Member Info for ddubya

I very much like that psychology quite Crisplex. I am thinking of buying in the hope that many average men do likewise and create certainty of a gain.

Then again, LOAM has more shares than I do and is certainly not average in this respect. Which way to go :)

At the relevant time, Dow would have been supplying Samsung with CFQD Gigawitt under terms of their licence with NANO.

Rumour had it that Samsung considered the cost far too high, which partly explains where we are today. So what Samsung should pay NANO, or would have paid them direct all those years ago is probably one on the things up for discussion but an important one.

So, just like the rest of us you have no idea either Nigwitt?

More speculation admittedly but the second RNS includes additional information that the “… outcome of the litigation, its settlement, and timing are not wholly within the control of the Parties. As a result of these factors, the value and terms of any final agreement are not yet certain.” By itself this could explain the need for a second RNS. Admittedly, it also contains additional considerations, including that “The gross settlement value should be expected to be towards the lower end of the range of expectations for a successful jury trial.” Perhaps included simply to avoid expectation of settlement in the $bn’s and a forced suspension of the share?

In short we don’t know but is has been a source of concern to me that LOAM has been selling to around 40p. However, it is possible that different parties, perhaps even with a loose LOAM connection, could have been the beneficiaries?

We have heard nothing to suggests the Board has not achieved the objectives it set in terms of fair value, worldwide settlement or allowance for future royalties, only that the Term sheet identifies a settlement at lower end of expectations.

Like almost everyone else I am completely in the dark as to whether we have secured a large or small settlement or whether it makes allowance for future royalties, so as usual am a passenger on the journey trusting that BT has delivered.

Wake me up when we get there would you.

Unfortunately HAWI, the conflicting and confusing information has made it impossible to know where we stand and speculation is rife . Ironic given that RNS are intended to provide the market with clarity.

I have not sold because I also believe we are on or near the floor and hope the uncertainty will be removed in the short term.

Meantime, let’s get on with the weekend and make it a good one.

You might be correct Lobo. What a let down.

@Troublesome. Who knows T - it has not gone according to my plans so far!

Agazzis. I also read it as being confidential until final agreement by all parties, following which it will become public information. I think it needs to be because it is relevant to NANO’s financial position. Anyone have another view?

To be honest, I have had the jitters myself Henry. The (gross) settlement amount could be anything between £100m and just short of £1bn, and where it lands will make all the difference.

PS I did not sell mine either!

@Flyinghigher. There will be no future royalties but we need to wait and see if the settlement includes a lump sum in lieu for future royalties, albeit discounted (and on a smaller royalty payment). This is common practice because it is simpler than keeping tabs on the future sales which can be manipulated.

Looks like crime pays to me but there is still the possibility that we receive a significant sum. Not sure I will hazard a guess at a firm number but it potentially could be a multiple of present market cap?

NANO seems to have turned good news into bad I am afraid BC. Still you would like to think that our market cap will be covered by the net settlement value and potentially several times over?

In the circumstances with validity of patents apparently secured and potential orders coming, we might hope for a better valuation.

Very disappointing so far but we do appear to have won the patent argument and the firm is in good shape financially.

That’s the way I see it too Giga. Nano will need to take a punt on the future value for royalties and negotiate with Samsung. That will be an interesting conversation given that QD/OLED screens are becoming more common.

The volatility is far from over but in the absence of firm facts an knowledge I am staying aboard. We have to be worth much more than today’s value, or indeed yesterday’s. Time for patience.

NigWit. You could try switching outfits like Mrs Doubtfire but whatever it would still be good to meet you both in Runcorn.

It is great to see people with decent holdings because it looks like we will all benefit greatly in the coming weeks. Payment will presumably be much earlier than it could otherwise have been, i.e. years away and NANO will no doubt use it wisely to invest in more opportunities that will probably make it a long term hold, with dividends

I am now 62, so it is coming at at welcome point for me but I am very pleased to see that relative youngsters are benefiting now when it has greatest potential to give you and your entire family a better standard of living.

Wow Feeks. Have you really heaped ALL of your chips on NANO?

I am overweight but not bold enough to go to 100%, even if I consider the remaining risk exceptionally small (and I do).

I wish you the very best with your strategy and hope it goes well for you and anyone else using the same one.

Above £1.50 would certainly please me and mean that all purchases bar my earliest would be above water.

My guess is that the interpreter and additional legal appointment were just part of plan A, to go to trial, which was in place and being followed until the key people decided to switch to plan B (settlement)?

Ameloque said “acquiring” Samsung shares not buying them NigWit. Surely shares can be acquired in lieu of benefits and without parting with cash.

Either way, happy days. I can’t believe that immediately before trial NANO has agreed to settle unless they have notice of a truly beneficial deal, one that represents fair value. Samsung has as much as admitted guilt so why not proceed to trial (and likely win) unless a better option was available?

£3 per share Sammy. Now that would be very nice indeed and I also consider achievable.

Presumably Samsung would need to agree not to challenge the PTAB ruling on patents meaning that NANO has certainty of licence fees or a discounted advance payment on future royalties.

Difficult to see how the above and other prospects do not add up to a very large amount. I am not buying more but neither am I selling any below £1.50.

I agree Sammy. We shall need to wait for detail but if BT has achieved an agreement to a worldwide settlement and full value over the life of our patents, we can expect a very nice number after 30 days discussion, one that is not reflected by today’s SP, which also seems to ignore the possibility of orders with ST Micro and other display opportunities.

Well done on calling the settlement outcome too!