Member Info for nanostory

@Intrusivethought

You have a way of distorting my simple message. I welcome all posters as long as their opinions are supported by facts/ logic that even a high school kid can understand.

I have seen other posters with similar speculations. If your hope/speculation is sufficiently accurate, Nanoco has to release an RNS ASAP per #7 below. If they don't, your hope/speculation must not be sufficiently accurate.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/596/article/17/adopted

Market Abuse Regulation

Article 17 Public disclosure of inside information

1. An issuer shall inform the public as soon as possible of inside information which directly concerns that issuer. The issuer shall 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 referred to in Article 21 of Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and the Council

4. An issuer or an emission allowance market participant, may, on its own responsibility, delay disclosure to the public of inside information provided that all of the following conditions are met:

(a)immediate disclosure is likely to prejudice the legitimate interests of the issuer or emission allowance market participant;

(b)delay of disclosure is not likely to mislead the public;

(c)the issuer or emission allowance market participant is able to ensure the confidentiality of that information.

5. In order to preserve the stability of the financial system, an issuer that is a credit institution or a financial institution, may, on its own responsibility, delay the public disclosure of inside information.. [Not applicable to Nanoco]

7.Where disclosure of inside information has been delayed in accordance with paragraph 4 or 5 and the confidentiality of that inside information is no longer ensured, the issuer or the emission allowance market participant shall disclose that inside information to the public as soon as possible. This paragraph includes situations where a rumour explicitly relates to inside information the disclosure of which has been delayed in accordance with paragraph 4 or 5, where that rumour is sufficiently accurate to indicate that the confidentiality of that information is no longer ensured.

40 replies on this thread, yet nobody can answer my simple question.

(3)The case falls within this subsection if—

(a)P knows that the impression is false or misleading or is reckless as to whether it is, and

(b)P intends by creating the impression to produce any of the results in subsection (4) or is aware that creating the impression is likely to produce any of the results in that subsection.

(4)Those results are—

(a)the making of a gain for P or another, or

(b)the causing of loss to another person or the exposing of another person to the risk of loss.

(5)References in subsection (4) to gain or loss are to be read in accordance with

92. Penalties

(1)A person guilty of an offence under this Part is liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the applicable maximum term or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;

(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine, or both.

(2)For the purpose of subsection (1)(a) “the applicable maximum term” is—

(a)in England and Wales, 12 months (or 6 months, if the offence was committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003);

(b)in Scotland, 12 months;

(c)in Northern Ireland, 6 months.

WHERE TO REPORT SUSPECTED VIOLATIONS

FCA (financial fraud)

https://www.fca.org.uk/contact/report-wrongdoing-misconduct#section-how-to-make-a-report

Action Fraud (market manipulation)

https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/a-z-of-fraud/market-manipulation

Police (fraud)

https://www.met.police.uk/ro/report/fo/v1/fraud/are-you-aged-17-or-under-do-you-have-a-physical-disability-or-suffer-from-mental-health-issues/?tid=1810&lid=&cid=&rid=3633&stepid=1-2

SFO (serious fraud)

https://sforeporting.egressforms.com

Here are a few regulations / laws governing fraud by way of false representations, misleading statements and misleading impressions. These are applicable to any one of us as individuals (not necessarily connected with the BoD) and have severe penalties for violation. Be well.

FRAUD ACT 2006

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

2. Fraud by false representation

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a)the person making the representation, or

(b)any other person.

(4)A representation may be express or implied.

(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

Penalties. The three main Fraud Act offences are punishable by up to ten years' imprisonment and/or a fine.

FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 2012

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/21/part/7/enacted

89. Misleading statements

(1)Subsection (2) applies to a person (“P”) who—

(a)makes a statement which P knows to be false or misleading in a material respect,

(b)makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material respect, being reckless as to whether it is, or

(c)dishonestly conceals any material facts whether in connection with a statement made by P or otherwise.

(2)P commits an offence if P makes the statement or conceals the facts with the intention of inducing, or is reckless as to whether making it or concealing them may induce, another person (whether or not the person to whom the statement is made)—

(a)to enter into or offer to enter into, or to refrain from entering or offering to enter into, a relevant agreement, or

(b)to exercise, or refrain from exercising, any rights conferred by a relevant investment.

90. Misleading impressions

(1)A person (“P”) who does any act or engages in any course of conduct which creates a false or misleading impression as to the market in or the price or value of any relevant investments commits an offence if—

(a)P intends to create the impression, and

(b)the case falls within subsection (2) or (3) (or both).

(2)The case falls within this subsection if P intends, by creating the impression, to induce another person to acquire, dispose of, subscribe for or underwrite the investments or to refrain from doing so or to exercise or refrain from exercising any rights conferred by the investments.

I will create a separate thread to discuss representative laws and regulations dealing with false or misleading representations, etc. and the consequences for violation.

Many of the posters have clearly violated LSE chat rules and should be reported to LSE. Once they are banned, this chat board will be much more informative and civilized. I encourage everyone to report if they see any violations, especially of the following rules.

https://www.lse.co.uk/chat-rules.html

LSE Member Chat Rules

1. You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.

4. While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.

5. You will not;

c. post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.

h. post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.

The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.

False or misleading information/expectations posted for the BoD shall be deemed released by the company and shall be subject to numerous laws and regulations (Market Abuse Regulations, Theft Act, Fraud Act, Criminal Justice Act, Financial Services Act, and Financial Services Markets Act, etc) with severe criminal penalties if/when prosecuted. Enforcement agencies can track down anybody on this board to seek justice. Sleep well.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0596&from=EN

Market Abuse Regulations

(48) Given the rise in the use of websites, blogs and social media, it is important to clarify that disseminating false or misleading information via the internet, including through social media sites or unattributable blogs, should be considered, for the purposes of this Regulation, to be equivalent to doing so via more traditional communication channels.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/privacy-and-cookie-statement-0

LSE Privacy Policy

What types of personal information we collect

• Name and contact data, such as first and last name, email address, postal address, phone number, and other similar contact data

• User content, such as communications and files provided by you in relation to your use of the Services

• Device information, such as information about your device, such as IP address, location, device identification numbers, or provider

• Usage information and browsing history, such as, information about how you navigate within our Services, your browsing history and which elements of our Services you use the most

• Location data, for Services with location-enhanced features. If we need your consent to collect geo-location data, we will collect this separately

• Identifiers, such as unique identification numbers, cookie identifiers, account numbers, social security numbers, national identifiers, etc.

How we use personal information

• substantial public interest on the basis of applicable law (e.g., to help prevent and detect unlawful acts (e.g., money laundering, terrorism, fraud and/or other criminal activity (including, without limitation, modern slavery)))

• for compliance with a legal obligation (e.g., to respond to a court order or a regulator; comply with statutory and regulatory requirements within the jurisdictions within which we operate (including those relating to bribery and corruption, money laundering and sanctions; sharing personal information with external organizations (e.g., police, tax authorities, or other public authorities or government enforcement agencies))

We share your information for the purposes set out in this Statement, with the following categories of recipients:

• third parties where we have a duty to or are permitted to disclose your personal information by law (e.g., government agencies, law enforcement, courts and other public authorities)

2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, information shall be deemed to be of a "PRECISE NATURE" if it indicates a set of circumstances which exists or which may reasonably be expected to come into existence, or an event which has occurred or which may reasonably be expected to occur, where it is specific enough to enable a conclusion to be drawn as to the possible effect of that set of circumstances or event on the prices of the financial instruments or the related derivative

financial instrument, the related spot commodity contracts, or the auctioned products based on the emission allowances. In this respect in the case of a protracted process that is intended to bring about, or that results in, particular circumstances or a particular event, those future circumstances or that future event, and also the intermediate steps of that process which are connected with bringing about or resulting in those future circumstances or that future event, may be deemed to be precise information.

Maxi19: "As much as I recommend being sceptical about communications from the board following the litigation, I don't think it's reasonable to assume their statement about anticipating orders by end of CY23 is misleading. The reason being is that everyone knows ST Micro is the customer, and if they have told Nanoco the opposite i.e. expect orders in CY24 or later, then you have an obvious case of Nanoco misleading investors. You could question whether ST Micro would notice or care - I think they definitely would notice and care. This is a new product for them and if their own shareholders were expecting commercialisation in CY23 based on Nanoco's misleading statements you can be sure that ST Micro would be furious."

Another biased opinion without foundation. Nanoco is a side show at best for ST Micro, who has not even made a single announcement about the Nanoco deal. Nanoco shareholders at large have clearly expressed their opinions about the board, as reflected in the share price. It's your money if you want to hold onto your shares.

So many biased opinions with no basis. Let's discuss based on FACTS. Anybody with a monkey brain can decide based on the following regulations:

Market Abuse Regulations

(49) The public disclosure of inside information by an issuer is essential to avoid insider dealing and ensure that investors are not misled. Issuers should therefore be REQUIRED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC AS SOON AS POSSIBLE OF INSIDE INFORMATION.

Article 7 Inside information

1. For the purposes of this Regulation, INSIDE INFORMATION SHALL COMPRISE the following types of information:

INFORMATION of a precise nature, which has not been made public, relating, directly or indirectly, to one or more issuers or to one or more financial instruments, and which, IF IT WERE MADE PUBLIC, WOULD BE LIKELY TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE PRICES OF THOSE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS or on the price of related derivative financial instruments

Nanonano: "What happens next is critical, and if this team cannot drum up some decent trade within this calendar year, I find it difficult to justify their positions, as they’re not being paid in chocolate buttons."

I have seen a number of other posters suggesting to wait until the year end before replacing the board. As you know, the board has missed all prior projections for commercial volume production year after year and generated zero profit from all "major" deals with Dow, Merck, Osram, etc. (they all sound great but end up delivering nothing). If the technology is truly compelling, why hasn't Dow (Fortune 500 company) delivered significant royalties to Nanoco since they first signed a deal with Nanoco 10 years ago. To this day, shareholders don't know the root causes of each of these delays/misses because t the board releases RNS's only upon signing contracts and provides no explanations/guidance when things don't materialize or get delayed. Why do you think this time is any different?

(47) The manipulation or attempted manipulation of financial instruments may also consist in disseminating false or misleading information. The spreading of false or misleading information can have a significant impact on the prices of financial instruments in a relatively short period of time. It may consist in the invention of manifestly false information, but also the wilful omission of material facts, as well as the knowingly inaccurate reporting of information. That form of market manipulation is particularly harmful to investors, because it causes them to base their investment decisions on incorrect or distorted information. It is also harmful to issuers, because it reduces the trust in the available information related to them. A lack of market trust can in turn jeopardise an issuer’s ability to issue new financial instruments or to secure credit from other market participants in order to finance its operations. Information spreads through the market place very quickly. As a result, the harm to investors and issuers may persist for a relatively long time until the information is found to be false or misleading, and can be corrected by the issuer or those responsible for its dissemination. It is therefore necessary to qualify the spreading of false or misleading information, including rumours and false or misleading news, as being an infringement of this Regulation. It is therefore appropriate not to allow those active in the financial markets to freely express information contrary to their own opinion or better judgement, which they know or should know to be false or misleading, to the detriment of investors and issuers.

(48) Given the rise in the use of websites [Edison reports on Nanoco’s website], blogs and social media, it is important to clarify that disseminating false or misleading information via the internet, including through social media sites or unattributable blogs, should be considered, for the purposes of this Regulation, to be equivalent to doing so via more traditional communication channels [like RNS].

https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/market-abuse

Market abuse offences

UK MAR makes insider dealing, unlawful disclosure, market manipulation and attempted manipulation civil offences, and gives us powers and responsibilities for preventing and detecting market abuse. Criminal insider dealing is an offence under Part V of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, and criminal market manipulation is an offence under sections 89-91 of the Financial Services Act 2012.

Maxi19: "It's completely outside of their control "

NRG1616: "what happens upstream in the supply chain isn’t always in Nanoco’s control."

1. Edison’s reports contain inside information according to EU Market Manipulation Regulations (MAR) Paragraph (28).

2. It would be negligence for the board not to fact check Edison’s reports containing damage estimates (“material information”) before publication.

3. The board’s 28/4 response to Hamoodi’s 10/3 letter (#17) says, “These damages models [including damages amounts] were disclosed on the public record and were subsequently discussed in UK investor share chat forums.”

4. Edison’s damage estimates are based on publicly available sources according to their disclaimer. Edison is retained by Nanoco for £60K to write these reports.

5. Based on the above, I cannot help but conclude that either A) the damages amounts were not publicly available to Edison (contradicting #17 above), or B) if the $43.9M figure were publicly available to Edison, Nanoco allowed Edison to knowingly publish bogus estimates. Either way, the following provisions of the market abuse regulations seem relevant.

https ://www.edisongroup.com/research-principles/

Edison’s Research Principles

Analysts are permitted to fact check research drafts with the management of the subject company and with other client counterparties.

Edison’s General Disclaimer

Accuracy of content: All information used in the publication of this report has been compiled from “publicly available sources” that are believed to be reliable, however we do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this report and have not sought for this information to be independently verified.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0596&from=EN

EU Market Abuse Regulations (MAR)

(28) Research and estimates based on publicly available data, should not per se be regarded as inside information and the mere fact that a transaction is carried out on the basis of research or estimates should not therefore be deemed to constitute use of inside information. However, for example, where the publication or distribution of information is routinely expected by the market and where such publication or distribution contributes to the price-formation process of financial instruments, or the information provides views from a recognised market commentator or institution which may inform the prices of related financial instruments [Edison’s reports with damage estimates available on the Nanoco website], the information may constitute inside information. Market actors must therefore consider the extent to which the information is non-public and the possible effect on financial instruments traded in advance of its publication or distribution, to establish whether they would be trading on the basis of inside information.

9/6/22 edison's *************

https://*************.net/nanoco-group-what-can-we-expect-from-samsung’s-historical-us-infringement

nrg1616:

slide 13 [of hamoodi's presentation] quotes "edison, retained by nanoco, estimates low-end past damages for the us only to be $200-250m"

what edison actually said was "although the value of a potential payout has not been disclosed, we calculate that lost revenue in the united states attributable to the patent infringement to date could be in the region of us$200–250m or more. any damages awarded could also make an additional allowance for future sales of infringing tvs and a possible uplift for wilfulness"

completely different

_______________________

9/6/22 edison's *************

https://*************.net/nanoco-group-what-can-we-expect-from-samsung’s-historical-us-infringement

"assuming that samsung’s us qd display sales totalled 25m units over the five years to end-2021, upon which it is realistic to estimate a low-end royalty payable to nanoco in the range of us$8.0 to us$12.0 per display. this amounts to lost revenue in the range of uss$200 and us$300 million for the us alone. "

"at that time, its board expressed a high level of confidence in the trial’s positive outcome and, although it never estimated a value of the potential award resulting from successful litigation, turner pope investments research of 6th june 2022 suggested this could be in the range of us$200m to us$300m for samsung’s historical us infringement alone."

20/5/21 nanoco's damages report submitted to court (hamoodi presentation, page 16)

"minimum damages are calculated based on the dow agreement by applying a $6.06 royalty rate to [redacted, likely samsung sales] for the period february 1, 2015 to october 4, 2021. resulting damages are $43.9m."

"Book value of 400k." = $85M price tag? This is the type of response that's meaningless and non-responsive to my request for rewriting my conclusion. The book value is determined solely by the patent prosecution costs (or acquisition costs if acquired) and then amortized annually over the useful life of the patent. I bet you the book value of the two core patents for trial is close to nil as they are ready to expire. I will not engage in this type of non-productive wasteful exchange with you.

@Intrusivethought: "The CORE technology is the seeding method. That is what matters.... The patent family you refer to is not so and was ultimately not being brought to trial."

Based on your statement, I conclude the 118 patents are non-core but generated $85M in no time without costs, whilst the two most valuable core patents ready for trial (plus all others licensed, ~370 patents) grossed only $65M after spending $61M in litigation costs (so net income of $4M) for three years. If my conclusion is incorrect, can you please REWRITE IT instead of making elusive side comments.

@intrusivethought, if you are suggesting only those slated for trial (i.e., 7588828 and 7803423) are core, the remaining 99.5% of the current 370+ patents are non-core/useless.

Alternatively, if you are suggesting only those listed under CFQD Quantum Dots (ie, 37 patents) https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/productsapplications/patents/ are core, then all others dealing with QD films and any other subjects (90%+) are non-core/useless.

20/10/22 RNS: “During the year, we focused the Group's IP portfolio on to a CORE of 503 (2021: 559) patents and patent applications with the MOST PROMISING COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL. This net reduction reflected 24 new applications and 80 that were eliminated in territories or potential applications no longer felt worthwhile. We continue to preserve trade secrets and have targeted our financial resources on strategic areas such as infra-red sensing where there is a strong overlap with our CORE IP. These are also areas with CLEAR FUTURE COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES and benefits to be had from holding HIGH QUALITY PATENTS.”

https://patents.google.com/patent/US9680068B2/en?oq=us9680068

US Patent 9680068 titled ‘Quantum dot films utilizing multi-phase resins”

This patent and 16 others in the same family (i.e., based on the same invention) are no longer with Nanoco as of the settlement date and mysteriously become non-core merely 3.5 months after the above RNS.

INTRUSIVETHOUGHT:

"They are not core patents. But then you know that. You should retract that wilfully misleading statement." "A core of 503 patents. Not 503 core patents. the CORE patents pertain to the molecular seeding platform technology. You know this. Nice try though Hammi."

Are you suggesting patents relating to manufacturing QD films are non-core? When did the board make a public announcement to that effect? If they did, it would mean the board made a huge mistake by litigating a non-core patent of no commercial value against Samsung. If these 17 patents are of no commercial value, why would Samsung pay $85M to acquire? Below are excerpts in nanoco's complaint against Samsung describing the importance of QD films in their own words.

https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13684696

23. Further, Nanoco has entered supply agreements with manufacturing companies for the production and distribution of optical films containing quantum dots.

37. United States Patent No. 9,680,068 (“the ’068 patent”), titled “quantum dot films utilizing multi-phase resins,” relates to materials comprising light emitting semiconductor quantum dots, and more specifically, multi-phase polymer films incorporating quantum dots.

39. A widespread commercial application is using a quantum dot enhancement film (QDEF) layer to improve the LED backlighting in LCD TVs. In this application, light from a blue LED backlight is converted by quantum dots to relatively pure red and green. This combination of blue, green and red light incurs less blue-green crosstalk and light absorption in the color filters after the LCD screen, thereby increasing useful light throughput and providing a better color gamut.

40. The QDEF layer is able to replace a diffuser used in traditional LCD backlight

BeContrarian: "Having said that, I don’t necessarily support the notion of sacking the board until the above is actually proven. To do so I would feel very much like a turkey voting for Christmas. If commercial orders are indeed on the horizon, I wouldn’t want to risk the company being destabilised like that at this important juncture. "

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. You are about to be fooled 100th time IMO. The board has consistently missed (or misled?) all projections for volume production and have never been profitable at Nanoco and elsewhere (if any of them ever managed a technology company). The board have never disclosed the reasons for missing all these projections. If Nanoco technology works (which seriously doubt), I don't understand why a Fortune 500 licensee (Dow) has been unable to generate revenue from commercial volume production over the last 10+ years. Why do you think this time is different?