Member Info for NGR1616

the post was about th pumping the stock. you’re simply talking ****e.

What’s the point of posts like this?

Hoisted by his own petard

FH I hope and think you’re wrong but only delivery will prove it once and for all.

…..ignoring the fact it’s done at no additional cost, no risk, no borrowing or dilution……the IP is valid and they’re going after others who’s market share is growing .

A completely myopic view

What would be the option? Accept the deal? Ask for more please sir ? or risk failing in court or years of appeals ? .

I’d take the $150m versus the non existent $500m every day.

You get more ridiculous every day with your ‘funny how’ imaginary scenarios

HH you should sell and stick with the c10% who agree with you of which TH is 5.02%. The fact is the vast majority don’t agree with your take on events. You should reflect on that.

Nanogeddon your response doesn’t surprise me. Neither does your inability to understand you’re in the vast minority with your opinions on BT as borne out by todays voting. Maybe in time you’ll understand.

It’s more than 1%

This is all you do. Post a couple of lines of smart ass nonsense. You’ve never contributed anything of value before and I doubt you’re capable of doing so in future.

Why is that?

Troublesome you really add nothing to these discussions. Just more word salad.

HH I think its very difficult to put a dollar value of time and money relative to the alternative scenarios/outcomes.

Firstly, there was absolutely zero guarantee we'd win the Jury trial. I think that is accepted by everyone.

Second, had we won it could have been for a lower value – I think everyone will accept that now although at the time it wasn’t in the front of everyone’s mind. I’m sure it was analysed by the RG’s and LOAM’s of this world though.

Thirdly had we won a large award it would be appealed. I think that is accepted.

Scenario 1 = $0 dollars to Nanoco and a loan note to be paid and no IP validated

Scenario 2= $c50m (correct me if I’m wrong) before deductions for funder and loan costs and tax so possibly close to $0 net to Nanoco

Scenario 3= Suppose it was $1bn we would undoubtably be in for a long fight with no money, a loan note and a need to raise more dilutive money until breakeven and still not have validated IP.

I know that many on here think that we should have liked to have rolled the dice, but I can also almost certainly guarantee you this, the same people moaning now would be the first to complain if we lost the appeal and got nothing, when they found out a pragmatic compromise could have been taken years earlier protecting their investment

Troublesome I’ve reported you again for calling me by a name that has nothing to do with me.

I’m not having my posts credited to anyone else or vise versa.

HHI think you and everyone with the same perspective on this has it back to front. We'll never agree on this. You think you were mugged, I on the other hand think the settlement was a pragmatic compromise, one that secured the company and avoided protracted legal costs and delays that needed funding. To me that is a fair outcome.

I can see your side of the argument but I'm unlikely to convince you otherwise so I'll respect your position for what it is. I think we've covered this for long enough.

Meanwhile the SP is undervaluing the company.

Validation of the material(s) is Nanoco's responsibility.

Commercialising it it somewhat out of their control but regardless, validation and then orders will move the SP - maybe then people will start to get some comfort from past events. If the end consumer product is a high volume device the SP could move significantly.

Fingers crossed it happens this year.

Was it not that BT negotiated better terms in the case of a negotiated settlement outcome rather than related to the settlement itself.

She said they thought they were going to court the next day unless I’m mistaken

Clearly the market has this priced wrongly.

Also the accusations of insider info being given in the LOAM call is false as the settlement wasn’t agreed at the time.

TH is aggrieved I get that but it doesn’t mean Nanoco did anything wrong.

That was an error. Apologies

It’s always been 11am

What don’t you understand about how much Nanoco would have won without a funder? And even if they were able to self finance the lawyers still need payment.