Member Info for thomasbrowne

I did say sell up at 88p because of the high street fear around the Coronavirus, it doesn’t even have to come here, just watching it kill around the world will keep x amount of people away from the crowds on the high street. It’s the physiological effect it has in people’s Minds, They are saying china’s shopping centres are struggling to survive, if it can happen in China it can happen in any country, it only started with one person getting it!!! Card factory is a great company in my opinion, but this could test it massively.

GLA

All them bid proposals allowed through for Due diligence, I wonder how many of them proposals were at our float price of 42p And how many were at a substantial premium to our float price.
Can I asked investors here a question, would they happily accept 42p . Or would they need a much higher offer?

GLA

I wonder how their quantum dot particles stack up against ours in the solar panel field. I wouldn’t mind having that 25% improvement in efficiency. This area of quantum dots could have huge implications for the solar panel industry, to increase the efficiency by 25% and maybe even more in the future could make solar panels increasingly desirable for private homes and solar farms, and for the roofs on cars especially in sunnier climates. Hot and cold.
Good find BBD. GLA

MRBWM very rarely do companies accept offers of any takeovers for less than there float prices, especially when they have one of the biggest , if not the biggest collection of QD patents in the world . We could easily go for more than double that 42p float price, though this big coronavirus disaster may slow things down somewhat.

GLA

I will say this again, nanoco floated for 42p. We will receive a bid at 42p or substantially above 42p also our lawsuit against Samsung will most likely pay out a fantastic added bonus in several years time.

It would be a insult to nanoco’s shareholders if we settled for anything less.
Our BOD would only have waved through any bid proposals at or above our 42p float price.

I’ve no doubts about the substantial value in nanoco’s IP patent estate. And workers expertise.

Nanoco’s bid will come ok in one form or another, our SP will just do it’s nervous thing until our bid comes in. GLA.

With the coronavirus hanging over major cities high streets, card factory is a very risky investment. Good luck with this one.

GLA

https://www.ft.com/content/e92100f8-7cca-11e5-98fb-5a6d4728f74e

Samsung had 10+ months to review there position regarding patents, they've clearly known the score here, that's why I'm convinced they are right now only squabbling with nanoco over the price of their final Bid from them, at the same time they
have a clock ticking against them regarding other bids and a reputational damaging lawsuit, never mind the large punitive damages that should be paid out, 6 days later, after our highly damaging allegations against them, and so far complete silence on there side, no rebutal, no fiercely denied innocence on the matter, the silence tells me they are trying to settle this behind nanoco's locked doors, that final price could be anything from 50p to £2 the truth probably is somewhere in the middle.
We've all watched the Chinese scoop up all these types of companies for there IP / patents & expertise , Samsung know this, so they are being real careful in their tactics here, I'm hoping the Chinese will push the boat out on this one and give Samsung a bloody nose for there allegedly dirty tricks on nanoco. In the past I've been stunned at how high the Chinese will bid up too. Let's hope they stun us , and Samsung either put up or shut up until the lawsuit day, another thing I've seen the Chinese do, is to bid for a company ,and also fund that companies lawsuit with a sharing out of the damages at a later time. Wouldn't that be great, a decent bid, and a very possibly payout say in 5/7 years time.

GLA

On page 10 exhibit 7 demonstrates a substantial likelihood that , at least defendants QLED TV,s. We’re made using nanoco’s patented process.

So that’s we’re that unverified statement came from,

Now it’s properly verified, great work gonebroke. That all now makes perfect legal sense.

GLA

Gonebroke that was kind of you to download that for all of us here, it makes for a great read to understand a lot of this case, brilliant sir. Thank you so much .

GLA

I'm still waiting on any in front of my eyes proof from anyone, other than, I seen that, no links can be opened by me, and absolutely no one has as yet produced that proof right here and now, I'm not saying anyone now is wrong, I'm simply requesting the proof of what anyone is saying here, and no one has came up to that standard of proof as yet.
All that isn't a really that important now.

IP Man your post is most informative, and gives us all a detailed insight into what's required to proceed with a lawsuit. Thank you kindly for that information, it all makes perfect sense .

Our lawsuit probably will not proceed as I'm sure samsung will know it could kill it's chances of securing our takover, and putting a early stop to this fiasco for themselves, if they choose they could delay our case for 7 + years of they wanted, but time is not on there side, it's on ours, they either pay up very soon / FSP or China will own nanoco very shortly, that's my reasonable assessment of this pantomime..GLA

If we weren't up for sale , then the risk would go up for nanoco, and remember we have current tentative bid proposals already on the table for a takover, and I believe Samsung is one of these proposals, that's why they are at the moment sitting tight, one wrong move from them and it's goodbye to our 753 patents. And they still get a lawsuit to deal with, all this could be over with the correct offer from Samsung, I'm happy to wait a we while to secure this takeover.

GLA

I can't open any of these links at all !!!
If there's any other way of verifying what's been stated / likely/ substantial likelihood etc, I would be very much appreciative, but for now I will just stay with the PPE 11.36 posting, as that's the one I've read already, and that's directly from nanoco, but thank you all for trying.

GLA

Gonebroke thank you for that sir, so what your saying is that you can't verify what you said,/ substantial likelihood, in that case wouldn't it be better going with what we can substantiate, as in nanoco's own statement below, in PPE LAST POST AT 11.36.

GLA

PPE following on from your last to the point and not the mail on the head great post, that's exact right, I suspect that from last March nanoco have asked Samsung to show them how they make there CFQD also were is there patents in the patent system to prove this, Samsung couldn't prove anything, patent or otherwise, and nanoco and it's lawyers smelt infringements here, if Samsung have invented something different they would patent it, they haven't, and that's at the core of this fiasco,
Nanoco's lawyers have seen it all before and they know what to look out for, and that's why they are pretty sure of a serious deliberate wilful infringements here, and thus this our courtcase. I'm not that concerned as Samsung will not want to rock the boat to much as they might get sidelined in our formal sales process. That bid is coming ok , but from Samsung or China that's the big question.

GLA

Gonebroke is it possible you could show a link to what you said, as in "substantial Likelihood", that would be very much appreciated sir. As it seems to go against nanoco's own court submission.
GLA

You did invent the word Likely BlahblahDoh sir.

Gonebroke is that the actual wording, because that looks far more a substantial accusation . That's the kind of wording I would expect to hear coming from a lawsuit, " likely "is a very weak accusation in a court case. Now that could make more sense to me sir.
GLA

BlahblahDoh. the word Likely is not a word you launch a multi-million dollar lawsuit with, it's just not, your actually accusing the other party of infringement or not, well it's likely your honour!!! doesn't stack up at all, that's not how a lawsuit gets launched, that's how you yourself gets sued, it's weak and can't be substituted. It's like you saying it's likely you seen that in that wording, you now can't say well it was likely to have been in it, because you have nothing to go on. It's heresy or likely, not a definite .

GLA

BlahblahDoh the word Likely, indicates a weakness in your lawsuit that's why it doesn't stack up for me. I reiterated I don't believe the word Likely was used, but I'm happy to be proven wrong here sir.

GLA

blahblahDoh, I remember you inserting that word before in another of your post sir, the word " LIKELY " INFRINGEMENT,
I might be wrong here in fairness to you, but that word I don't recall reading in that l lawsuit submission, that's something I would normally pick up on very quickly, nanoco's wording was very strongly put, wilful direct infringements, in legal lingo that's insinuating the other party are doing something that's been premeditated and knowingly dishonest. Nanoco would have taken very serious council on staying that, because it's highly libelous.
I remember following a lawsuit in a UK company that she'd a American company, and there accusations and wording were near enough the Same as nanoco's, this case was settled out of court in the uk companies favour. that company was aortech.

Samsung knows it's in the wrong here, and they also will settle out of court, though that may be sooner than they would like , a
As we will sell nanoco from under there nose if they don't settle this quickly.

GLA