report and accounts.wrong again then.

It was an oversight I have no issue but Sammy was right.

It’s so good that TWIt doesn’t personalise things and sticks to facts.Ha

But the clown does make me laugh with his nonsense. He does seem absolutely fixated with me….i figure he just wishes he was me and it all comes out sideways. It’s understandable I suppose he just wants to look like he has a clue ..but credit to him however often he calls things wrong he still tries to understand what is going on …really tries his best. Bless him.

They know the regulations under the companies act as they complied over Nigel Picketts departure.

They should have confirmed the date of the CEO departure and the financial terms shortly after his exit…it not a question of not doing it or doing it when it suits.

Pretty straightforward stuff.

https://wp-nanoco-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2025/11/S430-Nigel-Pickett.pdf

See your point Sammy …he was to leave in February.

Should have been confirmed exactly when and the terms of departure from the role.

Nb with the interims a year ago.

“Increased the size of commercial pipeline to greater than ten projects, with strong focus on Image Sensor and Flat Panel Display markets, and additional early-stage engagements in other segments such as Photovoltaic, Agriculture, and Coatings and Paints.”

Looking forward to the update on our commercial progress.

Well more new lows for your posting NigWit as well as the share price …you are just a nasty little troll as you always expose yourself to be when you repeatedly lose arguments …posting personal insults because you have no answers.

Average daily volume is around 600k not sure there is anything unusual.

The interims came out on 15th last year( end of March in 24) so should be due shortly , everyone should be in a better position to judge the risk reward profile when we have that update.we are also due an update on Asian customer2 and whether they wish to move to the next phase of development which will be price sensitive.

The Chair thinks there will be better value creation through organic growth now rather than selling the business…the shares have cratered since so I guess he should be putting some meat on the bones of how that is to be delivered…or how they aim to !!

You just talk unrelenting BS …I didn’t attack any record..I don’t know if you have other investments. You just seem permanently happy with any development here however poor and make excuses for negative outcomes every time.

I think the share price provides a far better demonstration of the company delivering value than you ever do.

You seriously overate your abilities and have throughout your many many bad calls on this counter , you are the only one who thinks you have a clue as far as i can tell. 90% of your posting is just personal attacks on other posters that point out your errors.

You are very very boring.

Not sure anyone who has invested in this counter since listing was expecting the level of failure to deliver on stated and confidently delivered strategy year in year out when transformations were promised time and time again only to disappoint up to very recent deliveries. The company normally spins a new narrative when the old one fails but they are running out of new angles all the time and didn't even bother to explain the litigation outcome in any way.

If this has proved a good investment for you Terry then your benchmarks on successful investing must be extremely low or non existent.

L2P

“Is it possible that Samsung will use Nanoco IP for sensing?”

I believe the answer is yes , though a poster elsewhere was speculating that our Asian customer 2 was Samsung.

The licensing agreement with Samsung seems to give unlimited access to Nanoco patents and does not specify for particular areas of use .ie display only.

I thought the previous CEO had said there were restrictions but nothing is public and checks with the company last year failed to provide a clear answer. Which leads me to presume there is no reason why Samsung through Hansol could look to enter CFQDs sensor markets.

Maybe Asian customer number 2 just needs Nanoco to show them how to do it…again!

Thinking i am threatened by your fantasy takes and complete lack of factual support is weird , you must think i take you seriously , to put the record straight that is far from the case.

Well good for you.

I have posted when i have dealt previously.

I sold my entire holding in the tender and replaced most of those sold 16/17p when they corrected post distribution.

I have added further and sold ( when directors purchased and french share puffer jumped the price.

Last purchased those back below 8p when there was apparently still a good chance of the business being sold and we might get a result from the Shoei action.

Both now off the table.

We are indeed left with our 2 JDA s aiming at commercial adoption in SWIR sensor markets with an aim of moving to cash flow breakeven even during calendar year 2027. The share price no doubt is discounting the uncertainty around achieving this , with one of the JDAs coming up for renewal this month there is remains much to fall into place to achieve this aim.

If they do there is likely good upside from here…if these efforts fall flat then it begs the question of where the company goes from here while there is still some shareholder cash in the bank.

L2P. If that’s aimed at me …then you can ask but I will not answer, suffice to say too many even though a rather small part of market exposure. Not sure if anyone but liars or braggers divulge such information.

May I ask why you set up an account last week specifically to post on Nanoco it seems?

This tax business is just nonsense Terry…they have predominantly paid withholding taxes not offsettable against their UK tax losses …they have paid virtually no UK corporation tax and anything paid is due to them previously surrendering tax losses incurred in exchange for small cash credits.

Nanoco Group has paid tax, particularly in relation to recent large-scale IP infringement settlements.

London Stock Exchange

LG Settlement (2026): In January 2026, Nanoco confirmed receiving $4.5 million from a $5 million settlement with LG Electronics, with 10% ($0.5 million) withheld at source to satisfy tax liabilities.

Samsung Settlement (2023/2024): The company paid withholding tax on the second tranche of the Samsung litigation proceeds, receiving $71.75 million net after $3.25 million in withholding tax was deducted.

R&D Tax Credits: In the past, Nanoco has surrendered tax losses to HMRC in exchange for cash tax credits rather than carrying them forward.

Because they have paid a small amount of tax not offsettable does not mean the company has been profitable over its life and to say so is typically simplistic of you. This is not something the company has ever claimed as far as i am aware. They claimed that the settlement with Samsung at the time gave the company net more than they had raised in equity following floatation perhaps you are getting confused again. That ignores the pre float raises and ignores the value placed on the business at IPO and the cash in the business it reversed into.

You tell people to ignore the past and focus on the future when it suits you ignoring their serial failures in attracting commercial revenues let you harp back repeatedly to the only real result the company has had in decades of going nowhere . You have also repeatedly misread the company’s guidance and misread when that guidance is going to be missed…a massive misread was you on STM where you insisted that all was on track when most could quite clearly see a problem when there was first delays in orders…you were proved to be wildly over optimistic hanging on to your if there was a a change they would have to say something…well they did in the end! The same as you do now…problem is Terry with all your past failures at reading what is going on you seem to learn absolutely nothing and behave exactly the same way…maybe having an small amount of scepticism and not believing every scrap of the companys aims might do you some good.

It’s not noise ffs it’s serial lack of delivering anything they are highly confident in delivering resulting in a catastrophic decline in shareholder value. Thats fact not noise…it’s not a one off disappointment it’s just about anything they target over years and years. To make out any shareholder is not justified in being very peed off with their utter failure in attracting any commercial revenues after decades of transformational developments and promises of break even , selling the business and having a bloody patent moat is really not capable of reading the room. Everyone is well under water …and someone starts talking of someone mopping up stick at all time lows..maybe covering a very clever short position , because that’s the only way anyone has made money out of this counter and forever defending the failures is such a pathetic look.

So the take must therefore be if there is one it is of no value current or future to the company otherwise they would need to disclose enough detail for the market to understand what it means.

Glad you agree it cannot have any value or it would need to be disclosed. …progress.

You have stated many times your mysterious royalty arrangements were material …you now see they cannot be and you were wrong.

If the royalty agreement was of no perceived value currently and in the future then they might not need to disclose …true.

However

…a UK-listed company that signs a royalty agreement would likely need to disclose it if the agreement is deemed "inside information" or a "significant transaction" under Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules and the UK Market Abuse Regulation (UK MAR).

Financial Conduct Authority | FCA

The requirement to disclose depends on the materiality of the agreement rather than just the act of signing it.

The materiality would be extremely high if it produced any income at all relative to our zero ongoing royalty and licence income stream…and likely meaningful against the very small ongoing developments revenues we report.

The mechanics may not need to be detailed in full but the fact if there was in a signed agreement terms that could provide future income and an idea of value would need to be disclosed.

As Tenner used to say they have to explain “what it means”

You remember Brian you said had been poached and was going to a new position and was not sacked …think he’s still looking for that new position well over a year after finally leaving the company.

Oh great we can just aggregate it with all our other royalty income and no one will guess where it comes from !

When you have no ongoing licensing cash income and never have had any royalty income any income from such avenues is materially price sensitive..this is a waste of of time, you don’t understand and are not prepared to do so.

Comparing Nanoco to Disney is farcical.

The Walt Disney Company does not disclose a specific, total number of licensing agreements, as they manage thousands of partnerships simultaneously. However, they are the world's leading licensor, generating an estimated $63 billion in retail sales from licensed consumer products in 2024.

“Nanonano, if there's a royalty, they won't disclose it because it's commercially sensitive information that would prejudice future negotiations. I have to ask — have you ever run a business?”

Terry what is absolutely clear is that you have never been on the board of a listed entity or have ever understood disclosure rules on price sensitive information. There can be brief delays in disclosure whilst there are ongoing negotiations but once there is certainty ie agreement signed , if there is price sensitive terms which should they leak into the market would have an impact on the price then they have to be disclosed to ensure a level playing field.

The price sensitivity trumps any undefined need for confidentiality every time. Why would they indeed say there is no further compensation if there was and its was in Nanocos interests. You make no sense at all.

“If there aren't any royalties, there will be some other substantial consideration. The confidential terms exist for a reason.”

There will be some other substantial consideration…this is not saying something is possible it is saying there will be..

Now that is pure speculation without any evidence whatsoever that you are positioning as fact.

It is not fact and is exceptionally unlikely that there is anything of substantial value being masked in confidentiality.

It would be price sensitive and if it was certain ie in the agreement it would have to be disclosed. I just don’t get why you don’t understand that and keep making stuff up.