George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Hi all ..We have won the settlemen t yet .. however worth looking at the worst case senarios - its a very comfortable hold at these prices IMO
best way to look @ Nano is on a worst case senario.
A) PTAC has been won 5-0 on a straight sets of 47-0 - but Samsung are appealing..
We are going to trial or settling as the court will be looking at the willful part and asessing damages .. Samsung are trying to go for a summary judgement on the willful part.. filed before the lifting of the Stay.. can only assume this all hinged around thier "speculative claims" (Gilstrap) that PTAC would be overturned..
So worst case.. Wilfull infingemnt didnt happen (yeah right) but maybe possible in the eye of the law.
OK then its straight on to damages, they still have used the IP for years. then in 12 months time we lose the appeal ...
Thats the very worst case - Probability 5 percent ?
Even then in 12-18 months time.. so whats the downside risk Short Term ?
I may be naive but as you said - the difference between the two payouts is, “wilful”
So as a bookie would look at it short Term
A ) Worst case outcome - no willful victory at the trial and lowest damages (that could still be massive) that are then later lost 100% at ptac appeal say odds 20/1 chance - SP ST should still be alot higher as we may well have samsung apealing a $400million award
B) Next worse case outcome - A willful victory at the trial and high damages (that are massive) that are then later lost on ptac appeal odds say 6/1 chance - SP should still be alot higher as we may well have samsung apealing a $1 billion award. or settling early
C) Next best case - win the case and the appeal 1/3 on - but will have to wait a year - but same Short Term sp impact as outcome B
A) Best case - settle out of court Odds - evens - unless we settle for less than £50 million and no royalties - SP will be much higher - low 2x high 6-8X..
Long way of saying it - but there isn't a lose on wilfill infringment only a margin of victory over the use of our IP which is already proven and only given about a £20-£30 million value in the current SP.. Downside very limited updside both ST and LT 2-10 times current SP
Henry - the other side of that coin of course is that Samsung's natural desire for confidentiality around any agreement makes it a potent bargaining chip for Nano.
@Barbon: I do trust BT and have a significant exposure to Nanoco. My concern was more whether Samsung in return for a decent settlement would try to insist on confidentiality- so as not to give ideas to other future companies that will take them to court.
Matty - I'm afraid I don't believe for an instant that you've actually filtered me. All you've really done is condemn yourself to reading my posts in order to see what enormity I'll post next, without having the ability to reply without looking an idiot. Good move.
Anyway, as regards the matter at hand, all we have to do is wait and see what actually happens: I've been following nano since it was listed, so a few more months won't matter much.
Nanoco is a public company. As such it has legal obligations to disclose such information which could materially affect the share price. Shareholders need not fear a secret deal, though the danger exists that what we consider a less than fully advantageous deal could be agreed and done before we were made aware of it.
However we are not in possession of all the information management have and, like all investors, have to trust those who manage the companies we invest in. If you don't trust the management, put your money elsewhere.
15 posts and you’re talking about creative accountancy and Enron?
Filtered.
I think this is my concern: Do we as investors have the right to learn the terms (meaning here the financial details/numbers not the actual text) of the settlement if there was one?
To be honest knowing that there has been a settlement without any concrete numbers would put me off….I trust BT but if I have to wait until the next annual update that would not be attractive.
Well, if they don't tell us, we won't know, will we? At least until the accounts arrive, and a creative accountant can make them look any way he wants - I'm sure the guy from Enron would be happy to advise :) And by the time the following full year of accounts arrive, I think I'll have made some important investment decisions, and so probably will many other holders.
How exactly are we not going to know the cash element of a damages award ?
Henry - I'm not suggesting that's the best outcome, just that it's possible. Imagine for instance, purely hypothetically, that Samsung had patents that would halve Nano's cost of production for high volumes of dots. What would that be worth if there was a pending bulk order from STM?
In the end only the participants can say the true value of any component of a deal. Even for the cash, should we ever find out what it was, we would never know what was traded off against it, so in a sense still couldn’t really value it. Just have to trust the management...
@hellojello: Please no. Samsung cannot be trusted. Let us recoup the cash and license fee that is due to Nanoco and that should be the end of the relationship with Samsung.
S&A - one other possible trade-off lies in an exchange of patent rights. Samsung has lots of ip - both patents and knowhow in manufacturing - and Nano might think it worthwhile accepting access to Samsung's ip in part-exchange for its own patents. I could imagine this being very valuable if they have to scale up production.
The permutations of a settlement are endless...
Indeed, another matter.
However, are there any valid reasons why Nanoco should not be compensated fully for the damage they have suffered ?
And continue to suffer.
Another interesting sidebar on this topic -
Assuming an out of court settlement just before the trial (likely),
And assuming the out of court settlement is sealed (likely),
We could have been left in the position that N were fairly recompensed but yet the world was uninformed about the strength of the patent position that N holds.
However… and this is the master stroke that I hadn’t previously considered - having had the foresight to first take this to PTAB, N can now confidently stare down any future competitors in the Cd free QD space (volume market) and stand behind confirmed validated patents in front of the USPatent office. They can hold the space, and from their now very well financed position they can fully exploit. Had they gone straight to trial, and also settled out of court(again just as likely), their patents would not have been publicly tested and they could have faced further infringement from other parties.
The position N may now find themselves in a few months is in a solid position to exclusively exploit the Cd free QD space off the funded position of strength that the S settlement will give them (sealed or no).
Have to remember NANO have suffered massively and almost gone under - all documented, the goodwill that was lost, not to mention staff, Dow - then add interest etc … first shot could be an eye watering number … I take it they would seek an amount of actual damages within the pre court documents ? Whether they get it is another matter
Nanonano - surely it depends on the agreed damages value and how long it should be paid back over (if this model of payback were selected). Are you suggesting this value of £75 premium per tv (on top of future royalty value) is way too low or too high, or therefore the payback would be too short or too long? I’m just throwing ideas around if possible ways a settlement award may be hidden from the public. The numbers are just for demonstration really.
Bloody hell S&A how much would that be? 20 billion or so haha
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-types-of-damages-or-compensation-will-court-award-for-patent-infringement.html
“…courts have wide discretion to award certain categories based upon the facts of a case. The two most common damage categories are "reasonable royalties" and "lost profits."
"Reasonable royalties" … means the fair market value of a license or "royalty…. “
"Lost profits" refer to the monies that you or your company could have made but for the defendant's wrongful infringement of your patent. The challenge here is that there must be a nexus of causation between the infringement and your bottom line.“
[The nexus is that Nanoco’s product was a platform technology marketing to lighting, display, solar, agricultural and medical and other companies. Had Samsung paid royalties, Nanoco could have exploited these other avenues; Dow would also have been able to market Nanoco’s QDs throughout the world. To estimate the loss, request projections of Samsung anticipated future QD-related revenue from other arenas.]
“…you and your attorney [must] offer expert witnesses or reports to establish various fair market values on which the judge can rely.”
Clearly not offering anything close to that amount, if offering anything at all.
If I am S and wanting to reduce public criticism and keep the lid on this, I’d offer not £25 per TV sold historically i’d offer say £100+ per TV for an agreed future volume of TVs to cover the historical damages question without having to publicly admit the theft. That’s what I was getting at in the point that the damages may not be as easy to understand as we’d like. I know of damages calculations like this being paid in the past.
Sorry.. Hawi! Lol. Bleedin autocorrect grr.
Hawk, I think we’re probably all in the same page here. It all depends on how much of a settlement is cash and how much is payment by other means such as future business/royalty, and if it’s the latter this may not be tied to any settlement in a public announcement.
Trial
Settlements are commonly confidential. Accounts are public, and information pertaining to share price is public. But where an arrangement is made whereby future revenue is generated for instance, it doesn’t have to be disclosed that that was part of a settlement agreement. E.g A new contract to supply a large ‘Asian’ company equalling XYZ revenue year on year supplying XYZ dots at price XYZ etc etc has been made. Doesn’t need to disclose the new large Asian company is S based on a settlement agreement.
Lots of speculation will ensue following an agreed settlement but not all details will ever be made public, if that is what the agreement says. Many have suggested some of these agreements will be obvious, and I agree, but I doubt it will be a clear cut ‘we won and we won these awards’. Except for cash appearing in the balance sheet as posters have suggested which would need some explanation in the accounts. Personally I’d prefer the train where a settlement will be public.
I think it is quite common for the precise nature of a settlement deal to be confidential, although agree that purely cash damages will soon become evident. There are other forms of payments that may never be disclosed.