Member Info for MrBWM

Still searching for the bottom (currently 6.3 to sell); perhaps that's the same problem with the deeps!

A5 flowing for 45 days; but flowing with what? Mud? Water? Oil? Certainly not cash!

Except that the latest RNS says 'the Group worked collaboratively with Samsung on developing enhanced quantum dots based on our unique and patented CFQD ® Quantum Dot technology and associated IP.' The key word is 'collaboratively'; I imagine Samsung's defence will be along the lines that they were jointly developing Nano's IP to a commercially exploitable product and that their inputs were instrumental to getting the product to the stage where it could be used in TV's.

From a personal viewpoint I hope that the excited talk of £1 and £1.50 turns out to be true (my average is 14p) but I think that the fact the share price hasn't doubled since Friday indicates that there is a downside risk here which the market is aware of. Someone previously wrote that they see this as a binary investment and I agree; it's either win or bust, and I wouldn't like to guess which way it will go at this stage.

As ever, DYOR!

It was just meant as a friendly reminder. It would be LSE who would be liable as the publishers; but I have known websites block posters if they write anything potentially actionable.

TB - I think your penultimate sentence is very important. Given that this is now in the courts we should all be careful to make sure our language isn't open to misinterpretation. At present the IP infringement is alleged and the publisher of any comments to the contrary might be liable for defamation.

If they 'truly believe in their case' why didn't they start proceedings earlier, especially if the 'risk is high'?

My best guess, for what it's worth, is that negotiations for a deal have not gone as quickly/smoothly as hoped due to questions about the real value of the IP (and Nano's ability/willingness to defend it). Nano have therefore been put in the position where they have to prove the value of their IP and this is a good way of signalling this to the market.

I suspect that someone will be willing to take the gamble and back Nano but at what price...?

As ever, DYOR.

I won't be counting my eggs any time soon; corporate litigation can take years to hatch (and as troublesome notes there is the small matter of whether anyone is guilty to be considered).

I also can't help wondering why litigation would be launched now. If the management are confident of a sale of the company wouldn't they want to wait until the new owners expressed a view? Perhaps the litigation represents the start of plan B for Nano's future.

Judging from the share price... not so well!

9. Why 12p?

I very much agree with this. I suspect the company wants to reduce the share price for Thursday so that the family can write off the difference between 12p and 6-7p. I would expect a more transparent disclosure sometime next week - or whenever it's safe for the family to start to record profits on their holdings. This is just my opinion, dyor as ever.

Apologies; I meant premium!

I agree. I suspect they will want the boat deal to go through at a discount to the market price at that time. Then we'll get real news... for good or ill.

TB - I'm afraid that I'm just puzzled at your casual use of language; these terms are important regardless of your views on the final outcome. For example you refer to 'big suitors'; how do you know they are 'big'? How do you know the 'bid/offer/proposal' is 'substantial'? And who on earth are all these 'failed bidders/offerers'?

I'm as keen as any other holder to make some money (finally!) out of Nano but we shouldn't read things into the RNS's that aren't there. As far as we know there is currently due diligence being undertaken with multiple interested parties who may or may not make offers in the future. Everything else is not just speculation, it's pure invention.

How do you know 'nanoco have already accepted very good proposals/bids'? Where exactly is your evidence for this? If they have accepted a bid then they would be required to disclose this and I believe it would be subject to agreement at a shareholders' meeting.

Given that we've just bought a boat I'm rather pleased to hear about the lack of leaks.
I'm less pleased to see some chunky sells though; perhaps someone's taking a short position.

I imagine that the late fall in the SP took out a lot of stop losses. I wonder if the big sell was someone shorting on the grounds that the recent rise has had no news/information base to support it.

I don't know why you think he *must* read these boards. There is no reason why he should; he will have his plans/instructions and I doubt whether what's written on here is of the slightest interest to him.

It looks like it might be due to the buy at a price of 13.45, which looks like a 'fat finger' error to me, should have been 12.45.

There was bound to be a sell-off at 10p because of everyone who pre-set a target of 10p but we now seem to be past all those.

Someone knew something the day before the news about the contract cancellation dropped, so we can always hope!

I think you mean we are on the 'casp' of a major re-rate!