Member Info for tbow112

"As for merging Quantum science with nano and getting rid of Pickett. It's so absurd it's not worth replying to."

Please elaborate.

PVX, Think about what you are saying.

You suggest that loss of personnel may be a problem if Hamoodi is successful, but that Hamoodi should not talk to the obvious source of replacement expertise - an enterprise that could probably use some additional cash.

It would certainly seem sensible for Hamoodi to talk to Quantum Science, for his offering of replacement directors could certainly be improved. QS also seem to have more interest in solar panels which appear to be the obvious major market for a QD producer.

Are none of Nanoco"s patents relevant to solar panels ?

"I still think the FCA should launch an investigation."
Have you asked the FCA to investigate ?

I have just sent off an email to the FCA asking for an investigation into Nanoco RNS announcements and LOAM dealings.
However I do think that we should currently be expecting explanations rather than jumping to any particular conclusion.

"There’s been nothing misleading other than how information has been accessed or interpreted. There’s no case to answer ........"
So do heavily redacted US court documents constitute guidance for stock market purposes ?

"Again I hope that Pallas and Hammodi bring this to court as this is really the only venue where one can hope for a proper resolution for all the troubling aspects of the year to date developments."
Perhaps people should remember that the FCA have on occasion made companies which have issued misleading RNS announcements compensate investors who may have been misled thereby.

Most of the presentation was much the same as previous company presentations but suggesting that the company has geared up for a production order before end 2023.
I also understood that legal funding was a significant problem with continuing the court case, and that the company now claims that submissions to the the US court constitute market guidance.

Seems to be a reasonable summary of events, but the list of proposed directors detracts from the interest of the letter.

"The alternative was all that time on Samsung litigation instead and not achieving any of the other targets."
A totally false dichotomy. If you have good lawyers you need do little more than make sure that you do not lose any documents.

"With the $90m net payout being ~£76m, this is greater than the current market cap. It's pretty crazy to me that by 3 February next year we'll have more cash than the company is current valued at"

Tax?

"Are you able to reveal where this figure was published?"
Docketbird.
If you use this link to search by changing the docket number
https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd-v-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd-et-al/Exhibit-1/txed-2:2020-cv-00038-00100
and the following link as an index
https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd-v-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd-et-al/txed-2:2020-cv-00038
the figure is in among the witness statements and may well be elsewhere.

I did not realise that the figure was not generally available at the time I came across it.

I had seen the figure (thanks, Morbox) so it was certainly not impossible to find.

"Everything BT had done was in full visibility of Samsung. If he was down beat, do you think that he would have got a term sheet arrangement at all."However, as the $50 million possibility was clearly visible to Samsung but difficult to find for UK shareholders that argument does not hold water.

"The ony independent kind of comment on the settlement that I've heard has been meagre and disappointing .
Any others ?"

I am wondering whether the problem was in the way the patents were drawn up or in the way they were taken to trial.
The 5 patents are clearly about making QDs and not about making TVs or displays. It can therefore be argued that the value that must be taken into account at trial is that of the quantum dots rather than that of the TVs in which they are used. Maybe there are precedents which support this argument.
In effect, if you file a patent for making a light bulb filament you may get one award, but if you file the same patent for making a better light bulb you may get a significantly different award.

Nanoco took 5 patents to the brink of trial.
7588828,7803423,7867557,8524365 and 9680068
Please let us know your conclusions about the others.

"If I'm wrong please send me a link."
I cannot work out how to link directly to the document but this link produces it for me
www.turnerpope.com › wp-content › uploads
It is the 6-6-2022 document that you want.

"where does it mention $200-300 million ?"
Page 4

The issue was oversubscribed because of what was written in the prospectus. For many people it is where the $200 - 300 million comes from.