Member Info for FlyingHigher

That should be Nanoco's advert

MARK MY WORDS!!!!

Holding, buying, selling and shorting simultaneously actually.
Nanoco to plunge to 9.3p worst case scenario and 24.8p best case scenario.

"The 9/1 Edison note explains this and the possibility that Nanoco may not retain any of the settlement at all"
Well said Gigawitt! The uncomfortable truth people here are struggling to process.
You managed and have been bullish in the past.
I managed and was also bullish before.
Lobo managed and was also bullish.
How clear do Nanoco now have to be for deluded posters on here to get the message?
Nanoco are not getting hundreds of millions and may even get nothing.

What's your point?

"lolololol....." Are you 12? or do you just need to reassure yourself? Cute.

No "I previously posted around the 39p market that I was in a small loss, so I've either sold at a loss since or have a slightly bigger loss on my small investment now." Sure if you want to believe that though ;)

33p/34p is wrong. I won't disclose whether I've sold and at what price. However, 33p values the business at a lofty £106m so I think it will most likely fall below that very soon anyway.
I could be wrong though of course!
I'm definitely done, I promise.
Bye for now.

idontmessabout - I certainly hope so!
Anyway, that's me folks, retiring from this forum until the 'fateful' day arrives.
All the very best.

Picador - Mintz are the legal firm.
The funder are a separate entity maybe Burford Capital - I don't know.
Sorry I started that confusion.

HH your expectations were perfectly reasonable.
However, the second RNS combined with the Edison note left little room for doubt.
We need to reset our expectations and expect something MUCH lower.
Exclusive or non-exclusive matters very little at this point.
The chances of LG or whoever being able to compete with Samsung at this stage are virtually zero.

Blitzed- I've addressed every one of your points in detail in my previous posts. Your new comment doesn't add anything, so I'll leave it there.
Gigawitt- Zero leftover would be disastrous for Nanoco don't you agree.

I'm saying £50m retained by Nanoco - £80m market cap. Target Share Price 24.8p.

Blitzed - don't misrepresent my comments on that. It only sheds you in bad light. The world-view you espoused is more fearful than mine. You rely on the identification of enemies on the right-wing, anti-vaxxers or haters, yet you accuse others of having a fearful view. Broaden your horizons, you might grow as a person.
I hold out hope for you if you're young, you'll naturally grow into a more rounded person once you've dropped your pseudo-moralistic persona and focused on building a positive, productive life with good people around you.

I thought LOAM were selling yesterday and expect another holdings RNS today, but maybe they've stopped?

My stake here has only ever been small, I'm not going to divulge specific details of buying, selling, profits or losses. I previously posted around the 39p market that I was in a small loss, so I've either sold at a loss since or have a slightly bigger loss on my small investment now.
What are you trying to achieve here?
I've been very open about the fact that I expected the litigation outcome to be transformational and that retained damages of $500m+ from $1bn was realistic, so this current scenario is extremely disappointing and will prove catastrophic for the share price, which will likely go sub 20p on estimates from other posters on this site.

IT - NOBODY CARES ABOUT MY HOLDING OR TRADING PATTERNS!!!!
Stop posting this now, it's very dull.

No it doesn't, you're living in cloud cuckoo land with many other posters here.
It completely undermines our display prospects and prices out anybody who may wish to enter CFQD via Nanoco because Samsung got it for peanuts!
The only realistic proposition is we get a tiny royalty from another display manufacturer but that's not going to happen at this late stage in the patent lifecycle.
In short - Display is dead other than what we get from the settlement.

I think Brian's full quote should have been:
"In a very real sense, the $500m figure was one quoted by me, that I now want to distance myself from due to my and the company's inability to negotiate a transformational outcome to this litigation. Transformational was a word previously quoted by me and I now ask shareholders to regard a retained settlement of up to £80m as transformational, despite the fact it will definitely crash the share price as the organic business doesn't justify a valuation of more than £30m maximum."

The display patents will be massively devalued by this settlement given Samsung are the only serious QLED producer.
The other patents are only as valuable as they business they support, which is currently only making £2.6m.