The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
Agreed,even if a PTAB IPR is granted there is no guarantee it will go Samsung's way. It looks like a measure to string out an anticipated appeals process post judgement in the hopes that it will cause nano to go belly up. Although the case still proceeds.At most it can take 18 months to hear an IPR and then,in a worst case scenario,the duration of a retrial (minus time for evidence discovery,Markman,IPR etc) ie;not long.
Granted IPR may present a threat to any trial verdict but it may also represent an admission of weakness in their case for Samsung. Why go through all this palaver if you were confident? It almost feels like damage limitation to be honest. Akin to Samsung saying "you have our settlement offer accept it or have another few year of legal wrangling".
If PTAB is used as a tool for legal action or settlement negotiation it smacks of a kitchen sink defence. If this is all Samsung have left in their arsenal I would say that it bodes well. After this what is left? A trial? ......if only there was some indication of how that may go...hmmm.
Ultimately I view it like this. The company has waited years to get to this point,obtained financial backing, recruited an excellent legal team,essentially won a Markman hearing and still has a snifter of contracts despite contested patents. Samsung have the potential of a patent review which may or may not potentially go their way. Who looks like they have an advantage?
Totally understand the caution here but 25p post markman is a crazy price.
I really don’t see the concern re a fundraise because if we are successful on the legal front then it’ll be to scale up operations, not like previous fundraises which were a means of survival. Such fundraises are a positive sign and if IIs don’t have the appetite for the placing, PIs will.
Either way we await PTAB and let’s not forget what a win the markman RNS was, even if the market took no notice I guarantee you it would have done had it been 4-1 the other way. Markman was the bigger hurdle IMO and we are over it quite cleanly.
Happy to be patient and certainly no appetite for selling pre PTAB and/or trial.
Right on, ddubya. I doubt that Lombard would have bought 13M shares if they foresaw huge problems. If Nanoco does need additional funding, it will happen after the trial and when Nanoco is doing well. I understand that Nanoco expects volume production in the financial 2nd half of 2022, which begins in Feb 2022.
Nanoco price is going down, it is likely being pushed down to create buying opportunities. I have an order in to buy shares in the US, but no one seems to be willing to sell for less than $0.60. No lack of optimism here.
Certainly, if funding is required BBD, it will be very positive where needed solely to fulfil orders.
We have learned to take what Edison says with a pinch of salt over the years. However, this time it confirmed both that the RNS does not signify further orders, as could be inferred, or at least not yet, and the existing cash runway assumed extension of the current ST Micro contract. I have the feeling weasel words have been used to obscure and Edison’s note is needed to make sense of it, hence some disappointment.
I won’t be selling on Monday though, and I am still very upbeat on NANO’s medium/long term prospects :)
I think you've put a bit of a negative spin on the Edison comment ddubya, although I agree the stronger possibility of near term dilution probably explains the SP action.
Edison say that the improved position makes it easier to raise funding. The only reason they give for it being likely is the prospect of large scale production at Runcorn happening next year, with associated costs. That should have already been in their "model" (i.e. guess), so they need to give a better reason for suddenly raising this as an issue. Long-termers here know they have been wrong before. They decline to give an estimate of the amount to be raised, but with breakeven estimated at £6m, it seems reasonable to think that the amount of extra working capital needed would be quite a small number, particularly since they already have an unused facility.
Regardless of dilution, the stronger and closer prospect of volume production is undoubtedly good news, as is the slightly improved balance sheet.
Just managed to read Edison's update, which is clear that value for scale up of the extended ST contract in 2022 was already factored into their projection, whilst this year's additional income was not. Also that NANO is "...likely to take the opportunity to raise ... working capital required to complete scale-up and initial commercial production phases ...". And break even arrives when we have £6m in annual revenue rather than today's £2m.
This helps to explain the market reaction to what initially looked like good news.
If you are reading this Brian, PI are shareholders too and should a cash raise be required there is more than enough time to allow them to participate.
hxxps://www.edisongroup.com/publication/sensing-programme-moves-to-next-phase/29487