Member Info for Maxi19

I think that's true of BT and CR's conduct since the settlement.

They have a chance with the EGM to show a more transparent approach and to be honest with the shareholders. Not blather on about "transformative" outcomes and ignoring the share price massacre.

I'm not saying it was fot Nanoco's benefit, could have been for Samsung's benefit

It's obvious there was some accounting or tax reason for selling the patents.

Put another way, would Samsung have bought the patents for such a high amount if it hadn't been settling litigation? No chance.

It's now over 2 weeks since the board received the Requisition notice and they still haven't called the EGM.

They have 21 days to do so, so the deadline is next Wednesday I believe.

What on earth do they need more time for? Just smacks of self-interest. Call the thing and get it over with.

The irony is that the vast majority of shareholders are more upset than they would have been had we lost.

At least everyone accepted the risk of losing at trial.

No-one, based on communications from the board, was prepared for the board *settling* for such a low figure, and then gaslighting shareholders about damages models and "transformative" blah blah blah.

Kooba, I wouldn't go so far as to conclude that the board have some kind of special deal with LOAM and RG, but it doesn't look great when they are so shifty about it.

True. If you want to convince people of your position Intrusive you're going about it the wrong way. Starting to pee me off and making me want to vote for all the resolutions now. If you're not prepared to concede even minor points then it comes across as desperate.

Agreed SteakAndAle, unless BT and CR actually start answering questions, ideally via a Q&A I'll be using my c. 0.4% holding to vote for their removal.

As much as I am sceptical about some of nanostory's assertions, I am persuaded by the argument that the board was lent on by all the "advisers" and shareholders with vested interests to come to a settlement.

Begs the question about whether BT and CR were acting in the interests of shareholders. Unless they come out and answer questions transparently I think shareholders should vote to remove them at the EGM.

In my opinion yes, Bonzoful.

The beef isn't with the settlement amount - who knows whether that was the right call or not.

However, since then BT and CR have claimed that there was guidance on the low damages model, which is complete nonsense. Also, they have completely failed to acknowledge how the share price has tanked. I'm not expecting an apology but something along the lines of "we appreciate that the share price has dropped significantly, but we are doing x,y,z to help it rise much higher over the next 12 months."

If anything, the tone BT adopted in the March presentations was really dismissive of genuine shareholders concerns and veered into contempt. At this stage I don't want him gone but I do want him to realise he is only in his very well paid job because of the shareholders.

Sorry bluerill, I didn't mean for that to come across as a criticism of your post.

The company would be very very foolish to sue TH fot defamation.

They would also be very very foolish to attempt a legal manoeuvre to avoid calling a general meeting.

Spoken as someone relatively underwhelmed by TH's campaign.

Bonzoful, I see where you're coming from.

I don't think there would be any extra instability caused by more votes than otherwise in favour of removing Tenner and Richards. And the benefit would be to send them a message that their conduct has been unacceptable. So really I think the pros outweigh the cons, but I respect your opinion.

Is your reading comprehension awful or are you just dishonest?

I propose voting against all the new director nominations. Read it again.

Read my post again.

The intention isn't to actually remove Tenner and Richards but to send them a message that their behaviour is unacceptable. There obviously aren't enough votes to pass any of the resolutions.

So far the discussion about TH and the requisitioned general meeting has only been about the extreme outcomes: approving the resolutions entirely or rejecting them entirely.

There is a middle ground, however, which is vote in favour of some resolutions and vote against the others. The fact is that it is extremely unlikely that any of the resolutions will pass give LOAM and the board's shareholdings, but it is possible to send a message to the board with our votes.

What I am proposing is that we vote in favour of the resolutions to remove Tenner and Richards, but vote against the others. Now is not the time to replace the board, so in the unlikely event that Tenner and Richards are actually removed the remaining directors are not going to do an asset sale.

The case for voting to remove Tenner and Richards is that it sends them a message that their reaction to the settlement has been unacceptable and arguably contemptuous of shareholders. None of us know whether the settlement amount was the right call or not; however, the attempt to gaslight shareholders by saying that there was guidance and low end models, repeating the phrase "transformative", not acknowledging the share price carnage and generally being evasive in their responses has been really shoddy and unbecoming of the position of CEO and Chairman.

I therefore propose that everyone votes to remove Tenner and Richards. Happy to hear any thoughts.

Nanostory, watch this Yole report:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8G7O6Qt9fz8&t=1266s&pp=ygUJWW9sZSBzd2ly

There are plenty of companies who produce SWIR sensors for industrial products. But none currently who do so for consumer products.

The Yole report only envisages STMicro entering the consumer market in the near future.

Actually I think you may be right, apologies for getting that wrong.

I've said before that I'm not that persuaded by the idea that the Vision Pro will be the first use case. Jonny Steikel in his STMicro presentation said that he SWIR sensor had been specifically designed for a mobile phone. Also I don't think the timings of validation/production necessarily align.

Anyway, I read earlier in the week that the supposed bill of materials for the Vision Pro had been linked on Twitter (link below). It's in Chinese and you can't copy and paste so I don't know if it includes anything from STMicro.

https://twitter.com/Tech_Reve/status/1666298966600986625

There's no reason to vote against the reduction of capital unless you want the company to be stuck with all the cash. It's a completely standard procedure.