Member Info for TerrorWit

Kooba

Since you are so clever and not a big fake at all tell me where the guarantee is in this statement you produced?

"“nanoco has overcome the first of two major hurdles in the litigation, the validity of our ip. as a result, our confidence in this case has increased further. while there is still much to be done, successfully overcoming this hurdle allows a straight run in to a trial later in 2022. a favourable trial outcome should then deliver a substantial inflection point for nanoco’s prospects and shareholder value.”

I'll save you the trouble because there isn't a guarantee. It's a conditional statement so if you stayed invested having read it that was at your risk alone. Any lawyer will tell you that for free.

It would be so good to see you all in court and I'm sure Mr NGR would agree since then he will be able to come too and prove he isn't me or any of the others external to your echo chamber.

I've never known such a collective dumbness before.

Whatever NigWit might have said once, long before the trial isn't important. It isn't what he said nearer the trial and it isn't what I've been saying since I joined.

Go on! test it in court. The lawyers would love to take your money. I think you'll lose your cars and houses, which I suspect are the same items for most of you. It's the best Idea Feeks ever had - although that's a particularly low bar to leap.

BT never promised you anything. My recollection is that the company gave no guidance on the sums it expected from Samsung at any stage and that Tenner was quite clear from the outset they weren't going to provide a running commentary on the case. They didn't even state what they thought would be their chances of winning so any legal case would against them for broken promises would fail immediately. That's how come Hamoodi hasn't sued Nanoco instead resorting to a hostile bid which failed miserably.

What happened is that in the absence of any figures from the company back in 2019 you all immediately convinced yourselves that Samsung would be terrified and cave in and then, soon after, you went on to predict massive sums in damages that would break all records. Having done that you all spent the best part of three years in a bubble reinforcing your own beliefs, convincing each other you understood law and repelling anyone whose message didn't conform whilst ignoring that the rest of the market, which isn't foolish, was selling down.

Now you've spent almost two years unjustifiably trolling people who won more from Samsung than in any comparable case.

I'd love to sit in the back of a court room if you all sue Nanoco to see a judge disabuse you of your delusions but it would never get past a summary judgement against you in the first few days. That you're even considering it goes to show why you got things wrong and that you didn't learn.

What should really be happening is Nanoco and BT suing you for libel but that won't happen either because none of you are worth the trouble.

Troublesome

Ignorance is when you don't know something. Accusing someone of being ignorant is not therefore an insult, just an observation. If you feel insulted because you were called ignorant about things you don't understand (which, and we have to face it, is a large category) then that's a matter for you since I'm only responsible for the words I type. You choose how you feel about them.

I know you're ignorant about legal settlements. I also think it's ignorant of Kooba to write posts suggesting that Samsung would have volunteered £80m for some non-core patents without being sued by Nanoco first. His is obviously a motivated attempt to discount their value from the settlement to pursue an increasingly tenuous line of argument that the rest of the world moved on from 18 months ago.

Neither if you can show me a comparable case where another company like Nanoco got anywhere near $150 million before trial from someone like Samsung without more time, risk and money and that is a fact.

We don't even know why Samsung wanted to pay $80m for those patents. Maybe it was easier for them to justify purchasing an asset for their balance sheet than to justify paying out damages and writing all the costs off. Their accounts were due just after the settlement and they only just cleared a profit in that FY.

"I'm sure there are plenty of examples where small companies got next to nothing like Nanoco. That's not the point."

--------

I am pleased to learn you're so wealthy that you consider $150million to be "next to nothing".

However, Nanoco did not get "next to nothing" and no-one can find any comparable examples of similar companies getting anything like as much as £150mn, whether or not they sold a few patents as part of the deal.

This is because no such examples exist, which makes Nanoco's survival remarkable.

Ddubya

You're assuming

"Does anyone recall any commentary saying how marvelous Brian had been to settle for that amount ?"

-----------

You moan and moan but you have yet to find an example where any small company got more against anyone like Samsung without them taking a lot more, risk, money and time. We did this subject last weekend and most other weekends but you must have forgotten already.

£130million was massive to Nanoco and it turned them around from falling over completely. If more money had been possible then the larger holders would have been better off still, not worse of as under your bonkers conspiracies.

I'm sorry you don't see it that way but that speaks to your plebeian ignorance and nothing else.

That's an allegation of insider dealing. It's wrong and it doesn't explain how the whole board received >90% of the votes.

I know what does explain though. Getting $150milllion off Samsung.

NGR

Posting history reminds us that many adjectives have been used to describe TwoGood2Die and his chums. Alas, genius has not been among them.

They can't even explain why Tenner has been re-elected twice without getting into a huge tangle of improbable knots.

Individuals like them have no critical thinking skills or meta-insight. I doubt you or I will change this.

Yeah, yeah, tell the hand Kooba!

Anyway, that's the end of lessons until Monday and as a special treat I won't set you any homework this weekend.

LG “hello, This is Liam”

Troublesome “Brian, listen very carefully, I shall say this only once”

LG “Hello Mr Troublesome, how are you today”

Troublesome “There are hundreds and thousands, all screaming. It’s coming!”

LG “Hundreds and thousands of what?”

Troublesome “Shareholders, the whole of Humanity”.

LG “I see, and you can hear them now?

Troublesome “Yes, wailing, it’s horrible, they’ve kept me awake ever since lunchtime”.

LG “I see. Tell me Mr Troublesome, can you hear their voices now?”

"Do YOU know what's happening TW?"

_______

Yes, the company is working towards break even with plenty of cash in the bank and if it executes this strategy everything will be alright.

TwoGoodtoDie

"Fact: no on going licence agreement with Samsung hence no 'cherry' on the cake as guided."

False - the cherry on the cake was the $150million

"Fact: Institutional Investors and major shareholders more or less gone."

False - Look it up. Only RG Sold out compeletely and Cable have been buying

"Fact: Some Core IP as well as none core IP sold to Samsung as part of the settlement deal without shareholder prior knowledge or approval."

So what? the directors were given adequate powers by an AGM vote

"Fact: Cavendish suspended the share buyback six weeks ahead of a price sensitive RNS release without the Board providing any narrative as to the reasons why."

So what?

"Fact: share price down 60% and lower to when Brian took the reigns over 5 years ago with no 'multiples of market cap' achieved, quite the reverse."

But >£30 million returned to investors

"Fact: to date no other IP infringement cases being bought against other parties im going on two years as Brian claimed there were other IP infringers they were going after."

So what? How long do you think this takes?

"Fact: cost based ramped up and cash burn now higher than expected and unsustainable in the long term."

Who says?

"Fact: no commercial deals of any note in over 20 years of existence."

How long does it normally take to invent and launch a platform technology?

Your usual straw man arguments that disregard :-

1. What I've actually written and replace it with what you'd like me to have written.

2. That the company has returned >£30 million to shareholders

3. There being no evidence whatsoever that Tenner has lost investor confidence. Especially given he has been re-elected twice since the litigation.

Go away with your toxic nonsense. It doesn't stack.

So just why are you constantly so critical TerrorWit?

--------

That's a reflection of the memes here. For instance :-

The fantasy = It's a scam that Samsung didn't cave and pay Nanoco $1.5bn before trial, which would have broken all precedents. "Brain Tenner is a crook bah, bah, bah!!"

The fact = It's a remarkable success that Nanoco forced Samsung to pay $150mn, easily the largest amount of money ever paid in any comparable situation. Brian Tenner and his team managed the situation expertly.

Take out - If you don't want to be criticised, write verifieable facts instead of stories and fantasies.

Cash for the next five years - shocking.

The problem is that either you can't distinguish between fact and fantasy or that you don't want to. I think it's the latter because when given the facts you ignore them revert to the fiction.

Critical thinking doesn't mean being critical it means having the presence of mind to know what's happening and what's just the story you're trying to tell yourself because it fits your preconceptions.

"Did you know that 99% of failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses !"

Says the one with 14914 toxic, blame-shifting posts

That's what I call a guess.

The evidence is against it because had STM pulled the plug they'd have said and it would be material leading to an announcement.

All we know is that there is a delay. If you can't accept the uncertainty that brings then it's not helpful to worry, whinge or catatrophise and you have a choice.

Let's see. I think it would be easy to get a false perspective by reading the forums where only a small minority of holders participate. Personally, I don't think Nanoco have gone through all the milestones over the years with two customers for it all to fall over and I don't think they'd be buying back shares if they thought that either.

However, the trading update cast an unexpected shadow on a sunny day so positive news on visibility will be a relief.