Member Info for tbow112

Are the directors not responsible for the company"s management ?

Seems to me that everybody should read Ecclescake"s link which I repeat for convenience.

https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Reviews/Nanoco-Reviews-E494796.htm

Surprised that nobody has commented on Ecclescakes link - at least two comments about poor quality management.

An FCA investigation would certainly be helpful and would appear to involve relatively work.

Even if the conduct of the BOD were found to be competent and above board it would be illuminating if details of the facts behind that opinion were published.

It seems to me a mistake that the current directors have promised a return of capital in advance, for it may well be that the company can find a good use for that capital. In particular Nanoco appears to need a wider range of customers and I would like to see more interest in solar panels which is a clear and more predictable market than sensors.

The promise of a capital return seems to be a case of trying to bribe people with their own money.

Anyone worked out how to get into Hamoodi"s presentation ? All I get is "An error has occured .." when I try.

"Nor do I believe the cack-handed excuse that the second second RNS released on the 9th January was as BT claimed to take the steam out of the market as LOAM were dumping shares on retail on the Friday ............."

I cannot understand why you would disbelieve that statement. The BOD are effectively saying that it is important that there are experienced directors on the board, but that they themselves did not have a clue as to how the stock market interpreted their announcements.

There appears to be nothing false about the accusation. If LOAM want to deal in the shares they should not be having phone calls with the directors at a crucial time.

It does seem rather odd to me that some people think that frustrating a takeover is more important than improving the operations of the company.

Maybe LOAM have no confidence in Nanoco"s management ?

"The really important news arose when the judge directed that the settlement would be on the lower end "

Where do you get the idea that the size of the settlement has anything to do with the judge ?

"simple answer: to discredit the BOD and to unsettle investors"

Surely that had already happened before anyone here had ever heard of Tamoodi.

"How can someone who specializes in litigation misinterpret court records? Not very reassuring that Mr. Hamoodi doesn't seem to read or misinterpret court records like you just suggested"

I once had a lawyer come to me after a week and say "I still cannot understand this judgement". In the Nanoco case I looked at Nanoco"s low case model and thought the methodology to be nonsense which would not convince a jury.

However the most important factor are not the court documents but the legal advice about their relevance and the only information we have about that advice is that released by the company.

"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?"

The court case was in the USA. It is unlikely that anything that happened in the UK would make much difference.

But since you ask the question, one reasonable way of assessing damages would be to compare Nanoco"s stock market value with that projected when the infringement started. In that argument the damages increase as Nanoco"s current share price declines.

If you read foreign court papers you may well need foreign legal advice to understand what is in them. One assumes that Nanoco had appropriate legal advice but, for reasons unknown, saw no obligation to correct the guidance that appeared in the Turner Pope and Edison papers.

The court papers are, in reality, unconvincing and British investors would expect to rely on information put out by the company. We do not know what advice was taken by Hamoodi but he too would not expect British investors to be deliberately misinformed.

" To be honest, the board never contradicted this, but it would have been completely counterproductive to warn the market in advance that expectations were too high. It would have weakened the basis for negotiations."

This argument is nonsense given that the figures are in the court papers. It is particularly inappropriate when used to support a capital raise which relies on investors being poorly informed.

Let me be more specific.

NGR, How do you think LOAM managed to trade without inside information given Turcan"s position as an ex-director ?

Would one (or more) of the "board believers" care to explain how LOAM were able to avoid "insider trading" given Turcan"s position as a director and member of the litigation committee.

A first look at how I will vote seems to be for resolutions 2,3,5,6,12 and against the rest.

ie The board has failed shareholders but the replacement selection is not satisfactory.

Strangely, the only innocent explanation that I can find for the LOAM market dealing is that Turcan had told them that he had a poor opinion of the Nanoco management. So there is no certainty that LOAM will support the board.

At least Kooba does more than just waffle.