Stephan Bernstein, CEO of GreenRoc, details the PFS results for the new graphite processing plant. Watch the video here.
Posted by Leoman on 10.Jan. The comment is sensible now just like it was then:
"Ok so if we assume the DOW $6.20 as a low baseline. (While a disappointment I can see some logic in using this number as it would follow the principle of making Nanoco whole for what they would have had anyway)
Previous TV Sales
30mil x 6.20 = $186 Mil
Future Royalties
5 Years @ 10 Million Units a year @ 6.20 = $310 Mil (Then 50% discount rate) = $155 Million
Settlement - $341 Million
Legal Funder @ 40% -$136 Mil
Nanoco Share = $205 Mil
Covert to £ = £168.5 Mil
Tax @ 19% (after allowing 36 mil of losses) = -£25 Mil
Total Nanoco = £143.50 Mil / 322 Million Share = 0.44p a share (+ whatever you allow for Nanoco actual business)
Now obviously pretty much everyone on this board (myself included) would consider that a severe disappointment but from a personal point of view given where the SP is it gives me reassurance to just sit tight."
Clarence 2, I'd say the market has misjudged a few important things abut current company progress and the recent profit downgrade for 2022/23 (adjustment it was, downgrade it wasn't). It's an unforgiving market but there is value aplenty!
I have now added. Strong prospects. I really like this company.
He talks about financials on several of the investor updates, and says much the same every time - i.e. that N will only settle for "fair value" (a term which is repeated in the RNS), and which he defines to mean global coverage for the life of the patents.
Fair value = global coverge + lifetime of the patents. That's the bedrock guidance the company has repeatedly handed out.
CHRISTOPHER RICHARDS: The Board, having taken extensive advice from its advisers in the case, has concluded that the draft settlement offer provides a reasonable and immediate FAIR VALUE for the litigation"
The RNS also tells us the settlement value conforms to company's "RANGE OF EXPECTATIONS" [for a US trial].
So one should pay little attention to non-holders who spout baseless baloney that "something must have changed" at the last minute. The RNS tells us the opposite. N will get fair value, taking account of a discount on future sales value for ending the litigation. The de-rampers want to tell you the discount is 100% but if so then fair value it CANNOT be.
So that's really all they have got. In Gigs case it is pure confirmation bias. He values his own opinion more than others and goes to bed praying that he is right and we are all wrong. He may even privately admit his catastrophic mistake in selling out...... Don't expect him to shout about it though.
Eccles -
I takr your point but a successful jury trial outcome includes wilfulness multiplier IMO.
What a successful jury trial outcome cannot possibly include EVER is a lump sum or royalty for future NON-US sales. As we know, those sales will totally dwarf the value of US sales and the RNS tells us to expect the final deal to include them.
Yes thanks for all the interesting links. Sure beats reading stuff certain posters made up!
In the case report you posted the patentee (JNJ) was awarded 1.67 billion by the jury after JNJ's own sales were $6.2bn. The infringer had made $4.5bn sales with an additional $5.5bn additonal predicted sales. Because the jury found Abbott’s infringement was willful, this is all before the multiplier was applied, but notionally this takes the overall total value of the jury award up to $5.01bn. And all that is for gross revenue on infringing sales at levels way below the numbers which Samsung has racked up in this case. As ME stated S had already made $14bn revenues when this case started in Feb 2020.
"and I might add one of the same group of constant pumpers who forced the company to settle the market with the 9/1 RNS" (Gigs)
There was only one reason why the 9/1/23 RNS had to be released and that's because the company created a false market in the shares when it put out its innacurate news statement on 6/1/23 which stated that a settlement was agreed and would be concluded to end the litigation. N failed to warn investors that there was a possibility of a different outcome, i.e no settlement.
If Samsung's case is hopeless, why have Nanoco changed from talking about Transformational figures to lower end figures extending the cash runway?
FH it is strikingly obvious that until the deal is done it can only be counterproductive for N to announce excitedly to the world what a great transformatiomal deal it has reached. That's just basic negotiating.
TREVV i have not added yet