Member Info for TerrorWit

@Terrorwit

“I am the only one who's had relevant experience of commercial litigation.”

How pompous are you? Please do tell us all what direct experience you have of Commercial litigation and in what capacity. I will bet quite a few of those in the board have the same or more experience.

Ddubya

There is no one posting on this board who has any experience of commercial litigation. Believe me, if there was, I would know. There were one or two back before the settlement but rampy posters ran them out of town for what they called "de-ramping" and then got what they deserved.

All you've proved is that you got carried away and still don't understand 18 months after the event.

The NigWit quote you've dragged up from way before the settlement ignores all the other posts he wrote between then and the settlement, which cautioned against the types of sums everyone else was bandying around as if Nanoco couldn't lose.

It's pathetic and you do it because even now, you prefer your comforting lies to the truth and haven't been able to move on and take the lessons that most other holders understand.

Kooba,

One way you bully others until they give up in exasperation is by misquoting them out of context, as you've proved again. I don't know what you think you're proving with that quote anyay since I am not complaining about the settlement now. I think it was fair.

The vast majority of shareholders voted for the re-election of the whole board twice obviously agree with me.

There is only person you hurt when you try to stop people who disagree with you from expressing themselves.

Flying Higher

Can you find the guidance given by Nanoco? It doesn't exist. You're quoting from the RNS the company issued in an attempt to cool your speculation.

Are you a lawyer?

No.

The end.

... and I don't care if I am the only one who thinks this because I am the only one who's had relevant experience of commercial litigation.

Flying Higher

Nanoco did not provide any figures to the market. Those you mention where all forum fictions extrapolated from Edison by posters with no legal experience or knowledge. The only figures Edison gave were for lost licencing fees, they never claimed these were a legal basis on which a settlement would be based - that leap was taken on this and the ADVFN board and nowhere else.

I think, and I said so at the time, that had Samsung offered Nanoco £100m for a perpetual worldwide licence back in 2015 then Nanoco would have taken it without blinking. That is the only basis on which the appeal court would eventually award a settlement and I think Nanoco could have gone through years of court appeals as a litigation shell with no work from STM or anyone else for such an award to be made and still lost on costs because to do so they would have already refused more in an out of court offer.

So, I think you're the one repeating nonsense and in doing so proving my point that the forums were fantasy.

You're not a lawyer, you don't have any experience of commercial litigation. You are a chancer who got caught out by their own greed.

I'm frustrated too but I don't agree that there isn't sufficient information since the presentations and communications are detailed, professional and clear so far as they can be.

The delays mostly come down to the Samsung infringement, which was unfortunate but predictable since Samsung were entitled to test the patents legally. We can't be sure this won't happen again either.

It's not a risk for everyone.

A lot of traders bought in expectation of a huge return following the Samsung litigation that concluded in January last year. They worked themselves up over the two years before it concluded into an unrealistic fantasy outcome and still bear a grudge because it turned out that they had exaggerated the numbers by an order of magnitude. You can check the posts 2-3 years ago and see the same ones who are complaining now posting in a frenzy.

Wookiemonster

FWIW I'd suggest taking a long view on the viability of the patents and other IP and on the finances, which are strong and on the people, who are highly qualified. The ranting on here is noise, not signal. It's not important to catch the exact bottom and almost impossible to do anyway. It's only necessary to sell at a higher price than you pay when you buy.

In my view it's not a traders' stock, which is why the traders are upset. It's an investment stock for the next several years.

NGR. Where do these utter fools come from? They're so far below the level of any adult discourse let alone on the subject of the stock market that it's impossible to believe they have any money to invest anyway.

Troublesome. Is your sense of humour so stunted that you consider referring to me as Tweedledum and Tweedledee either clever or funny? It's the sort of infantile language my great Aunt Gladys would have used when I was four and she smelt of boiled turnips and had warts like a natterjack toad with acne. My brothers and I used to think she must be living dead, which is a coincidence since I'm beginning to think your brain is too.

I'm not suggesting deceit, jus prudence. It's not against the law to pause a buy back if the underlying situation becomes unclear and it's a plausible explanation for why the buy back resumed on the day of the RNS when some degree of clarity returned, even it was not so definitive that the company was able to commit further than it did.

Not sure why this is such a confusing concept for anyone to grasp.

Troublesome

I find all the company statements perfectly clear so from my perspective if you don't comprehend their contents then that suggests to me that you don't have sufficient skills to invest on the stock market by yourself.

But then you're already at full Biden in my view and TwoGood2Die has never been a complete picnic.

I think there are some clues that investors can rely on

Firstly, the first commercial order from STM was also delayed

Secondly, when the distribution of funds was announced the company explained that it wanted to keep back sufficient cash to ensure it could reach break even without another raise. This explanation told me that they were being prudent by not totally relying on another order this FY and I was not surprised by the slightly adverse trading update.

None of this is unusual. On the contrary, the normal business experience is that things never run to schedule.

The final clue is the resumption of the buyback coincident with the most recent trading statement, which tells me they're sufficiently confident of comfortably reaching break even regardless of any delays.

The precise words in the respective RNS are:-

"Following customer dialogue", which, since they have not stated the Gen 1 materials have been shelved and since the buyback resumed can only imply that they've received reassuring information from STM - at least some level that isn't sufficiently definitive to state in an RNS.

and

"The Group is working with its customer to understand the range of possible outcomes and any potential impact on Nanoco beyond the end of the financial year". This is where they try to justify the lack of clear guidance and it I interpret it to mean that they're helping STM to obtain a crisper understanding from it's customers in turn.

Kooba is trying to justify his own incompetence by blaming it on bad communications from the company.

He is like an ignorant British tourist complaining whilst on holiday in Benidorm that the Spanish don't understand the Queens English properly.

Proof if needed that you have no idea

Are you referring to the same BT who suggested suing Samsung and saved Nanoco from almost certain collapse whilst placing it on the strongest financial foundations ever?

Says Troublesome, a master of bull and with all the charm of a blocked toilet on the sleeper train out of Calcutta.

Lead sulphide occurs naturally in the Earth's crust so unless anyone can show me a calculation that the amount contained in a few SWIR sensors is any greater than that in the pot of growing Basil just delivered to me by Waitrose I shall assume that they're talking out of the lower end of their alimentary canal.

As usual Troublesome.

"We do not know if Gen1 is not being pursued by STM and we do not know if they completed their original evaluation of Gen1 or want to extend it."

---------

I disagree with this part of Tornadotony's post because if STM had killed Gen 1 then Nanoco would have been obliged to inform the market since

1. It is material, and

2. It would represent a change in previous guidance

_______

On lead or lead sulphide. I really don't think anyone here has a grasp of the tiny amounts involved. We're talking of nanograms that will be bounds inside electronic components. So several orders of magnitude less than is sprayed at every one of the 50 million odd poor pheasants released into the countryside every August.