Member Info for ddubya

Morning all. There could be wrongdoings in terms of how SVIC operates and also how Nanosys could have been positioned to exclude NANO from creating a space for itself? It would be a pretty elaborate and deliberate plan if true, however, for the most part such suggestions alleges more serious charges of corruption, rather than simple IP theft. It is entirely possible the trial will highlight embarrassing revelations for Samsung, which may lead to further questions and or legal action but I think NANO and it's funders will want to concentrate (for now at least) on winning the IP claim and worry about the rest later.

Meantime, I shall continue with my personal sanctions policy of not buying Samsung. I am sure Samsung is not at all bothered but I am happy and the current score is. Dell - three Samsung -nil. Next purchase will be TV, and I might wait until NANO's new Display customers come on stream?

On the question of Samsung acquiring NANO, why would the Board want to gift the IR (and many other) markets to Samsung as a reward for stealing the CFQD one? It is worth as much or more and the idea does not make much sense, unless Samsung wants to pay a £bn of two for that , in addition to the distinct matter of litigation.

Absolutely agree Amerloque - loss of the past 8 years opportunity + R&D is NANO's biggest loss. The punishment should reflect the crime of (allegedly) stifling NANO's development in the QD space, and in such a duplicitous and dishonest way. Pretending that a licence was in the offing whilst apparently following another less honest agenda.

I don't suppose the Court has the ability to award damages for opportunity costs but it can award damages on the most punitive basis possible, i.e. on Profits and if it is relevant a 3x penalty for wilful infringement.

ME’s comment below from the above RNS seems to reinforce my thoughts that additional funding is needed to move the business out of ‘hibernation’ mode to help satisfy customers’ requirements. If that were correct, we should see commercial updates in the coming weeks and months and today’s SP may not be seen again. Telling perhaps that Sensors comes before Display?

"...also allows us to continue to fully support our customers in the sensing and display sectors as they seek to expand and accelerate their own product development and sales."

Certainly, there is nothing new in those numbers SL, although I think them more likely than some of the larger numbers being branded around. It is good to hear the story gaining momentum on though.

Importantly, the share price has held up well today given the dilution - that’s what we wished for and hope continues.

Perhaps the message is simply to let shareholders (and potentially the court) know that NANO perceived Samsung to be delaying? After all they only informed the court that Covid prevented it from responding to the complaint very late in the first three month window. It would not have been difficult to make their request earlier, so likely time wasting in my view.

Wow - over 606m shares sold by Amati. Surprising but it does not mean there cannot be an upside. We need to know the outcome of negotiations with Shell/IAG and what are to bring to the party? I expect this to be a slow burner until then or other news.

It feels like a good number on the Board are concerned the amount raised is not enough. Common sense does suggest a need for more. However, if more were raised and a lucrative contract with Merck announced shortly thereafter, shareholders might be correctly upset. Quite possibly I am being over optimistic but had more money been needed I suspect LOAM would have been very happy to oblige on less preferential terms.

In my view, that LOAM is parting with £2.14m on such a narrow discount, suggests expectation of an upside in the near term.

Agree with all of that Nanonano. In my view, Samsung stitched NANO up like a kipper and was not counting on Apple releasing NANO funding its share of the Runcorn development or Covid 19, which has provided more breathing space.

I suspect Samsung may have already made a derisory offer to settle but NANO wants a sensible settlement. Like you, I don't see it being gifted and most likely it will go to Court. Our TP funders now have substantial influence and will want to derive maximum value, so expect the long haul and if an acceptable settlement is made earlier that's a bonus.

Thanks for letting us know botbot :) good recovery plays.

You are not alone Maninpink. I first bought in here around £1.70 many years ago around 90% down :( It may take a while but I think your investment will come good in the end.

I think you are spot on that Auditors wanted to include a 'going concern' qualification Nanonano, something this raise will negate. However, for me, the miniscule discount, more exec money and low size of the raise strongly suggests they have confidence of securing orders and income and possibly even being cash positive end of Q421. Otherwise, a much larger raise would have been the right thing to do and at larger discount. Guess we shall not know for certain until the passing of yet more time but to me, it feels like everything is now falling into place.

Tried registering with Primarybid but they want me to contact them and provide a copy passport so they can do ID on me. Only been at the same address for 23 years and I can't see them clearing me by 9.00pm or earlier fill, so I 'm out of this one I am afraid. I would not have put much more in anyway. Good luck everyone and hope this gives the SP a good lift tomorrow.

NB Tempted with a modest top up botbot?

£2.2m is small change, so presume no more needed. So little and as such a small discount has to be good news.

This round of funding secured and formalised and a 9% increase so far today. Approval was a near certainty so why bring the SP down to that close to the offer price with so much positive news around?
Vested interests no doubt, making money in both directions. I should have known and played this one much better but I have at least been fortunate enough only to buy low and remain undiluted.

By itself, infringing NANO's IP alone would not ensure it was still born Amer!oque. Samsung stood to benefit most if NANO left the scene quietly and was starved of cash to develop its products further, so it's an entirely plausible scenario, if very difficult to proge. If this is what happened Samsung is guilty of far greater actual harm to the UK Economy (and our investment) than the more tenuous allegations against Hauwei.

Proving the use of our IP in Samsung's TV is thankfully a matter of fact but given the stakes this case, if it goes to Court could take some time and there could be unexpected revelations along the way. Meantime Samsung is off my list of purchases - bought 3 DELL monitors last week and did not review Samsung on principle, whereas it would have been my choice before.

The 3X multiple for wilful infringement can certainly be applied in cases where damages are calculated by reference to licence fee but can it also be applied where damages are calculated on profit?

It would be a guess to know if you will be able to buy any cheaper than 6p now Sakha. I bought over 80k more shares this morning at 5.9p and got them at less than ask, so there must have been plenty of sellers around. However, I took the view that the upside is greater than the downside in the near term and we might just get news of a Shell/IAG investment that provides the SP a lift. Longer term I suspect there will be further dilution to ensure that Immingham is built.

Who knows SL but once again ME refers to the profit based method of calculating damages, so it looks like that is the preferred means of attack. Good to hear NANO’s case has been “pressure tested” by the funders and lawyers etc. Confidence in the case seems about as high as we could hope for.

He referred to the cost of the “component” CFQD I expect as being $100, which would equate to $1.4bn of alleged damages, if my arithmetic serves me correctly but of course it is not sensible to pre-judge outcomes.

Also interesting I thought, is Mike’s suggestion Samsung was about to launch cadmium based products but changed it’s mind only when NANO brought CF to the table with Dow around 2011. So it seems Samsung did not even think of CF and it is NANO’s idea.

I don't think Judge Gilstrap will be pleased to see the Samsung case come to Court Nige. I believe he would much prefer firms agree between themselves, avoiding court backlogs and time wasting. Samsung waited until near the end of the first three month window before requesting an extension and the Judge was very generous with the additional time offered, probably to allow negotiation of the out of court settlement. That seems to be off the table now and Samsung is doing what it can to delay.

if Samsung lose, I think the Judge will be hard on them and more likely to apply damages according to profits made. On that subject, ME says Samsung has made an additional $1*4bn but that surely includes a large element of profit received by retailers and not Samsung, so not sure how that would work, although I would be happy to accept.

Wilful damages (3x) by reference to the cost of a licence seems a likely outcome - which at a guess is around $500 to $600m. That would be a decent outcome but probably does not make me £1m from NANO. It is the business that might do that.