The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
"
If you think you know more than I do regarding how litigation works you should buy more shares tomorrow but from where Iām standing Iād say the sum total of the legal knowledge here today (excluding my posts) is zero to the nearest decimal point."
There you go again with your confirmation bias.
"I have litigated in business about twenty times, spent about three large houses worth of money on legal fees and been hired to advise some top litigation firms"
I recall NigWitt once boasted of having exactly the same litigation experience. You guys should get together........
Why on earth did you come on this board pretending to be someone else? That's odd behaviour, wouldn't you admit?
Gigawit/ NigWit is claiming intellectual superiority in this debate due to his considerable experience of having suffered at the hands of lawyers and opponents in a long line of failed litigation cases. But as my father used to remind me, you can send a lettuce on an all-expenses paid trip around the world, but it still won't come back as a Professor of Geography.
Its a weird investment philosophy Gigs when you are forecasting near term catastrophic collapse in the share price. How many years do you suppose it will take to reach $250m + valuation in pure organic growth?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K703ZT-71lc
Technology is "really compelling for image senaing"
Peel Hunt called it a "very conservative" estimate of a trial award (= hundreds of millions). They don't even factor in a wilfulness multiplier, current or futue sales.
Keeping fingers crossed that Brian Tenner didn't have to give away too much of that for the settlement.
"In a note published last year, broker Peel Hunt said any potential award from a ruling in Nanocoās favour was likely to be āin the hundreds of millionsā. Assuming a āvery conservativeā award of $10 per TV, the 26mn TVs Samsung sold using quantum dot technology since 2015 translated into a $260mn (Ā£219mn) claim on lost revenue, the broker said."
The 9/1/23 RNS backs up your point Sammy88. Richards said:
"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.... etc."
This seems to be referring to the current litigation, in other words S has offered an amount to settle THIS case. The first two considerations appear to refer to the instant case 9nly as it does not mention any other ongoing global litigation, or prospective litigation. That comes within the final considerationo. It alludes to further negotiations being required before the final agreenent is struck which is something also referenced within Richards' comment -
"Whilst there is still a degree of uncertainty around the final settlement agreement, we are working with Samsung to finalise the detailed agreement"
That's a good point Sammy88. The BB grumbling might well turn on its head here if the settlement reveals a "big" pay off for N (the term is not sufficiently well defined in this litigation but for sake of argument call it anything >$200m).
If that does happen then I expect there will be complainers who say they were misled into selling. BT will be able to say truthfully that investors have not been guided to expect any particular result in the last RNS, and he would be right. The same thing though cannot be said about a low settlement amount given the content of previous company guidance.
"Itās possible Nanonano. My doubt stems from the underlying young legal principle that a litigation shouldnāt put the parties in a better position than they would have been had the infringing act never taken place. Thatās why I fall back to the quantum meruit basis, which seems to me to click with the companyās announcements."
This is where your total and utter ignorance come to the fore GigW (and yet it doesn't stop you posting).
UK contract law principles don't apply because, surprise surprise this case is in the US litigation and N and S did not have a bleedin' contract. It is PATENT infringement litigation.
Before you post again try looking at the Georgia Pacific model of what constitutes a reasonable royalty. It is not limited to what licence fee N might have negotiated in 2016, as you previously posited.
Your output has been garbage for weeks now, which is strongly redolent of someone who sold and who now wishes to take down the share price
Nanonano I am reposting your comment 13:24. It's just about the first sensible post of the day!
"Far too many posts on here making statements on settlement amounts like it's a fact, when we don't know anything at all.
As far as I'm concerned the final figure should be in the hundreds of millions not tens as some are speculating.
The latest Edison statement reiterated the $250m figure for historic US sales alone. Even if you halved that and then tripled it for worldwide sales, plus future projected sales, all these low ball figures just doesn't resonate with me."
What GigW seems singularly unable to grasp is that the settlement figure is not a proxy for the litigation claim value.
āin a very real sense the $500m we have heard in some reports is a product of speculation by some investors interpreting of inferring from Company statementsā
It might be more, it might be less. No more predictions from me. No-one truly knows. We haven't been told but we will find out soon.
"If there's any visibility at all the market will always get there first. That is why careless predictions of a risk-free multi-bagger were always absurd.."
Alas, but now we shall never know GigW - that must be a source of immense frustration for you!
"If there's any visibility at all the market will always get there first. That is why careless predictions of a risk-free multi-bagger were always absurd."
Gigs - so why in your esteemed view did S see fit to offer fair value for the global patent rights .....!?!?!?