Member Info for BeContrarian

You do you escala. We are all in a vacuum so you’re only ever going to get ball park figures. I have my own mind on it as do many others - the market is way out. But if 60-70 is enough for you (and let’s face it that’s not a bad week’s work!) then you go for it.

Anyone who says ‘the market is always right’ needs to look at this share and give themselves a good hard slap in the face

Had a few more on the overdraft at 62p. Insane MCAP.

Remember first round is on Intrusive!

Think I’m going to frame that RNS and kiss it every night before bed haha. I’m at work and can’t even see straight.

Thank you to all.

To 99%, my strategy would’ve seen reckless. 90% of my portfolio sits here and as I said a few months back I sold other shares to put more here. My faith in Nano’s legal team never wavered. Thank you to everyone here for always helping each other out. Miracles do happen.

Shout out to lobo whose legal analysis first persuaded me to ‘go big’ here. And to Nassim Taleb for his wise words: you must have skin in the game!

Well said RJT. Remember what tenner said too. Any settlement would encompass a fair value licence for the LIFETIME OF THE PATENTS. Don’t let your shares go cheap even if they are showing you a great profit guys!

Without a figure on the settlement this share is going to be the Wild West for traders over the next 30 days. Enjoy the ride folks and hold on to your golden tickets!!

If this is true I could literally cry. I topped up on the fumes of my bank account on Wednesday hoping against hope for a last minute settlement. Get ready for some massive fireworks today!!

WHAT THE?!?!

Kirkland are one of the pre eminent law firms so they are all hot shots! But he can only work with the tools he’s been given.

Forgive my ignorance… Surely once the trial is underway then the window for a settlement ‘in trial’ is closed and the legal process must run its course?
If ‘in trial’ settlements are allowed then the whole mechanism for applying pressure for pre trial settlement loses its sting, in addition to an unconscionable waste of court and juror time?

Thanks for sharing frostbar. Just in case the point needed labouring, the fact that Samsung’s entire new product range is pivoting towards nano’s tech tells you how much is riding on this opening salvo in the US, for both sides.
Sure the current round of litigation is focused on TVs but should we win and there be no global settlement across Samsung’s product range, legal funders will be falling over themselves to be part of round 2.
I’m terms of ultimate litigation value or settlement value, developments like this raise the bottom line values exponentially.

If they had any serious, fundamental doubts about this court case, or knew something we didn’t, volume would be easily 10 million plus, and the SP would be about half what it is now. They own nearly 20pc of the company, this is bog standard risk management on their part.

It’s amazing to think how well the SP has tolerated so many shares being funnelled into the market. It’s all been very orderly and shows how Lombard have been responsible in their selling.

I don’t think any long term holder will be sweating the minutae of the SP movement to be honest. The volumes are way down on yesterday, we are running of the final fumes of traders finalising positions with the odd PI taking a punt or trimming. Massive news just days away and I think Most have made their mind up by now to stick or twist.
Can we give the comments on each penny of SP movement a rest please?

Anyone with experience in similar scenarios…How likely is it Nano will be granted a market suspension? And how much notice will Nano need to give before it’s brought into effect if there is one? Could be lots of volatility tomorrow in anticipation.

Flying, I agree with you and you make great points that I wholeheartedly accept. But remember that Samsung’s lawyers will be grafting for the duration of the trial, to ‘frame’ the damages in a lower ball park than our lawyers will be. So that does remain a tail risk here, especially if the jury took the view that Nano is a small company and should be grateful of even a small award. Unlikely but not out of the question. As I said in my original post I do agree that the whole case supports a high damages beyond what has been forecast. If there is any justice that will be so. But my overarching point is the ‘third way’ ie low damages will be just as powerful for value creation in the fullness of time.
I guess I’m just living up to my name and trying to see this from as many angles as possible. It seems black and white at first glance but there are shades of grey too.

Good discussion All, thank you and I agree with much of what has been discussed here.

One point that I think does bear repeating is that should a fairly low damages award be given there is a chance, in the short term, that this will be misinterpreted by the market as bad news when it is not.

At risk of stating the obvious, the key threshold is winning the case. Of secondary value is the dollar damages for the very simple reason that Nanoco’s ultimate objective, as proved by the worldwide litigation, is a settlement and licensing arrangement. With a win, a critical hurdle towards that end goal is achieved. Even with a low dollar damages, such is the volume of Samsung’s QD production, even a modest licensing arrangement puts us at multiples of the current SP.

For what it’s worth I do think that high damages is a distinct possibility, I’m just offering the argument that a low damages will not dent serious value creation in the medium term, even though the market might see it differently in the short term.

Intrusive and Morbox. Do you think Samsung pulled out of making an offer when they spotted Nanoco’s fishing rod? However, they made a mistake in even showing any interest in the first place. In that respect the tactic worked perfectly.