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:
You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.
Your email and password must only be used by you. If a post is made under your account, it will be considered that it was posted by yourself.
Your account nickname must not be the same, or contain, listed company names or board members' names.
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
You will not;
discuss illegal or criminal activities.
post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge.
post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.
post any personal details (e.g. email address or phone number).
post live price or level 2 updates.
publish content that is not your original work, or infringes the copyright or other rights of any third party.
post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.
post links to, or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication.
post any affiliate or referral links, or post anything asking for a referral.
post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic.
re-post premium share chat posts on regular share chat.
restrict or inhibit any other user from using the boards.
impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives.
post or transmit any content that contains software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of this website or any computer software or equipment.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
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 and Verified Members
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
Good Afternoon all, I hope everyone is in good health and positive spirits. I'm pleased with the news because we have experience on our side with the third-parties involved. They've done this before and know what they're doing. Nanoco will probably sue for $14bn, which is the figure Michael Edelman quoted for the enhanced profit resulting from Nanoco technology compared with TV sets without the technology. The court will probably award a chunk of this value depending on the strength of the case and in my view this will amount to between $200m - $14bn. A massive scale of course. My uneducated guess is that it will be somewhere upwards of $1bn. The lower figure of $200m was quoted somewhere on here, but I can't find it or remember the link. Now we wait to see how sustainable Nanoco can become in the interim with STM, Merck and others. My guess at worst case scenario is a placing with 200m additional shares before the settlement. That would still mean a shareprice of 50p on a lower settlement, which makes Nanoco an extremely attractive investment proposition and one I certainly won't be cashing in until conclusion of the case. We can all plumb in figures in between $200 - $14bn. $1bn would be around £2 per share even with dilution etc etc. I'm now pretty much writing off the worst case scenario of a failed legal case, given the due diligence that has taken place, Samsung's track record of IP infringement and that it seems so blindingly obvious they stole the IP! As for the short-term, all it takes is for IC or other analysts to grasp the potential and it could go nuts with the traders, not that I care for any of that personally. I'd rather have a slow and steady journey to a massive payout further down the line.
Maybe, but remember IIs probably move share prices more than PIs, and they need time to research and absorb new information anf then have "meetings" about where to invest etc. Never judge the markets reaction to news until a few days at least have passed.
Very interesting how we start the day at 21.75 and we end up trading at around 19 after it’s settles down. With the news and the fact of the support you would have thought we would be at 25 with this and 35 plus with Merck... obviously not.!
Agreed Bonzoful and Nanonano. Deal maybe less likely (although not impossible) as Nanoco and Samsung have had many months to settle and even if Merck decide to renew license at reduced expense, still see funding gap without deals. Merck license ended 30 June 2020 (I think, see 25th March RNS) so overdue? Does anyone have a link to where M.E. says he was confident on renewal of license with Merck? (maybe missed this although he has been "confident" on a lot of things) My feeling (probably wrong) is aside from Samsung no-one else has use for Nano's QD's in display hence no interest from Chinese in FSP.
LTH here...This appears to be very good news, no? There must be a lot of confidence from Mintz in success in the litigation proceedings if they agree to take this on. It could cost them millions to lose. OK they may be on a sizeable win fee as an incentive but due diligence must have been done to go ahead and take on Samsung. Does anyone know the legal costs in cases such as this? Imagine it costs $10m to see the case through and they win, and if they are on 5 x return for success they get paid $50m (I just make up the numbers as examples, could be anything) What does this say about the potential income to Nanoco from winning the case? Current mkt cap around $54m. They must be looking for a very sizeable positive outcome? Anyone in the know want to correct those numbers and come up with something feasible to work with?
As a LTH, I agree on current valuation SL but unfortunately we don’t set the SP. I think we are in that strange place where the company holds exceptional value, yet the market remains to be convinced it will be delivered.
If and when orders come in I think we shall see the SP rise more steeply than the order size would normally justify, because belief in the model will have been restored. We are drawing closer, just need the orders.
The Samsung litigation also now holds value for shareholders even if another QD or nano particle is never sold and that is a plus but of course the long term and greater value is in IR, Display and other applications.
And... Bass..... did you miss this bit..??? The LFA removes the funding burden for the suit from Nanoco and its shareholders. In return, the Funder can expect to receive a multiple of their invested capital in the event of a settlement or judgement in favour of Nanoco. ... So no fee... then in the EVENT of a settlement they get multiples of their costs...
Good news on funding here. Nano have an excellent case against Samsung. They clearly nicked their processing tech, led both nano and Dow up the garden path and then dumped them both. Key is the molecular cluster evidence in Samsung's dots. Also, no way Hansol had the tech to start producing cad free on mass back in 2013. Bought a stake today anyway. Litigation risk much reduced now.
Altough the market clearly is showing no sign yet of wanting to rise to my suggested 25-30p and the price has even dropped a bit, I don't think the low 20s now reflects value. The company is now in the best position in has been for some time. When II investors wake up and smell the coffee 40-50p could easily be reached without any further good news. With good news it could gomucyh further. Still I have got nano wrong before so DYOR.
I'm not sure, this could be a game of bluff and chicken. Remember the funder doesn't get a percentage of the deal but a multiple of their costs, and costs may not be that high now. Samsung might have hoped Nanoco were too chicken to get funding and really take them to court. I suspect Samsung will be having serious discussions about this over the next few days and weeks leading up to the end August deadline. They will be considering all options. We will not be privy to those discussions of course but I bet some voices inside Samsung will be suggesting they settle now. Will those voices win the day against the more hard liners? I have no idea!
The RNA doesn't say 'no win no fee' botbot and doesn't say “Funder can expect to receive a multiple of their invested capital ONLY in the event of a settlement or judgement in favour of Nanoco“ Morbox.
Splitting hairs maybe but there is plenty of room for doubt.
Would imagine ALL are incentivised and will work as a team and all seem to have undergone extensive due diligence. The Funder must be well known to all parties and ME says ' he is pleased to be working with IP lawyers and funders who have a strong established track records for SUCCESSFULLY pursuing infringement cases INCLUDING against Samsung. Pressure being applied gradually and Samsung will know what they are up against.
SL - The RNS states that BANK's "...relative and absolute share of any award will increase with the size...award.". I think this means cake for everyone but larger slices for NANO if the award is bigger. On the SP, it certainly we-risks the litigation but Does not secure BANK's future as an On going concern. Only orders will do that so I do not expect more than low 20's but if orders arrive, we could move North very quickly. The !litigation becomes a very large helping of jam but the business will have even more value.
Nanoco has become a decent bet on the outcome of the legal case against Samsung and that alone is worth holding for. But the prospects of an early settlement have diminished: no need for financing if a detail were nearly done. And there will be no substantial development of the business unless and until extended contracts are agreed with Merck or STMicro. So Nanoco is now a legal case investment with QD upside potential
Does that mean the funder is insentivised to give all funds necessaryto get a win, but is not insentivised to hold out for a really big win? Not sure who has the power to "make a deal" now. Nanoco alone? the funder? the lawyers, or some complex mix of the three.
Not sure why the share price hasnot risen more yet. Of course, the big IIs may take time to react to news so that may not happen for a day or two. I am hoping for(expecting) 25-30p in the next couple of weeks? What do others think?