Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Words still wrong FH, even after I have provided you with the exact quote. Give up, investing is not for you.

"The outcome is as expected.

My prediction was:
$100m net"

Well, you were badly wrong then. $85m was for a sale of IP, nothing to do with the issue being litigated. We retain $90m including this sale, so the net amount for the issue being litigated is $5m

It isn't $85m "for damages", why make things up? Just read the RNS, or read my previous posts
"$85m for the IP Sale agreement"

So stripping out the IP sale, only $5m was retained for the QD process. The most accurate predictor was gigawitt, in at least one of his contradictory posts, when he said we'd retain virtually nothing. Everyone else was way out, completely misled, for months, by comments from the company, Edison, and the press.

You expect people to believe one RNS but ignore everything else the company said, in the same way you expect people to believe one thing you say but ignore previous statements. Like I said: hindquarters.

"The 9/1 RNS was crystal clear. Nanoco couldn't have given a fairer warning."

Yet not clear enough for you, since you didn't sell until much later? Easy to be wise with hindquarters

Here's my breakdown: total payment $150m, comprising sale of IP ($85m), litigation costs ($60m), license for all past and future use of QD process ($5m)

Isn't the deal actually even worse than it looks? If you strip out the IP sale ($85m), which is surely nothing whatsoever to do with litigation costs, then the amount retained from the actual litigation issue is a mere $5m ($90m - the $85m attributable to the sale of assets)

The "sale" of non-core IP is pretty disappointing. What the hell does that have to do with settlement or the court case? Why did Samsung want this IP and what value does it remove from Nano's portfolio? It's good to get some hard cash, but surrendering market share seems like less of a win.

You still call Brian your "beloved" Girly Rumours, despite everything? That's true love. Now his affair with Samsung is ended, maybe he'll go court-ing with you?

"(in one of my two homes, the other is in Queensland)"
great story bro, absolutely fascinating biog, just what the board was craving

Congratulations Troublesome, you've reached the lower end of FH's expectations: punching!

Peregrine's cat was expecting to sit at the lower end of the jury, but instead it's just playing cards (patience)

So this cat, was it a black one? Obviously your method was sound, but many mumbling mice claim that your the cat has it's own trading account

Goose? Oo-er Missus, sounds a bit rude? Interesting that he left what looked like a good position at Starling to come here. Wait and see on the golden eggs, don't count your... oh cluck, I've hit an ornithological dead-end

Thanks Greend100, that seems to be how the market is taking it. Significant improvement all around, including visibility and communication. Back on the right track and accelerating!

1 estimated revenue in 2022 of GBP50.6 million, surging 30% from GBP39 million in 2021.

2 validation of the long-term sustainable growth in the human challenge trial market,"

3 expects to report earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation margins of at least 17% (not clear precisely what this means. 17% of what? Can anyone elucidate?)

4 margin improvement was a result of strong trading in the second half of the year. But £1m due to one-off cancellation fees

5 cash position at December 31 was GBP28.4 million, up from GBP15.7 million a year ago, due to advanced fees

6 orderbook was GBP76 million at year-end, up 65% from GBP46 million a year before, due to a number of large contracts with biopharma clients.

7 There has been an increase in the average value of each challenge trial contract

Update harps heavily on successes in revenue, but seems reluctant to discuss profitability?

Should Paul James be nicknamed Dove, because he's COO, or Upstart Crow, because he used to work for Starling bank? Important debate to had here.

"why would Samsung partner with us in future? Surely they would just use the tech?"
Because the case is only over a process for one material, and any agreement will be carefully and precisely defined on that basis (hopefully!). Nanoco obviously have the ability to create other materials, they have other patents as well as unpatented skills which are potentially useful across Samsung's future products. Patent peace effectively means finally agreeing a price for this particular QD process, but a mutually beneficial settlement potentially offers the basis for a co-operative working relationship.

Up another 10% since your post Badgernator. Signs of the world economy sidestepping Russian sabotage and getting back to business? Not much interest on this board, but never has been, really. Still cheap by historical standards.

These are very dull times for people reading FH posts: "I'm just focusing purely on me" yawn, self indulgent BS