Member Info for TerrorWit

You're just being paranoid. If they knew sooner they would have said. There was no reason not to.

It's disappointing but the accusations of wrong-doing are unjustified. The company is cash rich with scalable tech in QDs. A brave investor may see it this as an entry point.

Very sad. It's no-one person's fault, the market just isn't there yet. I'm sure everyone tried their best. At least they can build sales with end users now but the investment is going to be stuck for longer.

Given you have so much time to waste Troublebum it would be even nicer if you could find examples of:-

1. Any legal case where Samsung settled before trial and paid out more than $150million before time was up,

and,

2. Any genuine evidence that the majority of shareholders opinions of Tenner, The Board and Nanoco have changed since the EGM, the most recent AGM and the tender offer votes, all of which gave overwhelming support.

See, I think if you can't then you're in a odd position when you accuse me of having a superior attitude.

"So much for 90% support as claimed by TerrorWit"

---------

https://wp-nanoco-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2023/12/RNS-AGM-Results-Dec-07.pdf

I suggest that what you all fail to comprehend is just how small a subset of Nanoco holders share your views mostly because the vast majority don't want to disclose their thoughts to you or suffer all your nonsense.

(Save for NGR and other nobel exclusions who know who they are)

"Can us retail investors launch a class law action against LOAM, RG, BT and the Board to get our investment money refunded and for damages as we were all deliberately misled, misguided and misinformed to the benefit of a 'prefered insider group'!

_____

Please do it. I would love to see all your faces from the back of the court when you hear the judgement"

Seems to be a problem getting whole posts up. Given up for this pm

Cont

.... the other

Kyber

What I think you're saying is that no-one before Nanoco got nearly as much money out of Samsung as easily.

-------

"So if you think you speak for 90% of shareholders you need to have a serious rethink."

No Sir! I say that >90% of shareholders who voted must have been happy enough with the outcome whilst you say that the votes of the other

Kyber

What I think you're saying is that no-one before Nanoco got nearly as much money out of Samsung as easily.

-------

"So if you think you speak for 90% of shareholders you need to have a serious rethink."

No Sir! I say that >90% of shareholders who voted must have been happy enough with the outcome whilst you say that the votes of the other

"But keeps asking the same stupid question over and over…not sure what that is a sign of exactly?? I wonder if 90% of shareholders know why?"

-----------------------------

Kyber

Yes they do. It's because you lot keep making the same unjustified insinuations as if you know better than actual lawyers.

The Neonode case isn't comparable. In fact it's an example of the mess Nanoco would be in today if you hadn''t settled, currently bogged in appeals, building up costs and with no resolution likely for years.

Yes I do know that Ddubya yet during the legal case I distinctly recall posters saying Samsung was a serial patent infringer and comparing the case to other, much larger, patent cases that had gone all the way through many appeals with damages still unpaid.

That is where they went wrong.

When any of you can find a single example of any company in a comparable situation that settled out of court with a major corporate for more money than Nanoco and got paid on time so saving their business from liquidation I may take you seriously.

However, I've been waiting nearly two years so far.

Well, I wouldn't trust you with a pair of scissors

Good evening

Are you both trying to provoke me with your nonsense again?

it's the best part of two years since the settlement, which has been explained to you several times most days since here and by the company and it's brokers. Nonetheless here you both are whining again. >90% of shareholders who voted are happy but, being narcissists you are both blind to your own limited capacities and fallibility and, in your august legal opinion, you think you got ripped off when you bet your houses on a legal case when you were told not to do that.

Why don't you explain how >90% of shareholders who voted means those, like you, in the 10% who voted are still correct? That always makes me chuckle.

Here's the important message for genuine investors this bank holiday weekend

Since 2020 Brian Tenner and his team have turned Nanoco around by successfully taking on Samsung and winning more money than in any comparable patent case. Nanoco now has lots of cash, it’s still buying back shares and waiting for orders, which it confidently expects and it's still developing new products ready for a long, profitable future. It's doing this whilst winning national workplace and employment awards and supporting local charities.

Next Brian's off to rescue another business leaving Nanoco in expert hands including those of two highly qualified NEDs and there will soon be a new specialist CEO.

Anything else is just the meaningless noise of tiny narcissists being angry because that's all they are.

And again…brilliant…is this actually meant to be parody or serious..it’s very hard to know, it’s so unhinged.

If its parody bravo..its very good.

_____________

Okay Khyber, explain what you are trying to achieve by posting imaginary stories about a company in which you own shares because the only explanation I can come up with is that you're a narcissist with Dunning Kruger so deep that it's a delusion.

For instance, you often tell the story that the settlement with Samsung was too low (but you're not a lawyer or experienced in the subject of legal settlements so how would you know?) and you can't find any examples of any company that has settled for more in a comparable case.

Another story you've told recently is that Tenner has been sacked but this is not what the RNS intimates or implies

Another was that the tender offer was delayed, but it wasn't

Another is that the share buy back was delayed, but it is still on track to be completed before the prescribed deadline

Another story is that although >90% of voters re-elected the whole BoD twice, the majority of holders somehow didn't want them.

I could go on.

No Sir!

I am completely self-aware. You're the problem. A balanced person would not remain invested in a share in which they did not have confidence. It's that simple.

Khyber

Those responsible are the ones who drag their own investments into the mud by constantly posting unjustifiable conspiracies in public. Mostly these are you, TwoBad, Freaks and Troublebum.

You're all narcissists because you think you know better than the genuine experts, blame everyone else for your mistakes and can't see any fault in your own actions. You prove all this to the rest of the world day in, day out in vain attempts to be admired for your insights, which are in fact unremittingly nonsensical and infantile.

Calling me Terry and using other means to try to provoke me and wind me up (which isn't working) adds to the proof.

All the personal attacks are typical behavior of narcissists who've lost the argument. Narcissists never accept responsibility. when things go wrong for them, they just blame others.

Ddubya - I'm not the one who's complaining about the situation as if I know more than the company so I'm not the one who has to produce credentials, you are.

I agree a low end court award could have been $200-$300m. This shows exactly why $150 million years early without any more risk was a great deal.