Member Info for Feeks

Why the heck are LOAM not totally selling out guys !!!! They are insane. They will be left clutching a total basket case in just a few days. And I thought they were experts at this game..... Clearly not..

Excellent, thank you Agricore

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..."

BTW I think Leoman's discount is conservative as it should be nearer the 20% mark for funder based on this being a bigger award.

Does anyone anyone else recall BTs comment he threw out in one of the investor presentations as an example of how a deal might be negotiated? He offered " 0.75% on 55 inch, 1.1% on 65 inch sales". I listened to it again last week.

I think we will be getting low end towards $200m for the US and a separate amount on top of that to wrap up a deal for the future royalties and non US sales. The more I've studied the words of tbe RNS the more that emerges as really the only sensible interpretation to give it. The tone of tbe RNS is one possible reason to expect less - but there are good reasons why N might have chosen to adopt a low key tone.

Gigs on 8 Jan, Bless him:

"Blitzed

Your post doesn’t quite add up because at #2 you refer to the market undervaluing due to risk. That’s a non-sequitur.

Other than that it seems fair comment to me based on Edison’s estimations of fair value.

The element you may be missing is that the court case is for US sales but there’s a strong likelihood of both a global settlement and an ongoing licence agreement, both of which would be substantially larger than historic US sales so the investment case from here might better be assessed on your appetite for those factors."

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.

Incredibly relevant. They haven't settled Gigs. They are negotiating. Your calculation does not match what is set out in the RNS.

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.

It's a numbers game Gigs, same now as it was then. Shows the scale of sales / damages involved when you have global infringement of a major product line. Nanoco -v- Samsung next.

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.

lejjb yes indeed. One can only draft what is agreed, and the negotiations have to be settled first. In practice desired outcomes may keep shifting as the drafting work progresses.

Troublesome I agree it does all those things too. But the RNS wqs required for a single reason.

LOAM haven't been selling the past few days - no RNS. They must now be in waiting mode like the reat of us.

? It is the most glaringly obvious reason. Just surprised it hasn't been said

Gigs - Edison totally missed important lead content in the second RNS! It is plain why the first RNS had to be qulaified, and qualified it was

NGR. It sure was designed to cool the market !! Nanoco's first RNS had the potential to mislead investors and the company took urgent steps to rectify its error.