Member Info for NGR1616

TG2D you got it wrong. You’re bitter as a result I get that but it doesn’t change the fact you got it wrong. You can invent as many narratives as you want to plead your case but it changes nothing.

I’m enjoying the meltdown though.

So not only “COULD” the settlement award/reward be worth multiples when discounted for the value of time and money, it was. Great job BT.

So BT said COULD be worth multiples of Share price and it was after discounts for value of time and money and people want him sacked because they read the share price will multiply?

once upon a time there was a clear distinction between the two.

now they are both ****.

well done ppe and kooba.

i’ve not read todays ****. it looks like it’s been fun though !

We’d still be in a legal process with no money

Morbox apologies for delayed reply- busy day. I just wanted to add that “fair value” needs to include discount for the value of time and money 💰

What is fair value in your opinion Morbox?

Not having a vote is clearly unacceptable to you TG2D but I wouldn’t expect one. Why would there be?

Edison gets it wrong across the board often. Just look back historically and not just Nanoco. They are a mirror to the company but also it should be acknowledged they are not the gospel and they are not providing investment advice. That remains under our control. Having a critical mind at the time not after the fact is what’s necessary.

It’s really quite simple…..BT could acknowledge the low case publicly to share holders and by extension to Samsung, or instead display strength in their convictions of a successful jury outcome.

Which ploy here is more likely to lead to a higher outcome at settlement?

It’s easy to make mistakes. I didn’t expect the SP to have the volatility it did and I’ve been on the wrong side of a price action before and with my long term view I decided to let it ride. Of course I’m hindsight I’d have loved to have profited on the day but it was so short lived the horse was already half way across the field so I didn’t trade in any huge volume. I did sell some though on 6th Jan at 59.00002p

Calm your jets bud

If there's a case to be answered then it will be. I don't personally have any issues with the management team nor with the II's referenced who will have much more robust measures in place to protect their significant investment that I do i.e. they will (you can be sure) have their own lawyers paying to get access to dockets and understanding precisely what the outcomes could be.

As I've said before I was not invested here for the IP litigation I've been a share holder for a significant period of time in the hope that the technology is widely adopted and Nanoco is a success story. The litigation came as a pleasant surprise but I heard BT's comment that it was the cherry on the cake, ergo not the foundation of the business so the outcomes for me are perfectly acceptable.

What's clear is your agenda was different and you have become obsessed with retribution as a result and it's really concerning to me as an observer how easily it is for people to lose their grip on reality when emotions become involved. I have no doubt that you will never change your views on this even when presented with evidence that your claims were nothing more than just claims. Of course time will tell if we even get to that point.

I'm trying to stop you getting yourself in bother dude. That's all.

'Where [sic] there any Board minutes kept of the meeting on the 5th January including issues discussed and decisions made and why wasn't a curcular [sic] issued to share holders outlining what was discussed and agreed?'

Minutes will be kept if taken and provided if legally required until then no company shares its MoM of a board meeting willingly for obvious reasons.

On the other matter you are accusing LOAM and RG of insider trading. And by extension the board as complicit.

You may want to reflect on that on a public forum.

Ybow112 -he became exactly that, an "ex-director" months before the settlement announcement? What are you implying?

And I really should warn people that this board is likely monitored for legal reasons as we are in this period of challenge.

Who what why would ever disclose their lowest acceptance outcome value in a negotiation?

Wake up and smell the coffee for goodness sake.

It’s not my fault I’m a better researcher !

Sort correct $49m x 3 $147m. Amazingly we got $150m nearly 3x the low model…..

I’m not sharing the original post. I’m not your researcher.

You would be better served looking at the docket in question. Whilst it was behind a pay wall it’s contents were shared openly.

Of course what you want is for a print out inserted in the daily mail you read over your full English right?