Member Info for Feeks

Stt "I think a settlement around $100m net."

And yet we had an RNS only 7 days ago telling investors to expect a deal worth more than $250m. You are in for a fabulous surprise, lucky you

Calm down GBT you have misread the RNS!

Ticked up your post as one of those who knows F all about nano electronics (though I've read as much as I can to understand it a little better). The beauty of this board is that there are posters who really do understand this and I appreciate their valuable contributions

Gigawit, I'm expressing a valid opinion, and have done so without resorting to an alias. I cry to think there might actually be two people in the world that talk and behave in exactly the same way as you, Nigwit.

I've ticked up a couple of your more measured posts today. I have no problem with doing that where it is deserved. But in your desperation to be proven right and to see others lose money (nice!) you have also spouted some ignorant waffle which other investors should certainly ignore. It was the same scornful and blinkered attitude when you claimed it was impossible Samsung would ever settle. Remember that...?

Transformational is what the RNS implies GBT!

JBongo I agree with your response to GigaNits lament about what (in his view) others have not grasped. The two things are of course inextricably linked. S will have offered a lump sum to settle everything. N, if it minded to accept that offer, must be able to justify the final global settlement amount to its sharegolders. It seeks to do so by reference the 3 factors outlined in Friday' RNS and will of course need data on historic sales and future projections

Screenlearner Sat @16:21
"For example is STmicro reluctant to committ to large orders with Nanoco before the Samsung litigation is resolved! If so, the settlement may trigger movement on this other front as well."
In the investor Q&A BT told us that material set A (closest to production) are not influenced by the litigation. The IP on material sets B and C will be validated by the litigation settlement.

Katsrangler
"and while BT said that the funder would pay for Germany and China, he hasn't included appeals."

BT confirmed funding covers appeals in th investor Q and A.

"51

More speculation admittedly but the second RNS includes additional information that 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.” By itself this could explain the need for a second RNS"

Totally agree ddubya. Finally, this whole mess is making a lot more sense. Friday's RNS was not caveated. Fact is the settlement deal is not guranteed and it is somehow at the mercy of the court system. Monday's RNS had nothing to do with the market reaction in respect of litigation value. (70% was about right IMO). It had everything to do with the fact that the previous RNS should have emphasised the chance that the deal might not complete.

And just toadd, that was tbe whole point of the RNS released on Monday - to explain the factors which have been considered before agreeing that the lump sum is acceptable, i.e why it is fair value for patent peace.

In fact the whole RNS woule be crystal clear were it not for a couple of slighlty ill-chosen words. Nevertheless, two points are 100% certain:

1. Nobody can say for certain how much will be the final global settlement amount agreed upon.
2. The settlement amount cannot be less than the low end award mooted in guidance, and must be somewhere north of that figure, to remain consitent with the RNS.

That comes from the RNS.

"I think we will probably get a top line number, but we won't know how much came from past/ future/US/ROW etc. When the RNS talks about the details being confidential, I think that's what it means"

Totall agree JBongo. BT confirmed this in the investor Q&A

GBT , no but YOU are missing the point. You can't just cherry pick sentences to change the meaning.

The RNS referred to "The gross settlement value", not global. It then says it is usual for any final agreement to pick up the forward royalties to be compensates with a one off lump sum.

Judging by the comments below I did not explain the last bit of my email too well as I rushed to finish what I was saying after pressing send too early.

BND - no, I personally don't think there will be a separate licence. What I postulated is that an additonal licence is a way to make a bit of sense of Monday's RNS IF (which I don't) one is to take the view that the RNS means the entire setltlement deal will be close.to the low end mark for historic US sales - i.e approx. $200m. On a first reading of the RNS it may seem to say that but on a closer examination I do not think that it does. I am saying it probably means the final deal represents the equivalent of around $ 200-250m for US sales plus an extra sum on top of that as representing the forward royalties on the sales in the US and other teritories

On my reading of the RNS the 'final' financial package will account for the value of these future worldwide royalties. The benchmark for estimating the final total is that the hope value which Nanoco attributes to those future royalties is grounded by reference to the same low end dollar royalty number. That is the basis upon which it has assessed whether Samsung's offer to settle represents overall fair value for patent peace.

Putting it another way, the RNS seems to indicate that we should expect a healthy payout some way above $250m (my guess would be $500-750m) because this still represents a big discount and looks cheap for Samsumg if it all ends up reverting back to the trial where these forward royalties could have been awarded by the jury (see filings which confirms this possibility). Nanoco would be able to justify damages at trial for the future US royalties in the hundreds of millions of $ given an estimated 10m units sales per annum.

The expectations set by A are that trial damages in play would be over $1bn on the low end formula.

What the RNS does also indicate though is that because Nanoco has considered other factors too [B] it is going to accept less to get the deal done now, by writing off a portion of those potential future royalty earnings. Precisely how much of that value N is prepared to let go is not set out in the RNS, but one surely hopes the company would not agree to say goodbye to all of it just to dona deal. IMO the final deal will be some way above $200-250m.

Havealot - yes I agree with you that the settlement RNS will not set out these constituent parts but it is how Nanoco willl have rationalised Samsung's offer before accepting as representing far value.

Like other LTH I am putting my faith in BT to judge this right for the company and it would still surprise me if an offer was to be accepted of substantially below $500m. I would also be disgruntled that the RNS, due to all its ambiguities, had not made it clear to expect such a result.

Ok, I take your point hellojello but 'B' is more abstract than that as it includes elimination of litigation and appeal risk which accounts not just for the possibility Nanoco would lose on the substantial merits of its case, assessed objectively, but also its fear of losing the opportunity to seal a company enhancing benefit on offer.

HH the global element falls within 'C' on my analysis, as it is part of the global settlement. It cannot be attributable to A which was for the US only. It could feasibly equate to a large number on top of A even after being reduced by the dscount % for B, but that's where we are trusting BT to achieve fair value overall.

I didn't finish my last post before sending....

IMO the RNS explains that the company is willing to accept Samsung's offer on the basis that 'A' is INCREASED by a marginal amount....... where that margin reflects whatever % discount on its future royalty stream the company thinks it is appropriate to forego in order to buy certainty in the patent dispute.

It might be wrong but IMO other interpretations do not achieve greater clarity.

And finally, if you disagree, then perhaps what Nanoco really meant by 'C' is that historical precedent would normally dictate that the forward royalty is included, but here the deal is considered to represent fair value because here those elements will be specifically excluded from Samsung's offer. And so perhaps, the parties are intending to negotiate a separate licence deal for the future use of N's patents.

Ok, I've possibly worked this out (Apologies if I am in fact lagging behind the rest of you or if I am totally wrong .......).

In their latest update Edison have said this:
"However, a settlement is likely to be based around lost earnings rather than revenues."

The logical interpretation is [Nanoco's] lost earnings [i.e a 'Reasonable Royalty' based upon the Georgia-Pacific/hypothetical negotiation approach] rather than [Samsung's] revenues [i.e a 'Reasonable Royalty' based upon the Analytical Approach] https://www.royaltyrange.com/home/blog/what-is-a-reasonable-royalty-rate-here-are-3-quick-facts

This would put the claim value of the US litigation firmly within the parameters of the expected low-end damages model, exactly as we have been told in the RNS, rather one of the other (higher) revenue enhanced models also touted at trial focussed on Samsung's QD market.

I have read and re-read Monday's RNS as I am sure everyone else has too. I think tbe better interpretation of this (and frustratingly it is ambiguous for the reasons I pointed out in my post @13:28 today) is that there are 3 components, A,B,C against which Samsung's actual offer was assessed, and then concluded to represent fair value.

'A' is the reasonable royalty method discussed above. On a conservative basis we can factor in approx. $10 per display, resulting in a damages sum in the guided range of $200-250m, or thereabouts. In the RNS we are told to expect something toward that range, so it is probably safe to assume an amount a little above $200-250m to represent value 'A'.

However, the final deal does not end up being the value of 'A' unless it was concluded that the benefit of the time value of money/ elimination of litgation & appeal risk ['B'] should be netted off fully by the sum of forward royalties estimated on the same low end $ figure ['C']. IMO the RNS explains that the company is willing to accept Samsung's offer on the basis that 'A' is INCREASED by a marginal amount, but which

BBD, yes indeed so we can all agree it is all too vague and needs clarification. I am sitting and hoping. I never thought it would take such a leap to faith to remain fully invested after Friday's special news.

Intro corrected without typos:

Agree with you Hawi BUT what departs from all guidance and expectations is the value one attributes (on the low $6 rate) to those forward royalties. If value is attributed in the final deal, then there is no cause for concern, but lobo is forecasting otherwise and he seems to have a point.

I've still not read up on what other BB posters the BB made of it

Agree with you Hawi BUT what departs from all guidance and expectations is the value one attributes (on the low $6 rate) to those froward royalties. If value is attributed int he final deal, then there is no cause for concern, built lobo is forecasting otherwise and he seems to have a point.

I've still not read up on what other BB posters the BB made of it, but for me the issue (ambiguity) arises in the phrase "The gross settlement value should be expected to be towards the lower end of the range of expectations for a successful jury trial outcome as previously guided by the Company." Taken as standalone phrase it means the total settlement should be around $200m before the funder's share is knocked off. That is what the market is pricing.

But it cannot unambiguously mean only that in the context of the preceding sentence, which indicates it is only a factor to be considered in the round: "In evaluating the settlement offer and concluding that it provides a fair outcome for the Company and its shareholders, the Board, having consulted with its advisers in the litigation, took into account the following considerations: etc.." unless one is to replace the words "gross settlement" with "litigation claim value" in the first quoted sentence above.

Taking on board Sammy88's astute point from yesterday, I do wonder whether the funder's cut might be bartered down in the context of a settlement which accounts for a measure of future royalties, but for now I will assume that this makes no difference.