Member Info for Feeks

Sorry I was behind on posts but I see now that others pointed it out

Hawi
Thank you for setting all that out @7:14. I think you have missed something, which adds to the positive side of the scales:

Your point no.4 :
"Nanoco pays corporate tax from the settlement (currently 19%) - you still have to deduct that."

However, Nanoco would have to pay UK corporation tax on the amount received, which could be offset against £36m losses. (Source: Edison)

Nig / Gig wit -
Posts like a true de-ramper, up there with the all-time best of them, but more likely is just a man who is really determined to be right above all else (the sort who ends up wrapped up in endless litigation), even where it is to his own detriment. He is someone who finds it difficult to accept anyone else's opinion is valid, and can never ever admit to being wrong.

A close friend of mine (a commercial litigator, not patents) once told me that only idiots ever go to court - the rest settle. That comment has always stuck in my mind and which is why I was so pleased that this case did settle. I might be wrong on the final numbers - $200-300m is looking much more likely than >$500m - but settling for nothing is no better than going all the way and losing. That simply cannot be the end game.

Gigwait, if true then I recommend you try expressing you opinion on the substance of the debate and refrain from attacking me and others for merely pointing out the lack of logic in your posting. I would try to be kinder on you if you stopped doing that.

I pointed out the pure nonsense and lack of logic attached to your claim that Nanoco will get little or nothing out of the financial settlement. You have not responded - "wriggling off the hook" as you call it.

What's your answer, to that and how do you consider it is consistent with the two RNS?

And here is one more pearl: " It has always been clear to me that posters lead by you and Sammy88 had unjustified expectations and you still appear to be disillusioned."

Sammy and I both stuck our necks on the line to day that we thought settlement was likely. You suggested that we were disillusioned and the market always knew better. You were totally wrong.

The ONLY point we don't yet know is the final damages figure for settlement - we only know for certain it will be less than if Nanoco had won the case after running it to a final conclusion.

Nigwit : "My view on the litigation is that it was a cherry on the cake and no more."

Me: You are actually seeking to persuade others there is no cherry - and no cake.

Giga / Nig, notice how I played the ball not the man? If you did the same then you might find people were prepared to listen to what you had to say. Your post made no sense and I see you have not defended it. Quite right too!

As for my "ramping" as you call it, I've been very much positive on Nanoco ever since buying at the 10p low, and have shared those views here whilst buying at many times on the way up since that date. It was certainly a good call, but equally I have not ever traded or encouraged anyone to buy at prices above the current SP for my own gain. In fact, amongst well over 1,000 posts since Friday morning I have contributed just a small number (about 10 perhaps?). I have dipped in occasionally but I have still actually only read a small handful of posts since 12pm Saturday - that was about as far as I managed to get whilst catching up on them after being out Friday and the weekend.

My views are formed on the basis of what is fairly represented by the RNS output, and if it turns out that others know better than I do, then they must have a channel of communication for info which others in the market, myself included, so not have (I don't rule it out).

But if the numbers are really as poor as you suggest it is utter lunacy and also the Directors will have some serious questions to answer. More likely it is again poor judgement displayed on your part.

What you say makes no sense whatsoever.

If Nanoco gets little or nothing then Nanoco has no reason to settle. Nanoco does not have to pay any fees for losing, and if it does not win sufficient damages by settlement or otherwise it may not suvive. It wouldn't settle on that basis, and legal duties applying to Directors make it so.

I really also think its time you let go of all the negativity from the bad personal experiences which NigWit has suffered in court rooms, and start remembering that he is not you.

Are any of you guys and gals into EAV too?

https://www.seedrs.com/eav4

Worth looking into given the shared company links between them.

Dont be so obtuse Nigwit. See my post at 12:39. I have said it.

I've set it out. It's a short RNS and it has also been discussed in hundreds of posts.

It's what we are discussing Nigwit. Please see previous posts.

Gigawitt -

Please explain how PI's disclosing their personal positions should have any bearing whatsoever on the Company RNS output..... !?!?

A company Director has to act truthfully and in the best interests of the company. The Board has no duty beyond that to insulate shareholders from the consequences of their own decisions.

Nigwit - I look forward to your answer!

Gigawitt (Nigwit) - the company only needs to be clear with the RNS it puts out. It has a legal responsibility to do so. The issues are caused by the apparent ambiguity in Monday's RNS, and not anything else. Right now, the market is oversold or the RNS is misleading - it really cannot be both.

Gigawitt whilst I agree with some of what you say in your 12:00 post I cannot possibly agree with it fully post because it is only the release of Monday's RNS which causes a problem, and in my view, which now needs to be clarified. I was perfectly happy with Friday's RNS as it was.

At present I have no concrete idea of what overall sales numbers will be factored in for present and future royalties, and most importantly whether (a) the global total of all that results in the sum of the 'low end award' previously mooted, and which now forms the relevant guide or (b) merely whether we should use the low end $ per display royalty figure (approx. $10) to work out the overall amount of damages (The quid pro quo being a 'no fault' settlement for Samsung and NO wilful infringement damages multiplier imposed.

That sounds fair and so I am firmly of the mind that we are dealing with b) not a), but oh Boy it needs to be illuminated properly now, and if the company does not know the numbers as it depends on negotiations then please do not belatedly suspend the market after horse has left the stable door.....

By contrast, if one is to stick with a) then to my mind it means writing off ANY value for the future royalties which indicates near total capitulation by the company without achieving fair value, all of which would cause me enormous concern as a LTH because Monday's RNS is inaccurate and misleading.

I hope the lawyers are reading this.

Hawi that's my understanding too and maybe a lot of the LTH who have shared comment on this board would hold a similar view. Maybe that's the problem - the Board has misjudged the general sophistication and level of knowledge amongst the wider investment market and the degree to which a relatively uninformed band of PI's (gamblers) are always ready to leap in on news. Certainly, the RNS might have needed additional explantion if only ro specify what exactly what is meant when referring to low end damages, and if sales numbers do have an anchor figure for investors to base their own calculations. We had worked out here that forecasts on sales numbers are badly out of date given the length of this trial almost 3 years). But if this data is confidential info then it was wrong for the company to let the market guess and Friday's RNS was already sufficient information for the market

One would rightly hope at this stage that if the reason for Monday's RNS was to curb some of the enthusiasm which had gone too far, there will be a follow-up RNS very soon to clarify the position given that a world of different views are now circulating as to the meaning of Monday's RNS. As far as it goes now I'll actually be pleased if the parties call off the settlement talks and we do go to trial.

lobo - Welcome back. I've just read your last post. I agree. Looks like a bit of a horlicks to me, which could have been avoided. It is strange to feel so deflated after what was fundamentally great news on Friday.

My preference would have been a suspension of shares on the release of Friday's RNS because the announcement of a 30-day settlement window was inevitably going to attract the speculators. But perhaps the market rules would have deemed the introduction of such controls to be unfair. Does anyone know?

Correction: FRIDAY'S RNS did not create any false hope of a larger award;