focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
" 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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.