Member Info for Maxi19

As much as it's good to have some optimism on this board in the form of Daz, it's frustrating for those of us nursing big losses to see reasonable criticism of the board brushed away.

Yes, the board aren't crooks, but they showed serious incompetence in handling the litigation comms, which is why the SP is 21p rather than 50p where it should really be.

I doubt the board would sell any shares in a tender offer. So no MAR concern there.

I've said this before so apologies to those who have read it before. I repeat it in case the directors see it and haven't seen my previous comments.

I don't think a tender offer at a premium is advisable due to the MAR implications it would throw up following LOAM's share purchase last year. We need to avoid any concerns that the board and LOAM are acting together.

Nanonano are you expecting someone to do a teardown in the first week after release?

I doubt a buyer in 2020 would have ascribed much value to being able to sue Samsung specifically.

Regarding a possible takeover, the key attractions are obviously the current depressed share price and the potential for the tech to really take off.

That said, I do think there are compelling reasons why a takeover isn't likely anytime soon. First the tech is still nascent and it's uncertain whether it will gain proper traction. Second, Nanoco are UK based and for that reason a trade buyer without UK operations would be out off by the numerous complications and considerations that operating in a new jurisdiction throws up. Finally, Nanoco don't currently have positive cash flow which should rule out any private equity buyers who wouldn't be able to service any debt leverage (unless they used the remaining £20m for that purpose, but that would undermine the business plan). I'd say therefore that a takeover is more likely if and when Nanoco becomes profitable and there are clear signs that the tech is gaining good traction.

Nonsense, even if the board only care about their options it's the case that previously issued options don't take into account dividends. So there's an incentive there for a tender offer.

Put it this way, not a single shareholder on here, even NGR, was pleased with the outcome. The reaction ranged from fury and accusations of corruption to disappointed acknowledgement that it was a fair outcome. I was somewhere in the middle for what it's worth.

It had nothing to do with the total sum in and of itself - $150m is a bit cheque for a small company - but with what shareholders believed the company would hold out for (and not settle) based upon numerous communications and presentations.

So yes, please do your homework.

35p for the maximum amount payable under the options? That's where the share price would be now if the board hadn't made such a pigs ear of the litigation (and no, not the outcome but the comms which fooled everyone apart from a few gnostics like NGR). If they hadn't made such a pigs ear the share price would be at least 35p now.

In reality the max target should be £1. The directors are benefitting from a tanked share price for which they're responsible.

I do wonder if this Vision Pro chatter is becoming a group delusion! I mean, we don't have a whole lot of evidence that it's using QDs. Don't get me wrong, I really hope it is.

As I've said before, I can't see any other way that we'll get confirmation of being in the VP without a Nanoco teardown and RNS. Which could take a long time.

If anyone very generous can get hold of one and send it to the company then you'd be doing us all a favour, because even if it doesn't have QDs it would at least end the speculation.

If you knew that a company was going to do a tender offer at a 20% premium in 4 months that would definitely be inside information. Yes the offer would apply to all shareholders and you may be stuck with shares that didn't sell but the chances of you profiting are very high.

Now, I'm not suggesting at all that LOAM have that kind of information but we know how certain aggrieved shareholders like to put 2 and 2 together and make 8, and that is frankly the last thing we need right now.

As I've said before Kooba, I think an extraordinary premium to the share price for a tender would raise MAR issues with LOAM having bought a decent chunk back in October. I don't think there is any collusion but the last thing we need is more mud thrown at the board.

Yes but it's not as easy as saying "we'll use the £40m" to buy back 60% of the shares as there's no way they'd get close to 60% acceptance.

They mentioned some a Share B type plan or something like that which could involve them issuing a special class of share and buying it back. Which I think would subject the whole of the buyback price to CGT as shareholders wouldn't have paid anything for it. But if that meant a CGT bill you could sell ordinary shares sitting at a loss to reduce the overall gain and potentially buy back in later. The benefit would be that the max CGT rate is 20% vs c. 40% for dividends.

Also, one final point, if LOAM did receive a dividend it's very possible that they couldn't invest it in something else without a tax charge arising in the hands of the investors. So what may happen is that they would be obliged under the terms of the fund to distribute all dividends to investors so that those investors don't have a dry tax charge i.e. being taxed on an amount without having received that amount.

Again all depends on the circumstances inside LOAM.

It's worth making the point though that the directors have a duty to all shareholders not just the biggest ones. For example, if the board gave LOAM an interest free loan the minority shareholders could sue for unfair prejudice. Obviously for a capital return it has to be done on the same.terms for all shareholders but the point still applies.

No, I think they would definitely have a view regardless of tax.

If you're running a fund would you like to me given a load of cash and see your shares fall in price by that amount or would you rather your shares retain value and increase in % holding?

Really depends on the circumstances inside LOAM, maybe they want the cash to invest in something else, maybe not.

LOAM are based offshore and won't pay any tax. Also, their structure probably means that they are transparent for tax.purposes or quasi transparent so that any dividends are taxed in the hands of their investors.

Please please please please please please please...

...if you're going to suggest that the *release* of the Vision Pro will affect the share price then please set out a theory of how that will happen.

Because from my armchair I don't see Apple revealing that its sensors use QDs, I don't see STMicro revealing it, and I don't see STMicro telling Nanoco.

So absent a Nanoco teardown on 3 Feb, which would require them getting their hands on a device which is only being released in the US, I see no world in which we will be linked straight away with the Vision Pro.

I've checked the disclosure rules and I don't think there's any way they could do a buyback of any size without disclosing the plan in advance.

I'd be surprised if there was a share transfer between related funds given the stamp duty charge.