Member Info for NGR1616

Correct 👍

In simplistic terms…If the PO doesn’t arrive or is delayed then you’ve screwed your bottom line and quite possibly have to lay off the poor souls you just hired. The latter being a truly awful scenario.

Perhaps Nanoco have a scaleable production process able to respond within prescribed parameters at short notice. We don’t know. What I do know is the company I work for is very cautious of assuming an order will come and scale up in advance in case it doesn’t. I’d hope Nanoco are equally measured especially in the absence of the end use Nanoco claim to have no knowledge of.

Considering Nanoco have already stated they don't know the end product it's pretty hard for them to guide outside what they already have. I guess you are suggesting they now have to revise their "we don't know but it could be something like this" comment to "we still don't know but it could be less"?

Isn’t accepting that the core scientists who developed the technology will be removed and likely followed by their team a MASSIVE RED FLAG that you don’t give one hoot for the survival of the company? What more evidence is needed?

Anyone know what Apple does between quarterly earnings updates and annual presentations?

Kooba “ no one seems to question why in that time frame no one has placed any orders?”

Fact?

Pesky supply chain not playing ball….but TH will sort it out and get the end user to adopt without delay. Hooray.

sorry kooba, it’s not my fault you can’t see what the objective is. the fact you ask such stupid questions makes it hard for me not to take the **** but i’ll try to next time.

Kooba this isn’t a court of law. It’s a place to post opinions. I don’t have to post something as fact that is an opinion. Fact.

Kooba I don’t think you’ll find this information published anywhere publicly. Why don’t you go lick a window somewhere else?

Name the movie without doing any research. "the tutor of achilles......."

Troublesome the SP was inflated by speculation. Then 'investors' were disappointed by the settlement or it didn't meet their expectations and dumped the stock and the SP cratered -that's what happens and its no different to when 'Apple' pulled out previously or when and oil company announces a duster. Carnage. Some people remain invested, other dump and run then complain when in reality the info was available, just missed.

I include LOAM in that 'investor' statement above, who sold after the RNS. If they did more due diligence than the PI on the street and understood the low end models because they went into the court papers in more depth and had more time and resource to do it because their exposure dictates so, then who's to blame? Them? Nanoco? Those who didn't?

Through out this the company has done nothing other than maintain broadly the same narrative and whilst for you 'inflection' or 'transformative' might mean instant rocketing share prices, to others including me (and the BoD) it means the validation and conclusion of a long legal challenge process re the IP and a beginning of a new stage for the company with better longer term prospects underpinned by cash

You can read into it whatever you want and we are unlikely to agree but that's my view.

You have to balance motives in all of this.

If you are a high risk speculative investor betting on a binary outcome and getting it wrong you could easily be tempted or guided to take retribution. If you are completely disenfranchised you care not about the long term prospects and only want to rebalance as much as possible as quickly as possible and if what is left behind is a shell you care not about that either.

This company will be cash stripped, asset stripped, devalued and taken private on the cheap. That's the objective here.

Make no mistake.

It’s likely Nanoco are bound by certain NDA clauses around the settlement meaning response to the accusations could mean more legal wrangling hence a reluctance to provide the craved information. Quite how they address this to satisfy all parties will be interesting.

Hamoodi is trying to pick up a company on the cheap not by buying it but by taking it over.

In reality,after throwing the teddies out of the cot, he had no option to uphold his ´reputation’ but to follow through with this action. And afterwards he’ll simply put on his “ it’s my right as an activist shareholder to hold the company to scrutiny”  hat and in fairness, yes it is.

This is an unfortunate turn of events but hopefully it will reach a swift conclusion put it behind us and we can instead look forward to those much desired orders in H2 ‘23

However they he board will likely now have to address more specifically some of the accusations which may shed more light on matters surrounding the settlement. That’ll burn up a few quid in lawyers! Cheers TH

Apologies typed in haste *I meant Pickets team

I understand some are unhappy at the outcome of the settlement, I too hoped for a larger figure but was more aware it wasn’t nailed on but I simply do not understand the motivation to destabilise the company unless it’s sour grapes, or an attempt to quickly profit and get out.

It’s clear Picket has laid his cards on the table and indicated he’ll walk. That’s going to be very difficult for nanoco to recover from on several levels.

I really see no option here but to trust that the company is going to secure commercial orders and wait. If they don’t it’s curtains perhaps but I suspect aurora want to pull the curtains down now and sell the theatre along with Runcorn and the little man, us, will see very little in return.

I’ll be voting against.

Yeah it was totally zero risk……

Kooba I think the market has priced in disappointment