London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

@Tornadotony

As Kooba mentioned, no companies would make changes through regional meetings, etc. The board will never voluntarily resign based on such meetings. Last year the board rejected Hamoodi's request for a board seat, as they wanted to keep the current exclusive membership within their circle (imagine Hamoodi being on the board and finding out LOAM secretly being on the litigation subcommittee or having private phone calls with LOAM on the eve of trial, etc). You can continue to bet on the current D&O with no possibility of success (as proven beyond reasonable doubt IMO based on their past performance at Nanoco and any other companies) or bet on a new board with truly impressive proven track records with decades of building and managing companies in multiple industries (please look at their Linkined profiles). It is common for Fortune 500 companies finding new CEOs from other industries based on their proven track records in other businesses. If you are a good athlete, you will be good at multiple sports because of your inherent athletic abilities. You don't need to be an expert in QD technology to manage and grow Nanoco.

@7shares,

Nanoco's RNS stating "more near term commercial opportunities than at any time in its history" turned out to be nothing, continuously increasing production capacity for the last 10+ yrs merely built shareholder expectations but produced no commercial customers, created a new director of manufacturing position 10+ years too early, receiving "the first commercial offer" turned out to me immaterial, evaluation of Nanoco technology by "16 active TV and monitor programmes with 13 major OEMs" resulted in no commercial orders, plus too many to list. These don't give me any confidence that this time is any different.

30/03/10

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/nanoco/news/rns/story/rydpm9r

To lead the on-going scale-up of manufacturing and commercial supply of product, we were delighted to appoint Andrew Gooda to the newly created position of Manufacturing Director in January 2010.

18/10/10

https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/78285-nanoco-opens-second-factory-to-meet-demand

Nanoco opens second factory to meet demand

04/04/11

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/nanoco/news/rns/story/rdyke8r

During the first half of our financial year we built and commissioned our Semi-Tech lines and produced commercial quantities of cadmium-free quantum dots.

23/01/13

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/nanoco/news/rns/story/rm52dnw

Dow intends to build production capacity in Asia where it has extensive manufacturing capabilities to supply high-performance materials to its customers in the display and semiconductor-related segments. Full commercial production is expected to begin in the first half of 2014.

27/09/13

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/media/nanoco-doubles-capacity/

“Doubled production capacity at Runcorn”

4/4/17

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/nanoco/news/rns/story/rm52p2w

"Nanoco is engaged with more near term commercial opportunities than at any time in its history”

30/6/17

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/media/nanoco-receives-first-commercial-order/

“Nanoco receives first commercial order”

“Further demonstrating the Group’s continued momentum, Nanoco today confirms that its CFQD® technology is now being evaluated in 16 active TV and monitor programmes with 13 major OEMs (4 April 2017: 14 active programmes with 9 OEMs).”

24/10/19

https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/case-studies/investment-in-manufacturing-this-year-has-seen-a-major-increase-in-our-capacity-for-direct-product-sales/

“Doubled production capacity at Runcorn to £60.0 million p.a.”

@7shares: "The presentation also confirms Hamoodi's team will need time with the tech "to identify key features... and determine the value associated with NANO's functionalities" aka they do not know the products well. I am glad they were honest about this - it would be ludicrous for them to suggest they know Nanoco's science based tech better than the current board.

Based on what you've said about the infringers, please can you confirm: how much money you estimate Dooyong/Hamoodi will be able to bring in from licensing the IP (keeping in mind they do not know the products well), what salary do you think Dooyong will expect and what profit do you think licensing will bring to shareholders."

It would be presumptuous for me to estimate how much Lee could bring in from licensing. I am sure he would have to spend time to analyze the patents, investigate infringement, size the market, develop strategy, etc. It would be more informative to look at the big picture by comparing his performance at Acacia vs Richards’ at Plant Health vs Tenner’s at Nanoco. His track record is beyond comparison. I realize past performance doesn’t guarantee future performance but what else can you go by? It seems from his Linkedin profile that he has been successful with every company (whether licensing, marketing or product development) he built, managed or joined time after time. It would be a blessing for Nanoco shareholders if he can join and grow the current £60M market cap to over £1B like what he did at Acacia. I don't understand why others don't see this as a rare opportunity and are blindly/emotionally attached to the organic business/current board regardless of past failures, delays, misrepresentations, etc. I don't think Hamoodi is suggesting the organic business needs to be sold. Instead, due to continuing losses and delays without much explanation/transparency from the board, he wants to get to the bottom of all this by conducting an objective assessment of Nanoco's technology and make whatever sensible changes are necessary to maximize shareholder value, which will equally benefit all shareholders including him. It would be stupid of the new board and an unthinkable breach of their fiduciary duty to sell the organic business if there is a clear path to profitability. On the other hand, what if the technology is just smoke and mirrors to maintain job security for the D&O and doesn't work?

Chris Richards at Plant Health Care (08/12 to Present)

Revenue £7.9M to £8.4M

Net loss (£5.1M) to (£4.6M)

Share Price 89p to 9p

Brian Tenner at Nanoco (09/18 to Present)

Revenue £3.3M to £2.5M

Net loss (£6.0M) to (£4.7M)

Market Cap £108M to £59M

Dooyong Lee at Acacia (01/05 to 12/12)

Revenue $4M to $251M

Net income ($5.5M) to $59.5M

Market Cap $110M to $2.1B

Samsung has about 90% of the QD TV market and is the only one using cadmium free QD. The remaining 10% use cadmium-based QD from Nanging/Nncrsytal, Nanosys, etc. because they are cheaper and their quality is not noticeably different from CFQD. Other than TVs/Displays, CFQD based commercial products are practically non-existent today, meaning no infringers to go after. In the meantime, of the 5 most valuable Nanoco patents litigated against Samsung and validated by the PTAB, one (with the longest remaining life expiring in 2035) was sold to Samsung, and the remaining 4 will expire between April ’25 (< 2 yrs) and Jan ’28 (4.5 years). The BoD is incapable of planning and executing its own patent licensing strategy, so hired a special counsel, who received $5M from the Samsung settlement. Patent enforcement against Samsung with ~90% market share generated $65M for 13 years of damages + royalties (Feb ’15 to Jan ’28) but cost $61M, producing $4M of net income over 3 years. Let’s generously assume the remaining 10% grow to 30% today, 50% of which miraculously convert to CFQD and start infringing Nanoco’s core patents starting today until Jan 28 (4.5 years = 35% of Samsung’s 13 yrs). How much net income would/could Nanoco generate from them? IF the ROI is similar to the Samsung case, we are looking at $4M * 30% * 50% * 35% = $210K of net income or $65M * 30% * 50% * 35% = $3.4M of gross revenue. Can anybody guess how the current management might deliver better ROI than this hypothetical (admittedly simplified) calculation? Brian? Chris? Nigel?

28/03/23 RNS

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/nanoco/news/rns/story/x4gp70x/export

Following the validation of our IP by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the subsequent licensing of our remaining patent portfolio by Samsung, the Group is confident in the potential applicability of our IP to other participants in the cadmium free quantum dot display market. At present that market is dominated by Samsung but as QD TVs capture a larger share of the total flat panel TV market, and as more market participants create or expand their market presence, the economic case for enforcement of our IP will grow in the medium term.

The group will explore opportunities to encourage market participants to take a license over Nanoco's IP as an alternative to potentially costly future litigation. We have retained a Special Adviser for the next steps in our IP licensing strategy and are reviewing potential IP licensing partners, alongside our internal business team who are evaluating potential value opportunities.

06/03/23 – Brian Tenner’s Interview with IAM

https://www.iam-media.com/article/nanoco-eyeing-further-assertions-following-big-money-samsung-pay-out-says-ceo

“For several years, there was only one company in the world selling cadmium-free quantum dot TVs. That was Samsung,” Tenner states. “Today, Samsung still has just under a 90% market share, but other companies now have 10%

@bonzoful: "Any legal fees payable by people carrying out their role as Directors or employees of Nanoco will be covered by the company. Why anyone would want Nanocos money wasted in this way is beyond my comprehension. I infer they do not know what they are doing."

Not correct. Under the Companies Act, the directors are on the hook for all legal fees and expenses in defending criminal and civil proceedings and all resulting penalties (including fines from regulatory bodies) IF they are convicted or receives a judgment against them. The company at its expense may defend them initially but they will have to pay back if they are convicted or receives a judgment against them.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/232

Companies Act 2006

232 Provisions protecting directors from liability

(1)Any provision that purports to exempt a director of a company (to any extent) from any liability that would otherwise attach to him in connection with any negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust in relation to the company is void.

(2)Any provision by which a company directly or indirectly provides an indemnity (to any extent) for a director of the company, or of an associated company, against any liability attaching to him in connection with any negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust in relation to the company of which he is a director is void, except as permitted by—

(a)section 233 (provision of insurance),

(b)section 234 (qualifying third party indemnity provision), or

(c)section 235 (qualifying pension scheme indemnity provision).

234 Qualifying third party indemnity provision

(1)Section 232(2) (voidness of provisions for indemnifying directors) does not apply to qualifying third party indemnity provision.

(2)Third party indemnity provision means provision for indemnity against liability incurred by the director to a person other than the company or an associated company.

Such provision is qualifying third party indemnity provision if the following requirements are met.

(3)The provision must not provide any indemnity against—

(a)any liability of the director to pay—

(i)a fine imposed in criminal proceedings, or

(ii)a sum payable to a regulatory authority by way of a penalty in respect of non-compliance with any requirement of a regulatory nature (however arising); or

(b)any liability incurred by the director—

(i)in defending criminal proceedings in which he is convicted, or

(ii)in defending civil proceedings brought by the company, or an associated company, in which judgment is given against him, or

(iii)in connection with an application for relief (see subsection (6)) in which the court refuses to grant him relief.

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for nanostory

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for nanostory

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Please enter at least 2 characters

No results found

Search results

Recently viewed

Trending