Member Info for NGR1616

So I see and unsurprisingly you are in the middle of it dramatising the whole thing. You should be on the stage. The Dow model was discussed previously and human nature discounted it obviously. That model would be around $112-$140m for us sales for a jury win x3 globally. So naturally you see c.$420m but it completely ignores the delays and risks and requisite borrowing and not validating the IP. Now to a layman it sounds like a no brainier right? Wait for the big (not guaranteed) payout but at no point does the layman see the bigger picture. That’s where you fall over PPE. You are incapable of understanding this.

Where’s nanostory and his sidekicks?

TG2D.....the reality is we are on opposing sides of an argument. You are not alone on our side and I'm not alone on mine, so it should come as no surprise that from time to time my views will be aligned and supported by others just as yours are, so can we just accept that?

Personally I think you are on the wrong side of that argument and are driven by your "fury" at the outcome and you want some sort of retribution. You see removing the board as the path to sating your appetite and I understand that although I certainly don't agree with it and I think it is an emotional decision rather than a rational one.

Only time will tell if my support is misguided or if it is correct. However in my view replacing the board just now regardless of your motives is irrational and I cannot understand why anyone would consider doing so at this juncture when the guidance from the company is clear. It would be very possibly a self-harming act that dwarfs the disenfranchisement felt over the settlement outcome.

I’ve said they avoided losing in court or spending money and time through the appeals process in favour of a settlement that discounts for all of the above.

During that time they have (if we are to believe it true) moved closer to commercial orders than they have ever been and I’m willing to see them deliver that whilst remaining cognisant that the downstream supply chain might yet encounter delays with the end [consumer] product(s) launch and adoption.

I support the sensible safe stewardship by settling, underpinning the company financially, validating the IP and to secure commercial orders.

All of that seems pretty good compared to a more risky approach of going to court (for a potentially 1/3 less outcome) banking on a jury decision.

Whilst that appeal process shouldn’t derail the commercial orders aspect, it would still leave us in the middle of legal proceedings, paying interest on loans or having to raise more money whilst incurring more legal costs with no guarantee of success at appeal. The final award could be less than we settled for once the legal costs are deducted unless people only fixate on the highest damages model as if it was a god given right. It’s not. Good doesn’t exist and neither do miracles.

I agree Topedo, with his business acumen and highly evolved intelligence Im surprised as well he’s still invested in this turkey…. perhaps he thinks the vote has something to do with Christmas.

HE’S FURIOUS

TG2D you are simply bitter…..it’s obvious and it’s clouding your judgement.

Your [sic] correct I’m not comparing global sales in relation to the settlement as the settlement clearly has discount factors that a jury court judgement does not. One is risk free the other is not. You fail repeatedly to grasp this.

The fact LOAM and RG understood what low case meant when RNS’d doesn’t make them guilty.

I’m sure if he had your address he’d have popped round and told you in person if he knew you’d be this agitated but to suggest they RNS everything related to a long drawn out court case is frankly ludicrous

*not allenby

I believe you have this upside down and are either so embittered or entrenched that you simply cannot see it. I don’t really have time for niceties when someone is completely at odds with my interpretation especially when the same person has previously attacked me here and on another platform. Next you’ll be denying climate change and then the gloves really will be off.

Docket 114 discusses models. Nanoco would present Dow and Credelle (43.9 and 412$m respectively) and not Credelle. This was discussed on these boards in September. $10 per TV according to Sammy88 equates to $140m. He went on to say how they have to present that but will press for Credelle.

On that day people were speaking of numbers in the $ billions - completely discounting the Dow model.

It’s easy to get carried away but looking back we really should have kept expectations in cheque [sic] especially when you consider the complexity of the case and the calibre of the legal team opposite.

Nanoco were precluded from mentioning acquisition —also discussed in September

Go on then! Report back your findings. I’ll look forward to that….

Actual quotes to buy and sell (I just did a dummy trade on both) are in line with the usual spread, but there’s no demand so the published spread is wider than usual. It’s all normal apart from the demand, seems no one wants to trade.

there are no trades. it’s not that hard to understand and isn’t part of your fantastical conspiracy theory.

reality is you thought you’d be loaded now, but it didn’t work out and instead of realising you misread the situation; you’ve jumped on the coattails of another disgruntled investor (who also thought he was cleverest in the room) with his ****tail of invention.

he’s brian brown. buy sell cover……

It’s not unusual when there’s no demand for the bid/ask to have a larger spread.

Then despite your proclivity of quotations, you’ve slipped up on this one.

TG2D you really think the vote would have been against a settlement for $150m? You are as thick as a railway sleeper. Stop proving it all the time.

Troublesome just because dimwit not on planet earth and Kooba jump the wall doesn’t mean everyone has multiple id’s. Don’t lower yourself-it doesn’t suit you.