Member Info for Nanonano

That $49m figure assumes low end royalty only up to 2021, no future royalty taken into account.

In my opinion the management were happy for higher estimates to be published to maintain a higher capital value in the company. The price paid has been a loss of trust amongst investors. A blotted their copybook. Having said that I don’t like the replacements advised by TH’s mob, but present executives shouldn’t be above reproach for their conduct.

Also notable that comms improve considerably when executives positions are at risk.

They could issue updates via their website or twitter page though couldn't they. They have marketing and communication staff but I do wonder what for at times.

Always been a poor company for comms.

Got a month of this until we know the outcome.

Until then I think it's just going to be a case of rinse and repeat on the postings here.

I'll tune back in when this is done and dusted.

Https://youtu.be/RnAP1FgZtTA?t=781

“ Apple Pro Vision this launches in January next year”

Please can you direct me to where this confirmed. I’ve seen reports saying early 2024, Q1 2024, but not a specific month.

Contract expected by or before December 2023. Sure, some here will say we’ve heard it all before, but I think this time it will happen.

Seems some are in a rush to chuck the board put before then. If that contract fails to materialise, then is the time to hold the directors to account.

The Runcorn facility is leased, not owned. The equipment inside is owned by Nanoco, but not the building.

I think a change of Chair may help, but not in favour of a complete change of leadership. I think many are looking for revenge over the settlement value, but any victory in flushing out the complete board could potentially be pyrrhic.

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Seems likely the CTO would walk if the rest of the board are overhauled. Don't know if that's a hollow threat, but it's a risk, whichever way you look at it.

How many PI's here have any idea how critical each staff member is to Nanoco. The operations of the company are exceedingly opaque.

I personally think the chairman should go, not necessarily for the replacement suggested by Hammoodi, but someone less tainted- just too much whiff of corruption around that chap for my liking. Think he should have departed with Michael Edelman, but he's hung around like a bad fart. BT less sure, although the settlement was disappointing he's done a decent job of turning the company round from a complete dog on the brink of insolvency to something that at the very least has some future. Non executive directors I think could do with a flush, not sure what value they've brought and perhaps to closely linked with the chairman and major (or former majoe) holders. Ejecting Nigel Pickett seems like commercial suicide to me.

Should be....

That's the $65m question.

I think the main issue NGR, is that the settlement deal did not even come close to the low end model presented in the court documents. $6.60 per set for circa 42m sets sold plus future sales does not come to $150m. It might have been close to US sales only, but not Global.

50% to 20% to funder on a sliding scale of any award.

Well that's what was no doubt written into the contract when they agreed to fund the case.

Would have had 100% of sod all without funders cash to get them to the negotiating table, they'd spent two or three years negotiating with Samsung to no effect before the legal action commenced.

They have some funny laws in Korea when it comes to tax on money sent to foreign companies, that may have some bearing on it.

Better to direct your inquiries to the company and ask them about this, they're in a better position to comment than folk on here.

"They should have sold 200 for cash instead of simply dropping."

That assumes there is a willing purchaser.

Apologies, remove the full stop from the end of the first link, else it doesn't work.

They listed 550 patents in December 2021 https://tinyurl.com/ykznsxmb.

If you go back to April 2020, 700 patents. https://tinyurl.com/5aw7dfu5

So patents are allowed to expire if they no longer meet any business strategy present or future.