Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. 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.
RG did the sell on news. Let’s see if he reduces again or if there’s a pull back he actually increases again.
The 3X multiple for wilful infringement can certainly be applied in cases where damages are calculated by reference to licence fee but can it also be applied where damages are calculated on profit?
LOAM will not. RG does what he does. He likes JOG so he may well take some money out earlier but not all. Just spent 10 minutes and actually listened to ME. $14bn less marketing/costs which he said “they think” they deserve at least SOME of that. So back to $1bn + Wilful.... but settlement out of court.. I still recon $500m + license...so $1bn tops after the fees. So £2.70... I would be over the moon with £2.70.!
Do people think there is a high chance of the two big investors selling out "cheaply" for a quick win rather than be willing to stay in for the long term and a potentially much bigger win but equally with a potentially greater risk?
Just topped up at under 19p. Hope I'm not making a big mistake.
Botbot and don’t forget the magic work “wilfull”, which ME in his interview didn’t take into account.
Of course. There is one thing that everyone is forgetting... the $14bn is the US. Assuming/When they win then they can go after the rest of the world. So the $14bn will at least be doubled....!!!!
Hi Bonzo
The only way Samsung can make themselves safe from future IP issues is to own nano themselves, particularly cos a court settlement may cost more than simply buying them.
Don't think a broker will be used to hoover up shares, more probable an offer, which will have to be approved by shareholders. Hardly matters what we think - depends on Loam and RG.
BoL
After years of being invested here I would love a tree shake, so I can pick some more up. Not averaging up, (16p) at the moment.
If Samsung believe there is a substantial risk of losing their case with Nanoco, buying Nanoco may cost them less than settling. There must be a chance of some broker beginning to buy shares on their behalf, with regular tree shakes to encourage PIs to sell. A subsequent bid that allowed Richard Griffiths to exit with a substantial profit and they could gain control.
We've just got to see how it plays out. The picture is certainly a lot more positive than it was before the last RNA. For what it's worth my money's on a settlement but just before the court case is due to start.
It'll be interesting to see what enduring relationship comes out of it. Presumably there will need to be a licensing agreement for the infringed patents but that it will only last a couple of years as they expire soon. Hopefully NANO has similar IP control over coming generations that will necessitate a long term commercial relationship. If they've been really smart they will have registered patents covering the same ground but raised with gaps of a couple of years between them so that they get fees for a longer period of time for this gen as well.
BotBot, I don't agree about accepting £500M. First I think Samsung should be forced to pay enough fort it to "discourage" any future alleged repeated willful ignoring of others patent rights. Secondly I suspect if Nanoco win, the damages awarded are likely to be in the $billions (yes plural). Also I think ME was pretty clear that there were other ways of calculating an award. He specifically said Nanoco wants their piece (or Slice, can't remember exact word) of the $14B. He could have just said Nanoco wanted to be recompensed for the lost revenue but pointedly he didn't. So I would be surprised if Nanoco agreed a settlement before court of under £1-2 Billion.
Even if an out of court agreement is reached they would still need lawyers. To get that agreement in place there would still need to be legal documents. Maybe the discussions have broken down but you never negotiate unless you are willing to walk away.! So the key here is to take it to the next step and say.. ok Samsung. We are ready now... and call their bluff. If Samsung off $500m Nano would be fools to turn that down for a cash settlement. If they get that and an ongoing agreement that is all that matters.
I don't think Judge Gilstrap will be pleased to see the Samsung case come to Court Nige. I believe he would much prefer firms agree between themselves, avoiding court backlogs and time wasting. Samsung waited until near the end of the first three month window before requesting an extension and the Judge was very generous with the additional time offered, probably to allow negotiation of the out of court settlement. That seems to be off the table now and Samsung is doing what it can to delay.
if Samsung lose, I think the Judge will be hard on them and more likely to apply damages according to profits made. On that subject, ME says Samsung has made an additional $1*4bn but that surely includes a large element of profit received by retailers and not Samsung, so not sure how that would work, although I would be happy to accept.
Wilful damages (3x) by reference to the cost of a licence seems a likely outcome - which at a guess is around $500 to $600m. That would be a decent outcome but probably does not make me £1m from NANO. It is the business that might do that.
Hi Bonzo
I agree, signed Deal with Mintz is probably cos out of Court settlement is now impossible. Why should the judge put pressure on to settle? He will know Samsung's History and is probably rubbing his hands together thinking willful - yes, previous - yes, directors convicted Crims - yes, Damages $42 Bn - Yes.
At £114 per share even I will be a millionaire.
BoL
Press reports suggest the chair of Samsung was sent to prison for violating labour laws in December. My understanding is the heir apparent has done one prison sentence and press reports in June suggest he faces another. If Nanoco and their lawyers thought an out of court deal could be agreed soon they would not need the financing for the case announced today. I cannot see middle managers in Samsung arguing the case for an expensive out of court settlement to Directors fighting their own legal cases to keep out of prison. So I believe the case will now be fought out in court unless and until the judge puts pressure on Samsung to settle. And it will take some time till the judge can be sure enough of the facts to do that. But we have an experienced judge and a case experts believe in. So I have 80 per cent confidence in a favourable result.
Hi SL
Your figures are based on the assumption that nano has no value at the moment - the value is £53m now.
If out of court settlement of £500m nano will get a lot more than half, possibly 100% cos Mintz will have done next to no work on the case. Any settlement by US Court will be for far more than £500m.
My calcs £500m Sp 194, £1Bn Sp 368 (less Mintz charges 0 to 49%). Based on old numbers MrktCap and Sp curr conv $ to £ 0.81.
Hi Bonzo
Why a couple of years? If out of court settlement the damages must be paid before cancelling the Court case (would you take an Iou from Samsung?) If Court settlement Samsung will be in contempt if it is not paid promptly. Don't know when the court case will be heard nor how long it will take, but hoping nano has the money this year.
BoL
First lets make sure we are using the same language. When I say settlement I mean what Samsung might pay out, of which Nanoco would be get half (under my assumptions).
So in my table if Samsung paid out £500m, Nanoco would "only" get 250M and each share would be worth( 250 M/286.2 M) = 250/286.2 = 87p (ish). I am taking the pessimistic view that the current share price would be zero if there was no chance of a win against Samsung so weshouldn't add the current share price to this figure . So a settlement of £500M leads to a share price of 87p. A settlement (the sum Samsung might pay) of £1B leads to a SP of roughly £1.74 (i.e. 2*87p)
Yes the potential is extra-ordinary BUT by the very nature of being shareholders in Nanoco we obviously have confirmation bias and hence we probably have an unrealistic assessment of the chances of a Nanoco win in court.
I didn't write the original post to say we could expect any specific settlement. I wrote it because I didn't recognise the SP figurers others were stating based on specific settlements and I wanted us all to agree a common basis for such calculations.
Screenlearner
I agree with being cautious. But have you divided by 2 twice? In your text you suggest a £500m settlement would be worth £1.74 a share and I can follow the maths. In your table, after allowing for the existing share price, this has fallen to 87p a share. If you just deducted the existing share price it would have fallen to £1.55. If I have overlooked something I credit the Wine Society. But I agree your underlying point.
With Nanocos lawyers and the funders for the legal action being experienced in such cases, having done due diligence and only getting rewarded if they help win the case for Nanoco the chances of success must be above 50 per cent. If Nanoco got half of a £1billion settlement in a couple of years time that would be worth either 87p, £1.74 or £1.55p a share ( I will take accept your reflection on the point). Where else are you going to get a punt that a 19p bet has more than a 50 per cent chance of delivering £1.55 (or even 87p) in a couple of years. Plus a chance of a share in a QD business as well.
Screen learner. I think we might be getting away with ourselves a little bit.! £500m maybe.....
If the II are trying to buy , the bots may start up tomorrow and the share volumes will go up. So worth watching out for.
NANO has never made much sense Botbot - and issuing an RNS on a Monday instead of Friday - what’s that about?
The SP does not say so but the litigation is de-risked and a free ride from here. The business is another matter but that could turn around soon.
BTB. Just a thought. Given the amount of time this has been rumbling, and the amount of shares in issue, appreciate day traders making their crust so sells, and tree shaking tactics creating sells, and what if something is apparent and a large company not wanting to raise a TR1 . Many companies quietly Hoover up shares without causing a stir on behalf of multiple investors. If I was on the ropes I would want to minimize my losses. Get where I'm going?....softly softly catches....Risk mitigation. Just a thought. And maybe (if I'm right) these wealth management companies are not on the same side, so a bit of competition!
Hi BTB
Don't forget 3 * rule for Willful = $ 42 Bn, or £ 114 Sp!
Point is if it goes to court US will throw the book at Samsung, and damages will be substantial.
BoL
Several people have been bandying around SP "possible values if..." and I thought I would check we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. I know, I know, counting chickens before they hatch is of course never a wise thing to do (but maybe fun?) ... and I wondered what effect a settlement of any size would have on the SP and whether people are all using the same calculation method. .
So I propose a suggested method here: (Comments welcome).
Nanoco has 286.2 Million shares in issue (appox). If we get a £1 billion settlement (for simplicity of calculation not a prediction and notice I have used UK £ not US $) and we assume nanoco only get 1/2 of that because it has to pay lawyers, the funder etc.. we have the company being worth £500 more than now and so each Nanoco share might be worth (500 M/286.2 million=) £1.74 per share more. But let's assume the existing SP is mainly as high as it is because of the possible success of the patent infringement case, so we won't include the existing SP. So this is a worse case senario based on the opimistic case Nanoco win their case and get a settlement of this size. Is this right? If so, I assume we can we just scale this, to I get an approx SP depending on the settlement.
£0 settlement - yes we must not assume we will win. Ha Ha - I think we can all work out the SP under that senario.
£100M settlement share price = 17.4p (remember nothing added for other business or existing SP, and only half "ours")
£200M ==>35P
£500 ==> 87p
£1 B ==> £1.74
£3 B ==> £5.22
£14 B (for a joke only) ==> £24.36
So at a £3B settlement one would need maybe 191,570 shares to become a millionnaire and at a mere £1B settlement you would need 574,712 shares.
So who, apart from BotBot of course, , fances their chances of becoming a millionaire on the back of Nanoco?
BoL all you budding millionares Ha Ha!.