Member Info for Feeks

NGR, then we do appear to disagree on a fundamental point, and I sincerely hope that it is me not you who is right! Some will disagree, but others, I hope, will agree with me. I'll have to review my thoughts on it all. For disclosure I have still not read through a vast majority of BB posts from Monday, 9th January but will review all that soon with great interest.

To assist me, can I check everyone's understanding of what Runcorn can produce now (and historically) by way of revenues received - $100m pa? Would that not account for Samsung's demand in full, and if so, why would that lead to a huge disparity between earnings and revenue? Or was it expected that a majority of production would be outsourced to DOW, for quality control reasons, so that royalty received would be lower?

I've explained that in a previous post. The revenue models relate to Samsung's market share and revenues - those are the higher economic models which are being discarded in the settlement negotiations. If you recall they led to the remarks by ME at the time that they were after a share of Samsung's $14bn. I am sure those possible outcomes were a factor in S wishing ro settle.

Lobo, a natural reading of the RNS would indicate we will be getting both those things - a transformative outcome and money to secure the company's future. One can hardly have one without the other. There is nothing more specific in Nanoco's news output then or now, other than there were 3 damages models which has given rise to some discussion. I believe are now being told to focus on the lowest one, which was to be expectes but which in is itself will be transformative. If the DB exchanges are anyrhing to go by - and they ought to be - that's $10-20 per display on approx. 50m displays sold to date in the US alone. Discount the global royalties, future royalties and the funder's share by as much as you like and it still ends up being a very large sum over $200m, conceivably double that or more. I've seen nothing to tell us we should expect less.

Lobo - correct if that's the oucome coming our way but what specifcally makes you think that N cannot settle on a big damages amount? I have seen nothing which discounts that possibility

NGR -
The only person not kicking himself right now for not selling at 70p is wise owl investor Gigawit who instead has ignored the value of the litigation to focus on long term organic growth. He hopes that in just a few years from now he will be able to cash in his stake for 70p per share.

Gigawit - "You are one of those most responsible for speculating on forums that forced the second RNS and I think it’s time you put a sock in it. At least Sammy88 has had the good grace."

If you recall I was out nearly all day Friday. I missed virtually the lot! I am sorry you have taken such a dislike . Try allow people to have a different opinion to your own.

Lobo-
Do you not trust BT when he said at the end of October results presentation there had been no offers. I trust him. So the whole Turcan thing amounts to nothing at all

Well said BC. Giga's seems to hav little grasp of the events which have unfolded and regrettably his words are a useful echo for the malevolent bashers who are managing to fulfil their own prophesy with tbe aid of LOAM selling. His investment strategy is completely unfathomable and unhinged to reality. Only he cannot see this .

Gigawitt - I didn't have to speculate - Like you I was already invested. And that was not reason for the second RNS. Please explain (clearly) why you adopt a view which I cannot myself reconcile with the actual words of the RNS....

lobo - since you ahve referred to it would you be kind enough to share the content of BT's email please, for those who have not seen it? I don't think it can be confidential, or share price sensitive, at any rate

Crystal clear, GigaWit ?

Edison said only this: "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."

Monday's RNS is poorly worded don't you agree? It could be taken to imply a binding agreement would be concluded, and hence the company really had to issue a follow-up RNS. Edison do not say explicitly that Friday's price volatility led to unreasonable levels of speculation on the settlement value, and nor should they. This would only be the case if the settlement is not finally concluded as a result of the company's Friday error.

Please enlighten us all if you take a different view.

Nanogeddon that was slightly weasly wording if you ask me. The only obvious reason for that volatility was the misleading RNS which indicated that settlement was agreed when the company now says it wasn't - or just not yet. That's the long and short of it. IMO the rest of the market panic is investors not reading the second RNS fairly but it was awfully garbled.

Not what it says GBT

Have sold down half of my holding to invest elsewhere due to the interminable waiting. It wasn't ever meant to be like this....... so I have better use for the money (i.e. increasing my holding in Nanoco whilst waiting to find out how much Samsung will have to cough up for settling the litigation)

MPark - welll.done, a fair post amongst the dross!
I agree that we have surely already reached the floor at c. 36p. $50m for future royalties is VERY low though. That's about 6 months sales...!?

As for why didn’t Samsung buy the company at say a 30-40% premium giving a range of say 50-60p based on a 40p SP.?

There is nothing to stop it doing that, but maybe S is not interested in buying Nanoco's unproven sensor materials business? It would lose key N staff too. Any buy out price would also have to reflect the litigation settlement value for starters too, so a bid approach would have been contrary to S's litigation strategy all along. So putting all that together I cannot see a valid argument for a bid offer to have been made before now.

I am interested to know what is the consensus here amongst the LTH on the size of award currently priced in, and also what value (pence per share) LTH would give to each $100m which might end up being paid by Samsung? . This ought to be something we can agree on maybe?

Other than that, might as well give it a rest now until we get the news. Not long to wait. I am optomistic this will be the defining moment we have all waited for, and when this is all over we will all be thankful to Brian and his team for expertly guiding this company with calm assurance through a most difficult period. I will be eager to shake BT buy the hand and buy him a drink. It will be a cold pint of Guinness, I'm sure.

That LO sold some shares on the release of Friday's great news should surprise no-one. They have been selling down at various points and the first news that a settlement had been reached would always be a trigger for them to sell. Investors always have to have an exit point or else they are just funders. I am sure other investors cashed in too.

Like all conspiracy theories, the idea all this was deliberate discounts the obvious truth which is that LO, just like the rest of us, might have been mislead into selling by Friday's RNS. That would be a particular source of grievance for anyone who instead bought the news on Friday so it had to be corrected immediately to corect the false market.

At the end of October BT comfirmed that S had not made any settlement offers so the rest of your theory falls apart.

Total rubbish @FH. It doesn't happen. The company chooses whether to settle!

You would believe the ABA though? They say it best:

Five Common Misconceptions About Litigation Funding.

"3. Accepting money from a litigation funder will add a decision maker to the litigation.

FALSE. Litigation funding companies should not attempt to control the litigation. A litigation funder is a partner in litigation, but for practical and ethical reasons, the vast majority of funders prefer to remain passive partners with no direct involvement in the underlying lawsuit. While most funders will periodically communicate with counsel regarding case progress once an investment has been made, litigation strategy should remain within the purview of the attorney, and settlement decisions remain solely in the client’s hands.  In other words, partnering with a litigation funding firm should not interfere with the relationship between lawyers and clients. This approach is consistent with the ABA House of Delegates’ Resolution 111A, which provides that “funding agreements should be drafted to assure that: (a) the client retains control of the litigation (including, for example, decisions as to whether to settle or discontinue the litigation as opposed to proceeding to trial or verdict); and (b) that the lawyer retains independent professional judgment.” ABA Res. 111A (2020) at 11-12."

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/commercial-business/practice/2022/five-common-misconceptions-about-litigation-funding/

St1 -
Whether the company decides to settle or continue the litigation, tbe funder has zero say in it.