Member Info for TerrorWit

You can call me a "clown" — but your posts are a parade of personal insults, misread regulations and commercial ignorance.

It’s obvious thar You have no knowledge of accountancy and no knowledge of litigation law. You wilfully misinterpret MAR regulations to suit your narrative and you discount company guidance. You've clearly never been in a boardroom or directed a business.

You do this to support an online persona — the wise sceptic who can divine the future — while ignoring the company's actual successes. And, when anyone with better knowledge than you points to the facts, you belittle and gaslight them.

The company has publicly stated its expectation to reach breakeven based on JDA progress. If that expectation had changed, they'd be obliged to update the market. They haven't. So the JDAs are on track. Speculating otherwise is just guesswork.

We seem to have posters who have never been in a boardroom, who don't know anything about litigation, haven't read any of the patents, aren't chemists and don't understand market regulations — yet they comment as if they're experts.

It's a pattern. You can ignore it or note it. Either way, it doesn't change the facts.

Kooba is now deep in the tax‑credit weeds, trying to disprove that Nanoco has made a profit. But the company has generated nine‑figure settlements from licensing its IP and paid tax. R&D tax credits don't change that — they're a separate mechanism that can provide cash to loss‑making companies, but they don't turn a loss into a profit.

He's also insisting there are no royalty agreements, despite having no access to the confidential terms. He doesn't know.

Every time he's challenged, he resorts to personal insults and name calling. These aren’t counter‑argument. They’re a signal that he has none and is forced to bluff.

Nanoco has paid tax, which is payable on profits. R&D tax credits don't change that. If the company had no profits, there would be no tax to pay, and nothing to offset against.

An example of one reason agreements are kept confidential would be that to disclose royalty rates in public would prejudice future negotiations with other customers - That would be commercial suicide.

OYou’re now doing exactly what I said you would - which is to muddy the waters by writing a whole load of noise - all of which is irrelevant and wrong.

... and whilst I'm in a correcting frame: Nanoco has paid tax, which is payable only on profits.

It's not complicated for most people.

Kooba is simply wrong.

Here's the actual text of Article 17(4) :

An issuer may, on its own responsibility, delay disclosure to the public of inside information provided that all of the following conditions are met:

1. immediate disclosure is likely to prejudice the legitimate interests of the issuer;

2. delay of disclosure is not likely to mislead the public;

3. the issuer is able to ensure the confidentiality of that information.

---

What This Means for Nanoco

The company has disclosed that there are confidential terms. That's the disclosure. They're not saying there are no terms—they're saying the terms themselves remain confidential under Article 17(4) because:

· Immediate disclosure could prejudice their legitimate interests (e.g., commercial sensitivity, ongoing negotiations, protecting trade secrets)

· The delay does not mislead the public (they've told investors the terms exist and are confidential)

· They can keep the information confidential (they've done so)

Kooba's argument collapses when you read the regulation properly. He's treating "confidential" as meaning "there's nothing there." But the regulation exists precisely to allow companies to keep material information confidential when immediate disclosure would harm their legitimate interests .

Kooba is right that price‑sensitive information must be disclosed. It has been. The company disclosed that there are confidential terms. That's the disclosure.

What he's missing is that "confidential" doesn't mean "nothing." It means the specifics are not yet price‑sensitive or fall within legitimate exceptions (commercial sensitivity, ongoing negotiations). That's not a loophole — it's how the rules work.

The confidential terms are what they are. We'll find out what they are when they're no longer confidential, or when the accounts show the effect. Until then, pretending they don't exist is more performance.

If I provide proof, you'll demand more. If I provide more, you'll attack the source and issue infantile insults. If I ignore the insults and return to the argument, you'll smother the board with long posts.

You're not here to understand. You're here to perform a sophistication you clearly don't possess.

Have you finished yet? I mean, awesome self-awareness.

"Can’t seem to find the rns that confirms this..can anyone stand this up?"

----

That's the double standard at the heart of Kooba's performance. He demands precision, sources, and evidence from everyone else — while freely speculating about cash, redundancy costs, and the meaning of confidential terms. He's not applying the same standard to himself. He's not even aware of the contradiction.

I came across this on ADVFN. Worth a read — credit to Smithless - the original poster.

“Although disappointed the case didn't go to at least the Markman stage of the trial (which was looking good for Nanoco), after sitting back I now think it was most probably for the best a deal was done. Nanoco didn't start this it was Shoei. Nanoco had no choice but to counterclaim, as to do nothing would have had negative consequences for its patents. At least it has capped its legal fees (approx £800k). The issue facing Nanoco was while this case was running (and any other future cases that may have come from Shoei/Nanoco - both Shoei and Nanoco are the biggest and most mature plays in the quantum ip space) is that its JDA's (CMOS makers)and phone companies hate patent infringement cases that could derail their business develop plans. They won't invest millions into a new CMOS sensors, if in the future they are going to be sued or there is any possible disruption to production because of it. I personally think Apple, Nanoco's JDA's (likely Sony and weirdly Samsung) put immense pressure on Nanoco and Shoei to sort this out once and for all.

I do look at the share price and think it currently has approx £15m in cash (after legals) against a market cap of £9.6m, so it has cash for at least two years plus. I then look at Apple, Samsung and Google Pixel future phone plans and they all what to get the front camera and facial recognition under the display, partly to do with bank fraud requirements, also for the next big shift in how our phones look (thinner and more screen area) and with better battery life. All development roads show current NIR sensors, even when redesigned don't work under the screen very well and drain battery life.

Nanoco is in a unique space here. RoHS compliant - a must with the three mobile companies mentioned, but also delivers the under screen performance required and at an overall cheaper material cost than existing phones.

I don't know when the first commercial batches will be announced by Nanoco, but the road map is for these phones (premium first) is to start rolling out late '26 and '27.”

It's a reminder that the settlement wasn't about winning a courtroom battle. It was about clearing the path for the JDAs and giving customers the certainty they need to invest.

Nanonano, confidentiality is essential. You should be grateful for their circumspection.

And some perspective: over its lifetime, Nanoco has made a profit. That's not nothing — it's a fact the bears keep forgetting.

Now we wait for developments as things slowly resolve and markets come around.

Kooba, you keep saying I'm wrong. But the record is there.

I said the litigation would settle — it did.

I said the value was in clearing the sensing path — it is.

I said we don't know the confidential terms — we don't.

I said the three‑year term gives both sides time to build real data — that's what it does.

You've been certain the whole time. And you've been wrong about the outcome the whole time. Today you've been trying to convince everyone that "confidential terms" means there's nothing there — because that's what you predicted. But that's not what the phrase means. It means there are terms, they're confidential, and they're material.

Mostly, I've been right that you're not interested in understanding — only in being right. You've been proving that all day.

Self‑awareness might be a good start for you too.

I'll wait.

Self‑awareness might be a good start for you too.

Nothing changed. They settled, as happens 95% of the time.

I'd be excited if perfomative morons stopped overthinking.

The RNS could not be any clearer or shorter.

· Nanoco can operate freely in sensing without being sued by Shoei for at least 3 years.

· Shoei can operate freely in display without being sued by Nanoco for at least 3 years.

· There's no compensation for past infringement.

· Both sides pay their own legal bills.

· All other terms are confidential — that's where the uncertainty lies.

(Nanoco is not obstructed from operating in display and Shoei is not obstructed from operating in sensors for three years but if they were this would likely amount to an uncompetetive practice anyway.)

There is nothing to say that there won't be royalty payments between Shoei and Nanoco or that they're are. That aspect and others are all in the confidential terms.

It seems posters want certainty and are trying to find it by guessing. That's not how business works. And in markets, you can only profit from uncertainty — from being willing to accept the risk that things might not turn out how you want.

No amount of performing certainty or looking for it here is going to change that. If you can't bear it, you should get out, or, more accurately, you never should have got in.

And no amount of blameshifting is going to get your money back either.

Kooba, a non‑compete clause would be redundant. The covenant not to sue already means neither side can be taken to court for competing in the other's field. That's the whole point of the agreement.

Adding a non‑compete would change nothing. It's not a missing piece — it's your misunderstanding of what's already there.

Kooba

Here again are my thoughts concerning the three‑year term: It gives both sides time to:

· Scale their respective businesses without litigation.

· See how the sensing market develops.

· Gather real data on sales volumes, margins, and IP value.

· Negotiate a long‑term cross licence from a position of knowledge, not speculation.

Where does your certainty that any of this is incompetnet speculation come from? Do you have a link to any information I don't?