The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen 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.
Nige_W, just updated my SS with the new shares going to be issue. I like to model share prices (up and down). The last time I saw life changing results on my SS was Flybe and we know how that ended! Hopefully Nano will come good and all of us that have been here for years can have some return for all the pain and suffering we've had to endure!
I know it’s sensible Friday but you have to take into account some (not all) profit Samsung have made. If found guilty, Samsung over the years have made huge profits on the back of Nano’s IP. ME has already stated that QLED TV prices are well overpriced for the extra components used to make them.
Samsung may well have a hat full of tricks to try to delay proceedings but all those involved will be fully aware of their stalling tactics from previous cases and they run the serious business risk of a temporary injunction order being issued before trial. Dependent on the strength of the case against them and the degree of their compliance, this could be made permanent. Don't think they will have any new tricks up their sleeve - anyway the heat is on and the spotlight will soon be on them.
Now let’s try to have a sensible Friday..
It’s not $14bn. That is the total estimate of end user price difference. Nano would only be entitled to a part of that. A $10 license fee x 14m TVs x 3 for wilful x 2 for ROW = $840m... not $14bn or $42bn or $84bn... $840m which is £2.12 using budget exchange rates. Plus ongoing license at $10.
Hi BTB
Nano would have to agree to be bought. If I was ME I would reject $200m out of hand, need £2Bn to even ask shareholders to vote on it. Since court case settlement will probably be far more than that (besides costs), round numbers say £3Bn, nano will get more than £1.5Bn, so $200m is laughable.
An out of Court settlement is still possible and I suggested £500m + contract as being possible, but now as their situation (apparently) improves, maybe £1Bn + contract.
That is far better for Samsung than Court case cost of £4Bn (and RoW - ie *2) and possible ban on Samsung sales in US.
According to my old SS £1Bn creates Sp of 368 due to cash alone (not including prospects of Income from contract).
This is a disaster for Samsung, can they handle it? Who controls the Company when Directors in prison?
All of which is well known by the US Court who are trying to stamp out IP infringements (hence willful 3* rule and fast track by having to present their defence before going to Court) to protect their own companies.
Shame nano didn't build in a bug or two like Concordski, Russian Space Shuttle and their pipeline.
BoL
Screenlearner: My take is that any public statement made by Nano that refers to the IP litigation will be crafted by Nano's lawyers in the USA. Judge Gilstrap and his colleagues will be well acquainted with all the shenanigans played out by defendants, including delaying tactics.
Nano has to walk a fine-line legally. Presumably, it must not be seen to presume success in the IP-infringement trial, but it needs to demonstrate sufficient commercial distress owing to the loss of the royalties to which Nano considers it is entitled. I think the cash-call has been rather clever. Yes, Nano needed a modest cash boost to ensure their auditors can sign-off the books as a "going concern", but the tiny discount and the fact of oversubscription will demonstrate to Samsung that Nano is in no mood for surrender and has eager institutional and private investor support, both now and for the future.
It is worth repeating a commentary made about the KAIST (Korea Institute of Science and Technology) versus Samsung IP infringement case regarding Samsung stealing KAIST's FinFet 3-D transistor technology:
"Samsung showed no signs of backing off. Samsung seems to be ready for years of suits, its go-to strategy aimed at exhausting powerless patent holders such as individuals or small-sized outfits." This law-suit also involved Intel and Apple as co-defendants, so was quite high profile in the USA.
It is also worth repeating comments made by Edison Research on May 11th, 2017, which highlight how potentially crucial and disruptive Nano's IP is for large-scale QD manufacture. It is these aspects of the IP (amongst others) which Samsung has allegedly stolen:
"Nanoco was founded specifically to commercialize research, dating back to 2004, to solve the problem of manufacturing QDs at scale. The Company's molecular seeding process enables Cadmium-free QDs to be manufactured to precise scale (and therefore colour) without requiring rapid cooling. This makes a more simple process to scale-manufacture industrial quantities of QDs than the alternative high-temperature dual-injection method."
Furthermore, Edison believed that Nano's ease-of-scaling IP was a key factor in enabling Nano to secure licensing relationships with Dow and Merck.
To me, the double strike of agreed litigation funding and the oversubscribed small-discount-to-SP cash-call has derisked Nano's future considerably and I have upped my investment and would do so again on any SP weakness. Good luck everybody !
Certainly, there is nothing new in those numbers SL, although I think them more likely than some of the larger numbers being branded around. It is good to hear the story gaining momentum on though.
Importantly, the share price has held up well today given the dilution - that’s what we wished for and hope continues.
I think that it is the value in the law suit that will not go unnoticed.
Perhaps the message is simply to let shareholders (and potentially the court) know that NANO perceived Samsung to be delaying? After all they only informed the court that Covid prevented it from responding to the complaint very late in the first three month window. It would not have been difficult to make their request earlier, so likely time wasting in my view.
I know I have posted on the same issue before. Apologies, but there are two very similar sentences in the first RNS this morning (in different paragraphs) about "delaying tactics" and "attempts to extend the litigation beyond the Company's cash runway". That this is mentioned twice in the RNS implys to me that this (along with the going concern issue) was a key issue behind the fund raise. So does anyone have any ideas what has been going on ? Or what Samsung's plan might be (or might have been)? I thought the agreement with the funder would have made such attempts at delay futile and doomed to fail, but maybe not. Also I keep coming back to that expression " will not go unnoticed" I have suggested in a previous post that this probably means it will go unnoticed by Samsung, thus encouraging them to come to their senses and make a deal. But I wonder whether anyone has any different ideas about this strange phrase. Is there anyone else than Samsung to whom this phrase could be targetted? It is strange that such sentences were issued in an RNS. It seems like a pretty strong side swipe to me, a little bit of niggle creaping in perhaps? Anyone feel the same or have different views?
"With third party litigation funding, and an extended cash runway for the Company, the potentially significant value in the lawsuit against Samsung is safeguarded against attempts to extend the litigation beyond the Company's cash runway.