Member Info for nanostory

@Tornadotony: "If you have real evidence of corruption"

If you think the points in my post under "directors engaged in wrongdoing should go" are not real evidence of corruption, can you provide specific facts to prove me wrong point by point?

If you want certain current directors removed, vote accordingly. If you want certain new directors to join, vote accordingly. This is not a binary choice between the current board and the new board.

@qdnano:

Instead of all this nonsense, why don't you provide specific facts to challenge my original post under “directors engaged in wrongdoing should go”?

@Tm58

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/about/history/

Nanoco had its manufacturing headquarters in Manchester as of 2001. Manufacturering was clearly core to their business plan on day 1.

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/about/history/

2001 - Nanoco’s research and manufacturing headquarters established in Manchester (UK)

2006 Homepage

https://web.archive.org/web/20061121183958/http://www.nanocotechnologies.com/company.htm

Nanoco's mission is to be a WORLD LEADER in the MANUFACTURE AND SALE of high performance quantum dots and applications in which they are used.

Nanoco’s pioneering research has led to the ability to SCALE UP the manufacture of quantum dots with no compromise on performance or quality. The production of these versatile materials on an INDUSTRIAL SCALE is enabling significant applications to become a reality.

Vials of NanoDots™ available for purchase in BULK QUANTITIES

Pickett’t Bio

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/research-culture/changing-expectations/dr-nigel-pickett/

In the evenings and at weekends Nigel looked for ways to scale up the production of quantum dots, and eventually found a reproducible process to make LARGE VOLUMES of high-quality material of usable commercial quality. After Nigel and his partner secured funding, they started Nanoco Technologies in 2000, a company that develops and manufactures fluorescent quantum dots from semi-conductor and metallic materials.

@intrusuvethought,

Let's go through each of the points in my post. Start with #1 and #2. How is not proof of wrongdoing?

100 people witness B steal. B with no compunction or conscience says to 100 people, prove it, because until I am sued in court and convicted, you have no proof. My post is full of proof to any sensible investor. Apparently you refuse to read it.

Intrusive and tm58

Let's be specific so that we can advance our debate based on facts. Which fact or conclusion in my post is not sufficient as proof?

@qdnano

What you call the board's business plan looks like all prior ones they had and failed to deliver. How credible is a business plan that says the addressable market is $25B+ whilst your market share is always 0%. Business plan does not deliver results. A candidate for a fortune 500 company never prepares a business plan to be considered for the position. It's the track record that matters, which the current board has absolutely nothing to speak of. Let's be real and sensible.

Under the right leadership (Lee and others), the company has great potential both in QD and licensing. Smart people with a long track record will quickly figure out what needs to be done and get results as they have done time after time in whatever technology area. No heat maps. No false projections. No lies. Laser focused on increasing long term shareholder value, namely SP.

@troublesome

Unfortunately, I have absolutely no confidence in the current board's competence and integrity. My post under "directors should go.." explains where I am coming from in terms of my mistrust. In terms of competence, their projection for commercial order (now small) is not credible due to their countless prior misprojections. Bringing in a new board should not disrupt the current organic business. Do you honestly think Lee at 62 with all his success and stature would join a team only to asset strip and make a few million bucks? While Hamoodi is leading the activist effort, he clearly does not and cannot control the new board members, who are strangers to each other. I don't see this as a takeover, which means you have one master. The current board is already tainted under one master (LOAM/RG) at the expense of retail shareholders.

@Tm58

I am none of the three. The difference between you and me is that you support the current board and tend to express your opinions without supporting facts whilst I support the new board and all my posts are based on facts and evidence.

Proof is all in my post. What do you not understand?

@Tm58 "voting for Tariq and friends would be even worse and in my view see no future for the company with it's eventual demise after Tariq has screamed off as much as he can for himself."

Can you enlighten me with specific facts that led to this conclusion?

Being a secret member of the litigation subcommittee with full knowledge that the low end damages of $43.9M in court papers (#7) is a small fraction of the highly inflated shareholder expectations based on Edison’s and TPI’s bogus damages estimates of $200-300M (sometimes $200-250M), LOAM sells ca 48M shares to unsuspecting investors (believed to be mostly retail) until 17/1/23, two weeks before the crash like a fortune teller. The board completes a successful fundraise at 37p in June ’22 from unsuspecting shareholders (#8).

@intrusivethought “directors engaged in wrongdoing should go”

Here is just one thread with 8 incidents (numbered #1 - #8) of wrongdoing (out of 10+ threads) by the current board.

According to paragraphs (28) and (48) of the MAR regulations, Edison’s reports are inside information that the board is responsible for. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0596&from=EN The board says they provided only public info to Edison, and Edison’s disclaimer also says their reports are based on public info.

In the video clip of the 24/2 meeting, Hamoodi asks why the board did not disclose the damages amounts in Nanoco’s damages report when it was made public by court. Tenner says he had never seen it because it contains sensitive Samsung information (#1) and only had “our own versions of the damages models (including the amounts)”, as if they are different from those in the court papers (#2). In the 28/3 RNS, he essentially admits his earlier statement was a lie by referencing “Nanoco's own 'low case' damages model (sometimes referred to in public court papers as the 'Dow' approach, which was considerably lower than the settlement value agreed)”, admitting #1 and #2 were lies.

In the 28/4 response to Hamoodi’s 10/3 letter, as an excuse for not issuing an RNS with the damages amounts from the court papers, the board states these damages models (including $43.9M) were disclosed on the public court record and were subsequently discussed in UK investor share chat forums, neither of which has been made available on this BB to this day (#3).

Failure to issue an RNS with the damages amounts is a violation of Article 17 Section 1 of the MAR regulation requiring the board “to ensure that the inside information is made public in a manner which enables fast access and complete, correct and timely assessment of the information by the public and, where applicable, in the officially appointed mechanism” like an RNS (#4).

The 28/4 letter then distorts Hamoodi’s question about why the damages amounts in the court papers (information already known to Samsung) were not disclosed to shareholders (both when filed on 20/5/21 and when released by the court around 1/7/22) into a bogus question, as if Hamoodi was asking why the board did not disclose their confidential perspective on the merits and prospects assessments as to “the true position as regards damages estimates and, therefore, settlement prospects in the Samsung Litigation” (#5).

So, did the board provide the $43.9M low end damages amount in the public court papers to Edison? If yes, the board is liable for knowingly sponsoring Edison to publish bogus estimates and Edison is liable for knowingly publishing bogus estimates. If no, the board’s statement that the court papers containing $43.9M of low end damages (Dow approach) were publicly available (hence not requiring an RNS) must be a lie (#6).

@Tm58 & @intrusivethought

Why don't you use your high standard in judging yourself and your current directors?

@TG2D, my point is the SP is not a good predictor of the settlement amount. You experienced yourself numerous ups and downs during the entire period of litigation.

@Nanostory

"Nanoco was founded in 2001 with a “business plan” to manufacture QD materials in high volumes"

@Tm58

"I have not seen the original business plan for when the company first formed. Have you? I suspect you have made the above quote up, as happens in a lot of your posts.

I suspect it is more likely that the original business plan would have been to do paid research leading on to manufacture and sale of quantum dots in quantity."

@nanostory

"Nanoco History

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/about/history/

2001 Nanoco’s research and manufacturing headquarters established in Manchester (UK)"

You need to apologize. Look at yourself in the mirror.

The Neonode case is ongoing and is premature to judge. SP (Neonode's or Nanoco's) is not a good predictor of the settlement amount. Nanoco's SP dropped 78% from 29p 19/2/20 (5 days after the lawsuit was filed) to 6.5p 20/3/20. What's wrong with collecting $16M from Microsoft when he probably netted $5M+ without spending his own capital and had had a few dozen like that. It's like managing a mutual fund with a balanced mix of high/medium/low risk/return stocks, all costing him nothing using other people's time and money, giving him 30-40% profit margins. He with one partner and 1/2 time secretary at techsearch generated $30M/year with 40% profit margins (see response to the circular). He grew a public company from $4M to $251M in annual revenue and from $110M to $2.1B in market cap. He has achieved exceptional results in every job/company time after time. Anybody who does not appreciate his achievement needs a brain surgeon or is working for the board. Please make sensible comments, if any.

As I posted under a different thread (fair settlement value), the average probably of winning at trial in judge gilstrap's court is about 70%, but the probably was probably 90-95% for Nanoco IMO. You talk about a protracted appeal process. Just imagine if Nanoco had won on its high damages model ($412M) + enhanced damages (2 to 3X), Nanoco's Mcap could have reached 2B+ and could have easily raised money (say 100 - 200M) for working capital. The board became extremely risk averse and didn't want to jeopardize their jobs by taking even 5% chance of losing. The question is whether that was a rational decision in the interest of shareholders or in the interest of the D&O's job security. The expected value of a "fair" settlement based on trial was a lot higher than $150M.