Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

"Why would Samsung not be open to settling?"
In the past, they haven't always behaved reasonably. A Korean (S) university sued them and others for infringing a patent. The other two companies (Apple, Qualcom) settled early in the court case for something like $10m each (the inventor wasn't greedy). Samsung lost in court, lost on appeal, had a massive award against them. They didn't pay it so were taken to court again. They settled early in the second court case. So they are "open" to settlement, it is just their timing and logic which is difficult to predict.

My understanding is that indoor farms now use cost efficient LED lights, NGR1616, not sure there is any market left there for Nanoco. Jones Food Company, the farmers in that article, use a specialist lighting firm called Current, who deploy light in three spectrums usind LEDs: https://www.gecurrent.com/inspiration/illuminating-the-farm-of-the-future-jones-food-company-partners-with-current-powered-by-for-next-generation-food-production

More info on the Congo tax invoices: https://www.reuters.com/article/congo-telecoms/telecom-operators-in-congo-face-180-million-tax-hit-idUSL8N2XV3XM
Bad timing for AAF having just invested in more bandwidth in the country, but just turbulence in the grand scheme of things.

Apologies for my annoying lack of precision, blitzed, it never even occurred to me that anyone here might not know which Korea was being referred to. Likewise, I'm contrite at my utter failure to clarify that the article I posted was NOT purporting to represent the views of the entire Korean people (either one).

Let me elucidate. The reason for the post was to highlight the apparent lack of traction in the mainstream media in Korea (both), the issue doesn't appear to be discussed there. When a major company is losing badly in a damaging lawsuit, it is somewhat surprising that it is of no interest to the public. Samsung isn't just a major company in Korea (S), it is THE major company. One reason for posting was to provoke interest in discovering other Korean news sources and gaining a more comprehensive view, because it might give some insight into the attitudes there, and the likelihood of a settlement.

I hope this revised version of the post demonstrates sufficient breadth of thinking, and please feel free to correct any remaining narrowness.

It is quaint how Koreans show virtually no interest or engagement in this case. Their premier national company, which dominates their stock market, is losing a case where they are accused of stealing property, in bad faith, from another country. They report it with next to no curiosity or concern, as if this is an everyday occurrence.
https://www.sammyfans.com/2022/06/02/samsungs-qled-tv-could-face-a-big-challenge-dispute-with-nanoco/

The fact that the full potential of the product stretches out for decades is a positive. That suggests multiple stages of increasing revenue, it doesn't imply nothing right now. He stated there are already increasing inquiries about pharma services as a direct result of the approval and also pointed to three separate avenues of possible corporate investment for the next stages. It seems like some have allowed a short term SP dip to affect their hearing?

"it's fixing the odds". True Feeks, and from a criminal point of view, that may seem rational, but they have gambled on not getting caught, and lost. Then done it again. Crime, punishment, repeat: that is the observable pattern. Their nepotistic management has somehow survived intact despite many losses in court and embarrassing imprisonments, so perhaps there is some sort of messianic 'unbreakable' survivors rationale to their actions.

You are correct that there is no automatic right to settlement, and that the price tag on any settlement has become a designer label following recent developments. Settlement decisions don't just involve the two parties either, Nanoco's backers are likely to play extreme hard ball, and will presumably be experts in extracting the maximum possible. I certainly don't rule out a settlement, but my best guess is that they will keep rolling the dice as long as possible, and despite our justified confidence, let's not forget they haven't officially lost yet.

"no one should be fooled into thinking S behaves irrationally"
Why not? Was bribing the South Korean government rational? Is regularly stealing IP rational, or illegal union busting? The people in charge of the company are extreme high-risk gamblers, and who knows how they evaluate the stakes here.

Excellent summary by Hawi. I still don't think Samsung will settle. Applying commercial logic makes sense to everyone else, but their past behaviour shows a different mentality, imo. I think we are facing trial and appeal, and only then a forced negotiation starting from the position of whatever the jury awards. That might actually result in the most lucrative outcome for Nanoco, and the worst for Samsung, so it makes little sense, but I don't think their strategy is entirely rational. Anyway, just an opinion, it's getting interesting, very interesting!

Samsung's assertion "too speculative" judge? Isn't it really because they were beaten so badly that they need hospital treatment before ever approaching the PTAB again?

Background theme to this thread is September by Earth, Wind and Fire.

SP currently double what it was at the beginning of the year. Placing price showed confidence, but the market now seems to be saying it was too low? The long term nature of the new contract is significant, almost a return to the (false) security of the Apple days. Quite a comeback!

AAFs comments about the DR Congo being their largest geographical market boggles the mind. In fact it is far more than twice the size of Nigeria, but much poorer. Given the technological and logistical challenges such a wide area involves, there is some justification for AAF mentioning improving access to services, as opposed to simply investing in future profitability. Recent infrastructural investments suggest AAF is strategising around long-term demographics beyond just Nigeria, but selectively.

The allegation you made was about fraud, not transparency. This is highlighted by your repeated accusation that institutions are guilty of "mugging" when, in fact, demonstrably, they have followed their obligations to the letter. If you think the regulations need more red tape then say what you want to add to them, don't take dramatic flights of fancy about "cons" and "muggings". You have failed, repeatedly, to substantiate any such claim, so why keep insisting on it? That surely isn't a rational argument. Repetition may be comforting, but it doesn't make your imaginary "mugging" any more convincing.

The point about the issue of transparency being "arguable" was intended to illustrate the difference between a reasonable discussion and one based on a made up conspiracy theory. Your odd interpretation that it was an "admission" of some kind seems like a form of projection, as if I am the one who alleged fraud without evidence, rather than you.

The "wiser" issues may be of relatively little concern to the present case, but they have a bearing on Nanoco's future business across many industries. Samsung's general behavior has been contextually relevant to the discussion as it gives potential clues as to how they may conduct themselves at the trial

Concerns over valuable inventions being stolen is perfectly rational, whether it affects this case or not. Describing them as "emotional" seems to be misconstruing a genuine issue as 'share attachment' syndrome. Samsung's pattern of behavior deserves to be discussed more widely, as they are a company run by convicted criminals whose extreme "strategic infringement" model aims to steal resources from research funding by eliminating all rewards and incentives for inventors and scientists. The consequences they have faced so far appear to have only made their behaviour worse. We discuss them here partly out of shock and surprise at the institutionalisation of infringement, but mainly to gain insight into their approach to the case. The crimes they were imprisoned for were bribery and corruption, rather than theft, but their normalisation of IP infringement threatens inventors worldwide if unpunished. The danger is that other companies will be forced to adopt the same extreme model in order to compete in a race to the bottom. So by all means discriminate between what affects the Nanoco case directly, and what doesn't, but please don't dismiss the wider issues as irrelevant.

BY "RSI", I assume you mean relative strength indicator. That is presumably a measure of strength relative to previous prices, so it's assuming that patterns of market behavior are consistent and predictable regardless of the actual events. In this case that seems to be borne out, but in many others it isn't, so it's difficult to reach any conclusion about whether the indicator is even useful, let alone relying on it to predict anything. The next move is more likely to be upwards, but not because of any indicator, but because the prospects are overwhelmingly positive in terms of profits, relative to the market.

Bookbuilding is not "mugging" and it's not a "con", it is silly to make "whatever you fancy" out of such a well established process. Any system can be exploited by insider dealing, but you were asked for evidence of a "con" (your word) not generalities. If you have no evidence of a "con", why do you keep repeating the word and implying that there was one? If you are merely asking for bookbuilders to reveal all the purchasers names, in the name of transparency, then that is arguable, but it is a completely different thing from accusing people of perpetrating a "con".

Yes, I was comparing your theory to similar ones from people for whom evidence doesn't seem to matter, they think an allegation alone is the equivalent of proof. You now appear to be saying your claims are less certain, more just a possibility based on a set of cynical assumptions, rather than likely or defendable against, say, a charge of defamation. You're suggesting the "con" here is that they are secretly and illegally buying the shares back again at a price fixed substantially lower than the market price. So you are implicating the book building firm as well and suggesting they are colluding in the alleged crime. That is pretty serious, I hope you have alerted the regulators. Do you allege this of all of the secondary placings in this stock, or only the last one? You seem to implicate ALL secondary placings on the market in any stock, since they are all conducted in the same way? Perhaps you are specifically accusing the Singapore wealth fund of wrongdoing? If so, how much is the con worth to them, compared to the rest of their portfolio? Is it a "good little earner" for them after they have paid all the expenses, including the bookbuilders alleged cut? Do you accuse them of doing it with other stocks in their portfolio, or only this one?

AGAIN: the figure on the fundamentals page the OP was referring to is for dividend COVER, not dividend amount. To be even clearer than before: 'dividend cover' is A DIFFERENT THING from 'dividend amount', and as also explained already, it is a ratio, not an amount of money.

Although the dividend amount is irrelevant to this thread and not what the OP was referring to, unfortunately the extract you cut and pasted (which, unhelpfully, doesn't show the dividend COVER figure) contains yet another incorrect dividend amount of 18.33p. Further down on the fundamentals page the total dividend is correctly given as 18.3p - for clarity, this total was made up of an interim payment of 6.1p and a second interim of 12.2p

The term probably seems "quaint" because you are unfamiliar with it. The "secondary" part simply means the shares originated in an IPO and are now being offered again by the purchaser. Why you still imagine there is a con happening is hard to fathom, these are simply sales of large blocks of shares by sovereign wealth funds, and other large investors, done by an appointed intermediary using the prescribed method, with RNS's making the details public before and after as required by regulators. Where is the con in that? If you have information to support your accusation, then report it to the regulators, but just failing to understand is a poor basis for complaint, and making accusations with nothing to back them up seems dishonest and unwise.

Good luck making money from timing the dips: many have tried