Member Info for PJT12

Repeat: They could hardly have agreed to the initial terms if they hadn't known those details at the time of writing the RNS.

The issue is not "funds" timing. It is, why were Monday's RNS details not included in Friday's RNS in view of the above?

They could hardly have agreed to the initial terms if they hadn't known those details at the time of writing the RNS.

People have suggested Insider Trading in the face of an RNS which should have pushed the price up in excess of 50% - where it should have held - but instead it met concerted selling which could only be explained by a second company RNS the next business day which left a very nasty smell. Who knows if it was insider trading but it does cast a shadow over all parties who might have benefitted, lends itself to doubt and deserves to be investigated.

What would you call it then?

FlyingHigher, contrary to the ridiculous Edison comment, BT would hardly have made his comments about the future (in the latest RNS) if he thought for one moment that Edison's stupid suggestion was in any way valid.

"The Board, having taken extensive advice from its advisers in the case...."

Fulham: Slavisa Jokanovic had led a thoroughly attractive side to Championship promotion in 2017/18, but a £100m+ summer spending splurge failed to bolster a suspect-looking backline that leaked goals at an alarming rate. They finished the season having shipped an eye-watering 81. Jokanovic got the boot in mid-November.

I'm trying to think of a football manager who's been given a huge transfer bank, only to be shown the door after blowing the funds. It's not just about the cash.

Hawi, I've enjoyed reading your posts over recent months and appreciate your knowledge here............but there's an obvious reply to that one. We've effectively "been here and have the jam tomorrow T-shirt" through previous "transformational" scenarios. As I said, I'll wait.

"accused SAMSUNG of..."

I am fairly sure that BT had enough confidence in the case to have taken it to trial. However, why would our funders want to do that through risking what is already a tidy profit for them? I now suspect BT's hand might have been forced and we therefore approached Samsung. Therefore, BT's 'reverse comments' at the end of the second RNS may well have been an attempt to achieve what many on here have accused BT of - a face-saving exercise. That might well explain things.

"This is all about the organic business having a firm foundation to propel it forward."
I am sorry but much as I respect and like BT based upon his presentations, the bottom line is that we have - and continue to rely upon a payout to fund our future. Furthermore, there's no point basing future promises on organic growth when the people running it are those who've failed to produce any sales of note whatsoever to date. Build it and they will come, or 'not' in this case so far. I'll believe the future "sales" when I see them.

Screw that, GigaWit! Death to Samsung!! :)

https://www.easyleadz.com/company/samsung-electronics

Not just yet anyway ;)

I think I would have more confidence in BT's words if this company had shown any profits whatsoever since it's formation. This new financial baseline is no guarantee of this leopard changing its spots, imo. I believe the board was presuured by its funders who understandably wanted to take their profits while the going's good. I also suspect BT would've gone to court if he'd had his way - but that's business.

Fair one :)

Dwstudios, is yours a legal background?

In fairness to BT, he cannot be accused of failing to keep shareholders abreast of events.

Brian Tenner, Chief Executive Officer of Nanoco, said:

"A settlement provides certainty to all our stakeholders and further reinforces our confidence in the validity and enforceability of the Group's global patent portfolio.



"I am more confident than ever about Nanoco's future prospects. A settlement provides a firm financial underpinning to focus on our organic business, which has made significant progress over the last three years. It also demonstrates the Company's willingness to vigorously defend our global IP portfolio against any potentially infringing parties in the wider market."