Member Info for Feeks

I've only read 5 minutes of posts today and yesterday, but clearly this thread has descended to the level of every other BB on LSE. NANOCO is not going bust. Quite the contrary, it is in the process of eatablishing itself as a proper company via this successful litigation. So much carp being spouted. ...... IMO there is no inconsistency between Friday and Monday RNS. There is also nothing that needed to be said on Friday that was left unsaid. Monday's RNS did not create any false hope of a larger award; and finally, there is no concern with LOAM selling. They are a major player who have sold repeatedly at times of good news and most strikingly, often before the release of good news.

Frankly, I have no idea if this comment will find general agreement or disagreement by others here, but its my firmly held view and without anything more tangible to go by, I'd not rush to sell when Nanoco has agreed a company defining result. Certainly, the manner of it can hardly have been unexpected.

@Bobby3 19:50

That's how i read it too. It's a riak factor that has influenced the decision to settle

Nanona - yes , that's the point I am raising too.

Lord WM -
Re -Future Sales
Assume 10m units annually for dismal 5 years @ $8 = $80m

Do you not mean to say $80m per annum for 5 years = $400m?

blitzed, you said:
"My apologies, I wasn't necessarily insinuating that you'd made those £1-2 claims but you did say yesterday that you thought this board knew something the markets didn't. I'm not sure how that looks today."

Isn't it the same thing ? The company is saying the low end damages award is broadly correct. Many have accepted that but I have queried whether it was up-to-date on actual sales numbers giving the sharpy rising trend. That may not matter a jot though, because the future royalty is being capitalised now, though we may have to accept the value of that royalty will be reduced by a factor of 50% (or more?) for the privilege of securing early payment and elimination of litigation risk. The size of the discount will no doubt reflect that N cannot sensibly take a chance when its future business prospects can be underwritten and enhanced with this financial security.

Is the Kebab Party still on in Runcorn ??

@Troublesome, maybe just chips?

What to do? Much uncertainty abounds but I am going with gut instinct whilst tending to side with comments made by others here that the 'headline' words may appear somewhat worse than they are. The very bottom line is that a company with a guaranteed financial footing is a worthy investment in its own right particularly as organic orders are expected this calendar year. We might just have to wait to do it without the immediate bang that I had been anticipating (and credit where it is due to Gigawit / NigWitty for stating this previously!).

On balance I've added to my holding today (at 46p) on the basis I consider the initial drop this morning is probably too severe given the imminent prospect of a global 'once and for all' settlement which seems to be what the settlement negotiations will now be aimed at, and which did not seem possible only a few days ago.

More importantly, I've also taken this opportunity early doors to reduce my wife's expectations of early retirement to the dust.

I don't know what to make of it, so sadly I think the market will be down!

@Hawi agreed. LOAM selling shows no insight into future share price direction but I agree with those saying it held back the price on Friday.

Thank you for your comments Henry. It matters to know that someone with your background has reached such views, which by and large reflect the conclusions reached by many others on this board. I would not be a bit surprised if we see 70p levels tested again today as the market surely now wakes up to both the enormous value of the historic sales and the size and strategic value of what is on the table for future sales. It is writ large and has been for some time.

Yep, and I backed a settlement too. Its just that I ended up thinking it would probably come about immediately post- trial. Personally, I thought the notion that Samsung would appeal come hell or high water was possibly unrealistic given the high odds of reaching settlement in all cases and given the situation which had actually been playing out on key motions as the trial progressed. Others believed this case to be somehow special and immune from the possibility of settlement.

Blitz -
Past experience tells me it is no. 1 but as ever the market will catch up pretty quickly (see how this rises tomorrow.......).

The PTAB result is one example. The importance of that win contributed directly to the pressure which resulted in Friday's RNS. Samsung's strategy was badly damaged at that point. I'd say Pi's here cottoned on to that much quicker than the general market in value terms (i.e risk reduction).

Another example was when the judge denied a motion to allow.S to re-question the validity of the key patents. That was a relatively obscure looking document which had gone largely unnoticed amongst dozens of others being uploaded to the case file. I posted here that it was a highly material decision and subsequent to that (more than a few days later) the company then highlighted its significance to N's litigation prospects in an RNS.

As for fair value, I think N will get pretty much everything it reasonably wants from a global licensing deal. BT said they won't settle for less and I believe him as N was entering trial with a strong chance of proving wilful infringement. There is no need for N to discount any significant value on account of litigation risk after PTAB, or for time-saving on the drawn out appeals process when Samsung will be very happy not to get stuck with a 2x or 3x multiplier on the damages. That's the deal-making factor which would have hurt S given base damages are so high. My view, therefore, is that the market on Friday has seriously underestimated the value of the deal N is likely to conclude with Samsung.

BEcontrarian I might as well stop posting as you and I are of the same mind!

Gigawitt -
Will you be able to attend fhe investor get together in Runcorn? Don't worry nobody will expect you both to be in the room at the same time.

Becontrarian I am re-posting your post from Fri 16:08 (unbelievably I've still not caught up with any later messages after yours) as it captures exactly what has been playing round in my mind as I read the 'guff from the day traders'. The determined research effort has paid off for LTH's. Personally, I have never felt better equipped than I do now to make the right decisions quickly and ahead of the market. The market seems to be misjudging the Nanoco situation again and again, and right now I feel sure the SP does not get even close to reflecting the sort of value that BT would agree to settle at.

" " not everyone is sitting here comfortably, what with the way the sp has played out today"

Let me assure you every long term holder, like me I assume, has been sat with an unwipeable smirk on their face all day.

There’s been a whole load of guff from day traders. Fine let them do what they do.
But LTHs have an edge, they remember what Tenner said, and they have a pretty good idea about what sort of figures are involved. I’ve never been so relaxed. 100% of my portfolio now sits here and I am happy as Larry.

There’s not long to wait to see exactly what this settlement is worth, but my money is on everyone in under £1.50 being very very happy indeed."

Lord WM - if it is not too impertinent to ask... what size 'top up' have you ventured in with today? I agree with you, but then like you and others I've spent a lot of time heavily researching this company and I suppose we do not have the details yet of the settlement deal. But to me the current SP is highly enticing and I am almost convinced it is time to take on a dollop more risk again (and so soon......) over and above what I bought a short while ago

33647 shares bought at 59.44p

I remain a LTH with an eye on value - lots of that to be had here!

Baznick I was holding around the same ratio too in my trading account, SIPP and ISA - it is the majority of what I have. Its not for everyone but i feel comfortable with contrarian risk - and I have lost plenty of times too. One cannot always win. So today I celbebrate ..... though unfortunately I do have to attend a funeral later (awkward)

Apologies for spelling errors! Too excited.

I have been playing pretend doctors and teddy bears picnics with my young daughter since 6am and so have only just switched on to this AMAZING news!!!

I had just about given up on a pre-trial deal. Sammy you wete right. .... This is unbelevable.... I am coming to.
RUNCORN!!! .

I must question the efficacy of Nanoco's proposed introductory wording to Question 4A - and maybe if someone from the company or legal team is reading this, they will re-consider the point.....? The second sentence below is ok on its own, in my view. But the first sentence might inadvertently lead to the jury into thinking a split ("Yes" / "No") answer for questions 1 & 2 will always require them to answer question 4, whereas in fact, that will not be the case where a valid patent is found not to have been infringed and vice versa.

"NANOCO: If you answered “No” for all Asserted Patents in Question No. 1, OR if you answered “Yes” for all Asserted Claims in Question No. 2, then DO NOT answer Question No. 4. Answer Question No. 4 ONLY as to any Asserted Claim that you have found to be BOTH infringed AND not invalid

It does the same thing, but in my view Samsung's proposed wording is simpler to follow and less likely to result in a mistake by the jury:

IF YOU ANSWERED “YES” IN QUESTION 1 TO FIND A CLAIM WAS INFRINGED, AND YOU ANSWERED “NO” TO QUESTION 2 FOR THAT SAME CLAIM TO FIND IT IS NOT INVALID, THEN ANSWER QUESTION 4.IF YOU FOUND ALL CLAIMS TO BE EITHER NOT INFRINGED OR INVALID, THEN GO TO THE FINAL PAGE AND DO NOT ANSWER QUESTION 4.

https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Nanoco-Technologies-Ltd-v-Samsung-Electronics-Co-Ltd-et-al/Exhibit-A-Joint-Proposed-Jury-Verdict-Form/txed-2:2020-cv-00038-00279-001