Adrian Hargrave, CEO of SEEEN, explains how the new funds will accelerate customer growth 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.
Hopefully not! The share price rose to 15p+ following the announcement of the bid process last November. Subsequently, it drifted to a lower range and foundered until the subsequent notification of the patent infringement action. Last week we had a significant pull upwards, which now appears to be drifting in the absence of further information?
I am fortunate to having access to high quality company information from contributors to this bulletin board. However, in my opinion, there should have been some notification that Samsung's response was originally due at the Texas court today. Additionally there should have been a subsequent RNS concerning the amendment to the original docket, that Samsung had been granted an extension so that there will be no response to the court for another three months. (at least three months - there may be more delaying tactics afoot from Samsung - they are well known for it).
I am of the opinion that Nanoco start various initiatives and there is subsequently no information of any substance about the follow up (the bid-process and patent infringement action are two recent examples).
Some contributors, who are probably way better informed about Nanoco than myself, are of the opinion that we are eventually due for a very good profit (173p per share was quoted recently) from our investment in Nanoco. Personally, I do not share their optimism, and, at the present time, I would be more than happy to settle for 50-60p per share - a realistic valuation IMHO.
TLW....
If I add up what I've read....
$15 license per TV x 26m TV's sold x 3 penalty = $1,170,000,000 + $15 for ever future license "say 10m units per year" per knicknack = $150m, which equate per LSE to a forward sp valuation of x10, which would be $1,500,000,000.
So, luckily, we are talking upwards of a $2.67BILLION valuation....LOL..
Now of course, you need to additionally add on the IP, which readers have quoted 3 x $70m = $210m.
Plus the current SP/valuation of course.....and not forgetting the facility...
phew.....That's only $12.27 a share, using everyone stated 1.22 fx rate means a £10.06 share price....
All I have done is summarized what has been posted previously and added it up............
£10.06 a share x 1,750,000 (which is my holding) = £17.6m :-)
Some hopes...
BotBot, I guess you are speaking tongue-in-cheek. But whilst your estimate may be a "little" high, I am now definitely in the positive camp with "highish" expectations (I really do expect new all time highs in the medium to long term). However I suspect we may have a longer wait than some others here have suggested and we will also probably have some scares and few sleepless nights along the way! Nothing is certain of course, and I think patience is the key necessity to profit here!
Thank you botbot1202,
I had read your analysis on a previous occasion. Thank you for repeating it. I do not dispute your calculations. However, it is questionable whether anywhere near that potential could be realised in practice? Nanoco have a real fight on their hands against an aggressive giant of a company, who will not want to be seen losing face in any aspect of this dispute. Additionally questions must be asked concerning the value of their IP portfolio. It was disappointing that the scrutiny of their IP by several companies over more than four months did not produce a single offer - at least not one that Nanoco were prepared to consider.
Your calculations, if realised, would also make me multiple millions in profit. However, I just do not see it happening in practice. Good luck with your investment. I sincerely hope that I am proven wrong, and thank you for your enthusiasm and optimism both on this board and on the advfn equivalent. Regards.
10% of the number would be very very nice :-)
Of course, so far today, it's hurting :-(
£23k's worth.!
Hi TLW
Surprised Samsung got an extension (to 30th June), from a US Court. Effectively if no reply by then they are in contempt, and will be hammered, which is why I expect a settlement before then. Don't care how big Samsung is, Nano employing US experts, in US Court, who are a very different proposition to a South Korean Court.
BoL
The really interesting thing is that Nanoco didn't oppose the delay! They must have their reasons. I suppose it is possible it could just be to keep on the good side of the US judge, but I suspect there is more to it than that. The related bit of evidence is that Nanoco haven't finalised any deal with a third party to fund the court case yet. This doesn't make sense to me unless there are some real discussions and hard bargaining going on between Nanoco and Samsungs out of sight which Nanoco feel have some realistic chances of success from their point of view. Thus Nanoco don't want to sign on the dotted line yet because they think it may be unnecessary to give a substantial portion of any settlement to the third party. Unless this is the case why would Nanoco risk not having their ducks all in a row for the court case. Samsung could exploit any weakness in Nanoco being able go the full distance in the case.
Hi SL
I cannot believe Nano would serve the case unless finances in place, but agree that by not opposing extension they are in serious negotiations. Hope to hear something soon.
BoL
Ni Nige, Edison made it clear recently that Nanoco had not yet finalised the funding deal for the court case!
I was more than a little surprised to hear the agreement has not been finalised Nige. One possible explanation is that prior to signing up with the TP funder, NANO is having a final try to persuade Samsung to settle. After signing, control of proceedings will be handed to those who stick out for the optimum payout, no matter how long it takes.
I also don’t think NANO had any option but to agree to the extension, given COVID 19 and the Court’s apparent willingness to agree. It provides three more months to reach an agreement and avoid clogging the Courts, which was probably a big factor.
I remain to be convinced Samsung has a sincere desire to negotiate or settle and my guess is that it is time wasting. If their defence is poor, they will have been provided full opportunity to settle and the Court will take that fact into consideration too, so delay may ultimately benefit NANO?
Nige - the extension is to 31 August “
IT IS ORDERED that the deadline for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Display
Co., Ltd., Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Visual Display Division to move, answer or otherwise respond to
Plaintiff’s Complaint for Patent Infringement is hereby extended up to and through August 31,
2020.”
Hi Nige_W and Screenlearner,
I have just read both your posts and agree totally that an out-of-court settlement would be the best solution for both parties. However, there is the fact that this would imply that Samsung had acted unlawfully, and bearing in mind the South Korean mindset, would they be prepared to admit it? They may well, in keeping with their past behaviour, try and embark on a protracted legal dispute over several years. An interesting question here is whether the judge would allow Samsung to continue manufacturing their screens using the disputed quantum dots?
It may well prove to be an interesting Summer for Nanoco investors. Meanwhile the share price has stagnated and may soon be trading at the previous lower range unless there is some positive input from Nanoco? It is clear to me that the market does not believe the narrative, but I have seen this with other companies and a single event can cause a doubling of their share price literally overnight. We have already seen one example of this happening this week. Regards.
Why doesn't Samsung call Nano's bluff and say , "let's go to trial". Nano will be the first to go for an out of court settlement, if it was offered, because going all the way will ruin Nano, maybe fatally.
Probably because the TP legal funding agreement eliminates financial risks associated with funding a case against Samsung. A number of weeks ago, ME stated NANO was in the final stages of negotiating such an agreement and that the majority of any proceeds would fall to NANO. If we take that at face value, NANO is in a good place.
I hope I’m wrong but I’m very pessimistic about this
I fully realise there are big risks here, BUT I think everyone is underestimating the risks to Samsung. They can easily swat off unproven allegations of criminal actions, but if it goes to court and they lose the loss of face on such a flagship policy could even put Samsung into play. Also remember from now on, every Samsung CFQD television COULD be being sold at a potential loss (remember that times 3) Of course Samsung will try to play hardball but my guess is they have already tentatively "suggested" an offer that Nanoco has refused. If they have any sense Nanoco will not do a deal for less than a billion PLUS future royalties. Not sure whether I have just turnedinto botbot. Ha Ha. But I am definitely now opimistic.
If NANO says it is confident it’s patents have been infringed I believe them. I agree with SL that it is probable Samsung has made a derisory offer to buy NANO (rather than to settle litigation).
In my view, the odds are that a Court case will be needed and settlement will occur when that progresses to the point Samsung has exhausted all options to wriggle free on a technicality. However, I also have confidence the Texan Court will reach the right outcome.
In the months/years between now and then NANO needs to focus on its business. That is why it has opted to pursue the TP funding route (which if secured endorses the strength of the claim).
Wella99uk. You need to be comfortable with the risk to be here and only your can decide but I am Confident the risk of business failure is lower now than it was before, in part thanks to Covid 19.
Hi SL
In any discussion each party will have its own agenda. I think (hope) ME wants to keep nano independent. Maybe £500 m + a new contract would suit nano very nicely - no financial issues any more, and they can get back to the knitting. Quite sure that the US Court settlement will be far more than that and even after paying off blood suckers, they will get far more than £500 m.
Still think its a better idea for Samsung to just buy nano, maybe for £2 Bn then no future worries about IP rights in EU, RoW… which I hope ME is resisting, but they could offer £500m + contract, if ME happy with that.
Just to complicate things even more, STM and Apple will want to be involved in these discussions - no conflict of interests there, Samsung wants display, Apple IR, so maybe Nano will reform into 3 Sub companies, Display, IR and Rest. Samsung buy Display, Apple (or STM) buy IR, leaving Rest independent.
Maybe it will take 3 months to sort out!
As a shareholder I remain optimistic and don't think the case will go to Court. Personally I would be quite happy for Samsung to buy the lot for £2 Bn = over 700 per share cash, then job done and don't need to worry about it any more.
Very happy right now, profit in ggp greater than loss in nano, and both trade A/c and ISA in profit.
BoL to all holders.
I hope it works out that way Nige, although I can’t help thinking the best time to buy NANO would have been during the strategic review, and previous form suggests Samsung will go to court rather than settle. Having said that the stakes over these patent infringements are potentially the largest Samsung has faced, so anything could happen.
Personally, my preference is for a settlement separate from ownership but if anyone were offering £2bn, I may have to revisit those thoughts.