Member Info for Nanonano

63 including yours.

Sorry but that's a load of rollocks.

As if Samsung give a damn about what a tuppenny ha'penny company like Nanoco are iterating.

It was about maintaining investor confidence in the company so they could get through a decent fund raise.

Not a grievance it's what he said, and I'm well aware that wasn't the amount quoted for a settlement. The question is what does the market regard as a reasonable discount for a settlement? If we say that a low multiple of £100m market cap is say twice e.g. £200m, multiply by three for worldwide market, then double that for future sales- £1.2bn.

With a $150m (about £120m) that is about a tenth of low end damages on a court win. Is that a normal outcome for a settlement?

If a CEO is going to say that historic damages for theUS market only on a low end are worth multiples of a £100m market cap, he should expect some disappointment when he returns with a $150m settlement. Brian Tenner should have moderated his statements.

"If strong circumstantial evidence is not sufficient in cases like these, what kind of evidence is necessary ?

Tapes, letters or a whistleblower !"

I think so.

If there is evidence and someone is found guilty then there will be consequences I don't doubt.

So far I've seen none. Whether any of this is likely to improve our prospects as shareholders is another matter.

As I said, proof is required. Insinuations, gut feelings or protests of being had over won't cut it.

I think the lead-up to the trial created a lot of willing buyers and thus liquidity in the stock that simply wasn't there prior to that, and RG and LOAM had been able to buy shares at lower rates than PI's pre-2019, and thus likely had averages in the teens and were able to sell their stock at a decent profit, whereas many PI's were still underwater until it reached 40-50p mark unless they hugely averaged down when the company almost went bust back in 2019 and 2020.

I think anyone would have to be incredibly naive to believe that larger investers didn't have some information that smaller PI's lacked, but you have to have proof of that, and selling down their stock is not enough to prove anything.

Mid to late 2022, the delays shifted as time went along though.

Wasn't the issue I was addressing, Troublesome. Do you think the company would have seen a penny of cash from Samsung assuming it had won in court back in January 23? An appeal would have been lodged straight away. They'd already appealed against the PTAB. They'd have run out of rope eventually but what state would Nanoco be by then?

Back in 2023 they were already in reduced staffing mode, unable to invest in themselves and with limited cash reserves that would eventually run out and no guarantee that another cash raise would succeed.

I said early last year that I believe it would be three or four years before Nanoco is profitable in any tangible way, as I just don't envisage lead-based materials becoming mainstream and nothing I've seen since has modified that opinion.

Consequently, Nanoco are going to need that cash to keep things ticking over until 2026-27.

I think the delay in sensor material supply by about a year was a serious factor in the settlement outcome. Not only was it late, but it was reduced in scale considerably when it did arrive.

That really put the company in a somewhat more precarious financial situation, with less or no income, and high inflation pushing up costs and assuming they got a good win in court a truculent Samsung dragging their feet with appeals etc.

We seem to have a group on one side who think the Nanoco c-suite are beyond reproach and should not be scrutinised on their decisions, on the other side we have a group who think they're incompetent and should be relieved of their positions, and in the middle we have a very small number who sit somewhere between the two camps.

I think the EGM and AGM adequately demonstrated that the executives at Nanoco are unlikely to be going anywhere unless the II's decide their time is up. On the other hand that time could be sooner than some think if the share price sharply falls after any cash distribution- the II's do not like being underwater, as I suspect Michael Edelman discovered.

I do bear in mind that a core seeding patent expires next year. From then on other companies will be able to use molecular seeding without infringing. They'll have to be careful to avoid infringing other patents of Nanoco's, but is anyone here qualified to judge whether that can or cannot be done?

Nanoco won't be a high growth stock until they demonstrate some high volume recurring business.

At present we have a low volume order, with a hoped for gradual growth in future business. That's not likely to put much of a buzz into the market. Lack of information on the end product isn't helpful either.

"£20 million investment in research and development (think about the multiple of that investment in your valuation)"

Not all of that is ring-fenced for R&D, unless they get some significant scaling in orders, about £4-5m per annum will go in company costs of which greater than 25% is going in director salaries.

I don't see how they can backtrack on the distribution below £33m, as they declared that amount several times in RNS's and company documents, so it's a matter of public record

They've also said they would offer investors a choice of cash or an alternative depending on individual investors preferences.

Once again if they fail to honour that, then I think they could find themselves in trouble for misleading investors.

Samsung used Nanoco molecular seeding IP for mass production of QD's, but I believe they were a different recipe, so the company can't claim the QD's in Samsung sets are sourced from Nanoco.

I'd say it remains to be seen whether the settlement strategy pays off long term for shareholders. Financially safe for the next few years, but we've yet to see if Nanoco will gain a strong percentage of the infrared sensing market and the company seems to have gone rather quiet on the display contract touted last year.

Some comparisons with ARM cropping up again, worth remembering that the company that supported the development of the chip- Acorn- effectively went out of business and was subsequently acquired by Olivetti, and its shareholders did not do well, with the stock withdrawn from trading.

An important patent expires next year, and another in 2028. The CEO has stated they have many more which run to the 2030's, but investors and most likely Nanoco themselves cannot be sure how well these will protect Nanoco's business interests, and it would still take years for them to claw back any damages like the Samsung situation.

The company could easily find itself hailed as a pioneer in the field of nanomaterials, but one which never made any significant return for its investors, rather like Acorn.

Oh, and I hope BT proves me totally wrong, btw. Bear in mind the company is looking at the company as a medium term investment, so two years plus. Early 2026, which aligns with gen 2 materials.

Market won't catch on to anything if there is no information from the company or a respected third party.

Ultimately the c-suite's fate will not be decided by PI's but by II's. If the share price tanks post distribution of cash, then I'd expect pressure to mount on the current board regardless of opinion on here or elsewhere.