Member Info for Kooba

"Fact is that if the market misjudged the settlement then this forum had most to do with it. "

One of the most stupid, one sided, ignorant comments ever made!

100%

If they had not convinced pi’s that there was a great return to be made from the case they would not have raised money at 37p 2 years ago…if not the company might not have made the settlement..and the two largest holders didn’t support the raise..one RG was already selling down , the other Lombard started selling straight after.

Doubtful if the company had indicated that they thought $60m to settle the litigation was enough that they could have raised a bean..yet you think that was the expected level and was not a disappointment. Barmy.

ha ha ha..from the you. the only reason one might take your advice is if one wanted a cheap kitchen from what a read…experience in patent litigation my ****. stop lying for once.

i have caught you lying often it gets boring.

I’m afraid that is the best he has troublesome, from experience , no humour no intellect no nouse. Just a boring little Walter Mitty type character very well portrayed in a post by Crow who posted earlier today some time ago. Worth looking back on.

Nige has lots of form…though I thought was banned from this site?

The times piece was months later and likely copied this piece…you simply don’t understand even why someone might put a high ball in the media..and certainly haven’t got the smarts to work out who did.

This long before the settlement ..city sources normally analysts or likely leaked by company brokers or most likely Lombard who were selling at that point…pump and dump.

Only reason to puff the price is if you are a seller…who was selling ?

https://www.cityam.com/british-tech-firm-nanoco-considers-further-samsung-lawsuits-in-uk-and-china/

Rubbish.

Company broker comment..after the event referring to what might have been awarded in court…and a reason to take a massive cut!

”…an award of, say, US$500m in six years' time would only be worth c.US$200m in today's money).”

Six years indeed…even the company estimate was 2-3 years to exhaust appeals!!

Teed up after the settlement announced trying to justify a fold. But obviously admitting what a court award could have been..not so laughable coming from the company’s own paid for research.

I forgot you can only have an opinion that supports the ceo…silly me.

As an accountant he might have saved the company by cutting costs..that’s what accountants are good at. He is out of his depth in my opinion running a listed company for a variety of reasons.

In terms of the nonsense about investors getting carried away on the litigation..that emanated straight from the company and it’s paid for marketing. The idea now seems to be we should not have trusted the transformational (of shareholder value) nature of the settlement or the research plied to retail ..but now we are to accept anything the company and their new brokers say. Really??

The company paid for “research” supporting the upside narrative to raise money and expectation..that expectation was not delivered. Simple..even for you surely.

Their own brokers cited $500m as achievable in research after the event.

They did not win $150m ..we got $90m gross which fell further after settling other costs and that was after handing over 100 plus of those valuable patents to Samsung.

Did it transform shareholder value as promised?? Look at the shareprice!

Utter and complete nonsense…as always …whatever id is used.

I would suggest though that any idiots that want me to post less on this board might consider posting direct and personal attacks on me…you will always get a vigorous response. I guess you know that and are Ken on the attention…but try to post about the company rather than other posters..that is just exposing a complete lack of knowledge. Also there is a filter button…use it if you get that upset..I guess that is what it is for.

Trying to stop me posting my thoughts and concerns though is just wasting your time .

The number of times you have been abusive Ngr I must doubt the civility at any time you have been posting.

Ngr..get yourself a mirror fella.

All advice and no idea.

Very interesting becont ..you seem somewhat fixated on me and often try to have go and make a fool of yourself..maybe you enjoy getting owned..who knows but well done you for coming back trying to give personal advice..be more useful if you had something relevant to say on the company and break your duck , however on the back of some previous posts i will be ignoring it as its normally well off the mark. Thanks anyway for trying.

I have used the term paused or suspended before but was corrected by you as it was continuing on track exactly as they told us..now you admit it’s been paused. Thanks.

As if i take instructions from you !

I will give up questioning when you give up defending their every slip up ..so that ain’t happening any time soon is it. Samples i tell you samples.

Stopped is the key word…there is a difference to continuing.

I “stopped” in Singapore for a night on the way to a lions tour in NZ…took 5 nights to recover…

Nonsense.

I have asked you a straight question and forget the liquidity nonsense..there has been a number of higher volume days since they suspended activity and the volumes were artificially high when they were buying..no tricky to understand that.

The point of buying back shares is that they say it increases the value of those shares remaining as well as fulfilling their obligation to return a total of £33m to shareholders ..simples…so why stop now the shares are trading significantly lower..surely it must be significantly more value accretive buying here??

Enjoy your 40 night stopover in Dubai on the way to Sydney..great example of real world continuing event . Ffs.

But it is not continuing..what part of continuing is displayed by the fact it is quite clearly not clearly not continuing. To help..

continuing

without a break in continuity; ongoing.

The liquidity argument is wrong..they have been responsible for 50% of the volume ..volume that double counted their buys.and they have special dispensation to be a large part of volume without restriction as most buyback have. So that doesn’t hold water.

“ Nanoco has instructed Cavendish to conduct the Share Buyback Programme on its behalf on a broker-managed basis, with trading decisions taken independently of the Company. Due to the limited liquidity in the Ordinary Shares, a buyback of Ordinary Shares pursuant to the AGM Buyback Authority on any given trading day may represent a significant proportion of the daily trading volume in the Ordinary Shares on the London Stock Exchange and could exceed 25 per cent. of the average daily trading volume. Accordingly, the Company will not benefit from the exemption contained in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014 as adopted into UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”

So they were the main buyer for a month and picked up 6.3m shares..they aren’t going to do more by not participating and by advertising a decent bid might increase the volume.

Talking of posting garbage..on the buyback you say they have until the AGM ..that is true however they said the buyback would continue until the £3m was exhausted or the AGM , nothing about stopping after a month for no reason when the price is materially lower than they paid in the month following the tender. You then list all the good things the company has guided to new artner build up of orders etc as to catching people out…well if that were the case why the hell is the company or broker given the instruction holding off buying any at these levels??

If you can explain the reason in your usually determined style that would be great..but don’t argue against yourself and exercise some common sense.

“Share Buyback Programme

As set out in the Circular, the Company will pursue an ongoing on-market share buyback programme of up to a total value of £3.0 million to provide a continuing value-accretive return of capital to Shareholders. The Share Buyback Programme commences today and will end on the earlier of the date the aggregate consideration paid for Ordinary Shares under the share buyback programme reaches £3.0 million and the date of the Company’s next annual general meeting in 2024. “

“ Nanoco has instructed Cavendish to conduct the Share Buyback Programme on its behalf on a broker-managed basis, with trading decisions taken independently of the Company.”

So why are Cavendish not continuing the buyback as instructed for the benefit of shareholders before the expected good news l explain that one?