focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar 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.
NGR remember Samsung came to us to settle in my book that is a form of admittance , we had them and they knew it , if Samsung had any chance of winning in court they would have offered nothing they play hard ball to the exstream , the Jude would have applied multipliers on the settlement when we had won the case and we would of , not being given a chance to go to court really stank of corruption when you look at Samsung coming to us to settle , if I would have been Bt I would have laughed at that offer thinking the shareholders would roast me if I took that offer , but strangely even knowing this he still took it why would u take a deal that would half the sp , ok to secure the future of the company , but the company would have survived anyway , instead Samsung took what they wanted , fair value are you joking ,
They got $60m for the licence settling infringement for all past use and for all future use..
$90m was selling 118 patents…not something anyone factored in to the multiples. What Samsung wanted from those patents ..a portfolio already cut back to the most commercial viable we probably will find out in due course.
But the multiples really was referring to the settlement of past infringement through court.
Yep they could have taken less for pre trial settlement but remember the trial was only for historic USA use not all past and future global use which should have been a far larger number of multiples anyway.
Just arrived at the course….cloudy now typical. I’ll be sure to say hello to the guys and not fall down any rabbit holes.
Nanonano i think he said potentially and isn’t $150m multiples of the mc at the time ?
Don’t forget Charty - is he back from the Indian Ocean yet?
Probably have a meet up at a local club with BR and boys all brandishing their Nanoco t-shirts stating 'global leader in quantum dot manufacturing' with a single dot 👉 . at the end !
Womder if he's off for a round with Carlos ?
BT did define fair value as multiples of company value, more than once too. That's not what was achieved.
The company has plenty of past form of its reach exceeding its grasp sadly.
That aside it doesn't excuse the secrecy surrounding the commercial sales, and since when has the so called quantities been for development?
As for the market opportunity, it all depends. the opportunity for display was pitched at £100m's, half or more of the display market etc. etc. The reality was around 6% of the display market, and only one significant player cad-free who then ripped off Nanoco.
I’m pausing to play golf. Beautiful spring weather today, my favourite time of year.
' No point did anyone consider Samsungs position '.
Who the hell are you on about ?
Yup not arguing with anyone about what he said Morbox but at no point does he define what fair value is. Everyone else arrived at the conclusion based on possible outcomes Edison printed which is fine but at no point did anyone consider Samsungs position, their clout and perceived unwillingness to cede nor what the discount would be for a quick and final settlement. It’s human nature and something that happens in retail investing all the time where the conversation points only to one outcome and everyone becomes convinced of it when in reality there are so many other levers being pulled. The II’s look at it differently and that’s why they sold down. TH gambled and didn’t do his due diligence in my opinion and got caught up in the retail hype and stoked it himself potentially. Sorry but laying the blame solely at BT’s feet and not taking any responsibility yourself or being cognisant these things rarely pan out as hoped is folly.
Fair value communicated to LOAM and RG by BT and the Board seems to not align to the fair value communicated to retail investors!
I’ll just quote BT word by word
“ Edison Interview with Brian Tenner - CEO Transcript 4th May 2022 interview
In terms of the boards attitude to a negotiated settlement we've always said that, as long as we get fair value for our patients, then we don't mind whether it's an enforced, court decision, or an negotiated decision. The one thing I would say though is fair value in the boards mind means, It reflects the global coverage that we've got through all of our patents.
So not just the United States, and it also reflects the life of our patents. So whether that's going to 2028 or 2035, We feel that any negotiated settlement as long as reflects both those factors then hmm as long as it delivers fair value we’re happy.”
Retail investors should of been given the same information as institutional investors si they are treated fairly to make informed investn
Give it Time - Time will tell - sounds like political propaganda !
Well it sounds to me that people have waited long enough and its time for BT to go ASAP.
NGR1616
He should have been open and honest with retail investors as regards those issues and the Board should of allowed investors to vote on the Samsung settlement offer..retail imvestors were given no say in the matter yet LOAM and RG knew what to expect because they were informed...the result while the share price rallied on good news they dumped their stocks before the bad news on the settlement was released...integrity...integrity...lack of integrity.
Retail investors were deliberately mislead, misguided, misinformed...
If BT truly misled so many retail investors then why as the opportunity to vote for change unanimously avoided? Fact is you and a few other more vocal detractors are in the minority and you can't as they say, let it lie.
A company’s board is required to look after all shareholders’ best interests. The only shareholders this board ever paid attention to were the institutional ones. Disgraceful!
It has transformed the company. Where he went wrong is not caveating what that meant for the more enthusiastic investors i.e. this time next year you won't be millionaires. But give it time some people might end up that way. The market opportunity really is massive.
The issue boils down to integrity and trust, why did BT mislead retail investors by stating 'fair value' and allowing third parties to circulate estimated damage values. Why did he and the Board side with LOAM and RG feeding one promising story to retail investors who trusted the comms yet feeding a different story to prefered shareholders who dumped their stock...
If he's willing to lie about these fundamental issues where is the trust and integrity with anything else the Board releases...its all gone is it not!...what can be trusted as reliable and accurate and what is pure spin and lies!
Ian - this has been debated ad nauseum - the pros and cons of a court case v settlement. One has risk the other didn't. Had we lost, or been awarded less and/or ended up in a protracted legal battle would we still be a going concern, would we have been wound up into an IP shell, would we have had our IP validated, would we have been able to work with STM with the backdrop of going concern issues? We will never know one side of the outcome but for sure it was never going to be a straight forward win of $750m dollars straight into the bank.
Personally I'll take a CEO not willing to bet the house.
NGR the reason people got carried awawas because of his statements , you heard them your self they are well documented , transformational just one , they go on and on all bs
Brian did nothing to quell the entusisasm and deliberately engendered it in a feeble attempt to bluff the world champions.
He failed miserably, the ROW were disappointed at the outcome and the buck stops with him.
He needs to grow a pair for once and do the best thing for the company and fck off.
NGR iam not knocking the company and its ideas far from it , it’s the underhanded board on what they said and then what they did , it’s clear they misled the shareholders , that can’t be argued imo , would you have voted through the Samsung deal , this so my whole point if not then the board in your opinion is not the right people for the job
But he hasn't mislead Pete. People got carried away at the prospect of a huge win in court with large numbers being bandied around yet it was stated more than once that the preferred outcome was a negotiated settlement and that was always going to be less than the hundreds of millions some were craving. Before BT there wasn't even a sniff of going after Samnsung.
Since then they have built new partnerships and delivered validated material, the first commercial order albeit on a small scale for development purposes it seems and a return of capital as guided. If they BE in FY25 and the tech ends up in phones and other wide scale adoptions and we get display contracts and the other development agreements bear fruit and the SP rises with less shares in issue will people still be calling for his head? Time will tell.
Shareholders should be able to trust management. These clowns have misled shareholders every step of the way - Tenner needs to be ousted.