Member Info for Feeks

lejjb that is shocking if true. Can you re-post it? We can keep pasting it. Trolls everywhere now but they don't have answers. I have always thought 30 days possibly too little for such an important contract. So a big buying opp possibly coming up, if an extension is required.

Again, why do the bears think any time is needed ? According to their simple theory of what the RNS means they have not been able to answer that

BT seemed to explicitly rule out dual source - said N was unlikely to become a supplier to S.

Nanogeddon the company needs to line up a live Q&A very very soon after the next RNS is released to explain a few things and to avoid this tortuous debate again.

You see buzzfludder, what needs to be factored in to your assumptions is that Samsung might have said, ok Nanoco we don't want to start the trial tomorrow so we offer to pay you "X" per display to end this litigation now. What do you say? For sake of argument let's call it $14 per display being the number at the bottom of Edison's predicted "low-end" range for a jury trial - that was set out in their initiation note which surely unto God they will have discussed with N before publishing it, but even if they didn't speak to N, its the best we have got to go on (but now discounted to earnings not revenue).

N says "ok we accept", but there is no agreed historic sales number - N is not privy to that information but the lawyers would probably have seen it. BT said only the lawyers got to see the commercially sensitive information NOT Nanoco Directors, so the end figure still needs to be worked out, and N cannot be sure what it comes to, as it won't have the definitive sales figures, and hence the RNS can only refer to an "expected" value (bullet point 1). That is all perfectly plausible. It would also mean that N can say no more and no less about whether the other territories and future sales will be part of the final agreement, or what valuie will be attributed to those sales (S will surely argue the royalty value would have decreased as the worldwide sales grew massively.)

No distortion of words are required to read the RNS in this simple and straightforward way.

Bullet point 3 - "It does not include royalties. "
buzzfludder - Not what the RNS says. Just your interpretation which includes other possible outcomes (realistic ones).

Buzzfludder - Read your comments on what the RNS means. It is a point of interpretation plain and simple becasue the RNs does not speak as to facts or defined quantities. Nobody can be 100% sure of being right or wrong on the final outcome. It is all in play, even a jury trial, and only GW is saying that no other possibility exists, just as he has done repeatedly in the past. He suffers from faulty judgment and if the settlement figure is low he will be even more sure in his belief that he was right, and no doubt try to make that point too. History shows how he reinvests the past too when outcomes go the other way too. Its a viewpoint of what might occur next, but only that, and no more.

"I'm probably going to get in trouble with many posters here but GW, I have always respected and understood your views and posts. I do not think you have ever acted rude to anyone, at least not in the the last few weeks of my following closer. "

Your comment didn't age well buzzzfludder John.

Troublesome, not I!

Gigs -
You are making it up all the time. I have consistently referred to a possible claim value (with multiplier) of over $1bn for a jury award of damages. I stand by it. Edison and other analysts appear to agree, and that is because it is a wholly realistic assessment of how much is at stake if Samsung refuses to settle. I despair at you and for the IoD for letting you in through the gate!

Replying to you Gonebroke

I am referring to the near 99% of cases that settle. The vast majority settle before trial (only one in 20 make it to trial), with the rest settling before appeals run their full course. I'm quoting BT himself now on those numbers.

At its heart this case is just a bog standard patent dispute, like so many others.

You have not understood a thing Gigs. It is remarkable, You have simply no idea how Nanoco managed to work itself into the position it now finds itself in having these settlement talks with Samsung. Truly remarkable. There is no point engaging with you, but I will report your unnecessarily abusive post - and which also totally misrepresents the balanced views I have expressed on these pages. If you cannot win the intellectual debate on substance then give up.

Gigs, quoting you as someone who totally excluded the remotest possibility of a settlement and became very abusive towards anyone who promoted that idea:

"A settlement was always possible if the barriers to it were removed. It doesn’t take geniuses to work that out."

No, it doesn't take a genius. What barriers? This case is the same as many others, another view point you disputed as being wholly unrealistic.

So you can see my position. What have we got:

1. Second RNS - issued to correct possible misleading impression created by 1st RNS. Strictly NOT a validation of the low final settlement theory. That's a crucial plank in the bear case removed.
2. Additional comment in 2nd RNS: Gross settlement value to be towards the lower end (not low end but maybe close). Likely reference to QD film sale value equating to $200-250m range on historic US sales (source: Edison). But we need to take earnings not gross revenue. What about future and global? Depends on form of FINAL AGREEMENT as per RNS. Company still points to "fair value" for the patents and so you don't just ignore the future / global when we all know that value is appreciably more than the direct US litigation value. Remember: the judge is entitled to award a future royalty rate at the end of the trial, but he doesn't have to - and that's only US sales. The added value part of this settlement deal will be what the parties are negotiating over right now.
3. LOAM selling - always done it / irrelevant
4. Insider dealing - made up slanderous nonsense

Troublesome - Glad you do! It seems my opinion on this is not shared by many here. I find that surprising because it is pure unfounded speculation to conclude that N took action to dampen the market because it was overheated for its own sake. The RNS just doesn't say that. The message is loud and clear. After the intro the next passage says this:

"The settlement process requires further negotiations and continues to operate within the control of the US judicial system, and hence 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."

Edison say NOTHING about this at all, even though it headlines the RNS.....!! A bit of subtle distraction by the company IMO

Sammy
It was headed "Litigation Outcome - Settlement Agreed"

That was misleading, don't you think? And it created the very market speculation Edison speak of? (a false market).

Quoting directly the content:

"The Parties now have 30 days to agree the detailed terms of a binding agreement.

The Parties have therefore jointly requested a stay to the trial that was scheduled to commence on Friday 6 January 2023 in order to allow the detailed terms of a binding agreement to be finalised.

The Company expects to issue a further update on completion of the final binding agreement within the next 30 days."

Given the heading and the third sentence this had the quality to mislead. It says on completion of the final binding agreement within 30 days without qualification with any of the caveats we saw being introduced later. It comes across very much as a fait accompli, a done deal

So what point are you wishing to make..?

ShearClass, 9 Jan. Spot on IMO:

https://www.investormeetcompany.com/investor/meeting/interim-results-for-the-period-ended-31-january-2022

"Q10: Do the lower damages awards as reported by Edison ($200-250m) apply to the current litigation territory (US only) or to worldwide sales dependent on additional litigation?"

"The answer was yes to US only and historic only. 'So if you're using that as a baseline number ($200-250m) then you have to apply those multipliers for the future & the rest of the world'

IMO, the ongoing negotiations will be to thrash out exactly how the multipliers work for 'patent peace' on a global basis... given that US sales only represented 33% of global unit volume, I can't see how this doesn't result in a total payment that is higher than the current market cap..."

Edison's initiation note guidance said to expect $14.4-18 per display. That was based on (low-end) revenues relating to a DOW royalty on the cost of QD film (i.e excluding all the fancy models laying claim to a bigger share based on SAMSUNG whole market revenues).

It led Edison to a sum of $200-250m excluding ALL global territories and ALL future sales. The historical precedent referred to in the RNS leads us to expect those elements to be wrapped up in the FINAL AGREEMENT so they won't be left over for a future negotiation.

"This has triggered significant speculation on investor forums and led to share price volatility. "
----------
"Which volatility would not be a problem for the company if the share price on settlement was about to justify it"
----------------------------
Gigs - wrong AGAIN !!
What happens when investors speculator on the publication of well results on an oil or gas share for example? Do we see an RNS issued every time when the boundaries of credulity are stretched by BB pumpers and dumpers? Rampers who talk up the likely size of the discovery? Not at all! The company is not responsible for that. Punters take risk and they do so in a free market.

Why do you think it is different rules that apply here?

What we did have was a situation where Nanoco could be said to have misled investors into thinking a settlement deal was a done deal. They took steps to correct it on 9/1/23.

Wrong again Gigs. Here is the Edison note para. to which you have referred me:

"On 6 January, Nanoco announced that a term sheet for a no-fault settlement of the current litigation has been agreed with Samsung. Both parties have 30 days to agree the detailed terms of a binding agreement and have jointly requested a stay to the trial, which was scheduled to start on 6 January 2023. This has triggered significant speculation on investor forums and led to share price volatility. "

You say " .. the RNS of 9/1 was expressly written to quell speculation and on my interpretation to prepare investors for disappointment. Please don't try to put words into my mouth."

Your statement is pure conjecture. Nowhere in the Edison note does it support your "theory" as to why the 9/1/23 RNS was issued.

There is IMO only one plausible reason why a second RNS was REQUIRED (legally) and that was to correct the misleading nature of the first, which was headed "Settlement Agreed", when quite clearly, settlement is still far from being agreed. That was the only true reason why bulletin board speculation did need to be corrected, and corrected urgently it was. The lack of certainty as to whether a settlement will be concluded is vital, because on the second RNS we are told if that does not happen then Nanoco may end up back in trial. That's pretty important to investors. It means Nanoco could still lose the jury case.

Do you get it now ? Either way this situation must be interpreted but IMO you have misjudged the situation yet again.