Member Info for Feeks

NGR - I don't have to take my advice from you as I have a much better source!

Nanoco's PREFERRED outcome, i.e. agreement to Samsung's offer of settlement was CONDITIONAL upon the aforementioned FAIR VALUE. What persuaded Nannoco to settle for a result that was, in share price terms, equivalent to defeat. It was because the public messaging was askew and NOT corrected, and only retail investors were left in the dark. That much will be even more obvious to a court if Hamoodi is successful in his pursuit of LOAM.

NGR read my words:

".... in the context of the company's own pronouncements on litigation value."

You seem desperate this morning. No doubt the 50-55p benchmark has you worried.

$150m IS an insignificant sum in the context of the company's own pronouncements on litigation value - that is precisely why the share price crashed. The size of the final award was akin to Nanoco having LOST the case, when they didn't. It was not a punt at the point the case was effectively settled on terms that were deemed by the Nanoco board to represent FAIR VALUE for its GLOBAL PATENTS BOTH PAST AND FUTURE. Both parties agreed to settle, rather than risk losing, and yet Nanoco had indicated to the market that they would only SETTLE on terms that they considered to be"fair value" for a global market bigger than the US litigation.

I don't think I have ever seen anyone before now quote BT's comment on the 50-55p benchmark value. That's base value for valuing a beneficial outcome to the litigation.

Retail investors have lost money and you lot defending the company have no answer to this.

@1:02.15

There's your benchmarlk -

BT values Nanoco at 50-55p or bigger from an organic point of view WITHOUT a successful litigatiion result

ttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BDWwHZFFWFY

@47:09

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BDWwHZFFWFY

BT affter discussing potential settlment offers and 'fair value':

".... potentially transformative for shareholder value..... you only need to look at the numbers of the tvs.... the value of the markets.... and even ascribing relatively low royalty rates to those you get to ain Nanoco terms very significamt sums of money

@38:17 BT states that they "... are only going to comment on material risks and issues " . And yet didn't make any comment on the legal judgment which supposedly changed the company's whole prospects on the litigation

FY Results October 2022 @24:27

"...... any early settlement.... it is going to be up to Samsung if they are prepared to engage in meaningful discussions about fair value that reflects the global nature of our patents and tbe lifetime of ouelr patents."

Apples and pears. The US litigation was for historic sales in the US and NOT worldwide sales past, present and future!

It was more than that. BT talked of a claim value worth a multiple of the share price. I am sure someone would be able to post the investor conference question and answer where he talked about that.

You haven't answered the question. You cannot answer the question. It is not research I'm looking to you to provide. I want you to tell me how you interpreted those words to reach such a different interpretation to my own and to a whole mass of retail investors. Your best answer seems to be that BT was not speaking the truth. That's not a stellar defence. You also said that BT was not giving a blow-by-blow account tlof the case. But in fact he was doing just that by telling the world the company's stance on the litigation and what they hoped to achieve from a settlement.

No speculation is required on my part because settlement WAS achieved. What changed is the company's stance on a palatable settlement, and without warning. You seem to fail to grasp this simple point. You were obviously fed an inside line. It would explain quite a lot that you were.

Terror Wit you did not answer my question which must be because you do not have a sensible answer. I repeat. What did you expect when you heard those words? And how does that remain consistent with what happened? Please tell me I am all ears. Let's see if you can answer me without throwing insults..

I listened to BT !!!

What I never anticipated is that the settlement value would not be in accordance with the company guidance - nowhere near it, in fact!

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDWwHZFFWFY&t=1061s

@46:14 to 47:06

To the naysayers, listen to BT's words. How does the settlement represent "fair value" according to BT's measure of worldwide infringement past and future. What's your absolute best answer to that question....?

I pray that Nanoco instruct you to draft their defence Rodney/ Terry

Kooba (Feels! LOL)

I agree with you and your reasoning. I had very similar thoughts to yours. I know only a little about the Hamoodi litigation but that claim is directed at a different target presumably because, for Hamoodi himself, it represents the whole or main loss of value, and possibly a cleaner line of argument too. I agree that any later litigation claim will benefit from that case being heard. For all I know Hamoodi may be thinking of taking on other satellite litigation after this case. I would be very interested to talk with him. Is anyone here in contact?

Anyone who bought shares in reliance upon BT's earlier pronouncements after public release of the first and second settlement RNS can feel jolly aggrieved, and may very well have a good claim against the company. The case may be somewhat wider than that simple issue but IMO that is the crux of it. It seems there may be some appetite for this. I do not think anyone should identify themselves just yet but if it is not too embarrassing can someone please re-post the list of shareholdings as it may be useful to gauging the potential losses.

I wiped out some pretty tremendous gains of my own on the basis of BT's nonsense remarks. I would have taken my profits on settlement had it not been for that one issue. But just like others who carried out their research fully and diligently as I did, my expectation was that a settlement value would be worth a handsome multiple of the share price, and that belief continued even after the obfuscation of the second RNS on the basis of what BT had previously stated. There are very few people who disagree with this opinion. One of the few is an amateurish investor who despite all his other incomprehensible ramblings somehow produced a seemingly relevant legal judgment. I am deeply suspicious of how he managed to do that.

Ps. Why did Nanoco not choose to publish the proposed settlement value itself? Was there a regulatory/litigation or contractual reason for not doing so?

Masterbaker

I popped my head in here after quite a long time away Md was looking perhaps to reinvest, but 2 days later, what do you know , monkey pox has hit the headlines so just for now i'm just going to remain sat on the sidelines

The question is whether there are other people on this board who would actually wish to bring illegal action for their losses. I could potentially co-ordinate a cost effect ive route to handling this matter as I have friend's who specialise in providing such services.

Please vote up this post ONLY if you might potentially wish to become involved.

Terry, the sums are relative. There will be many instances of where a claimant company has settled for less than 10% of the immediate claim value just like Nanoc did. However Nanoco choosing to settle for an undervalue to its own publicly stated investor guidance is without known precedent - unless you can name one. Go on, can you? I'll wait for you to answer.

Terry

Comedy is not your strong point, except when you are trying to be serious that is

"Critical thinking doesn't mean being critical it means having the presence of mind to know what's happening "

Do YOU know what's happening TW?