focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
Unless whoever buys them doesn't plan on selling.
Even if Nano go under,the case is financed independently and will happen no matter what. Over the immediate short term we have about 12 months of funds to run I think I remember someone posting a while ago. Worst case scenario and nano go under we still get a payout,albeit reduced.
Quantum dots make the process more efficient but not more specific so their applicability to mass marketing of screening kits is a bit iffy,they would need to be combined with something to improve the accuracy of the result or you will just get very quick,albeit unreliable,results.
A nice write up in the FT this morning regarding Samsungs' current financial situation. "Samsung said its ballooning cash pile was “a concern in managing the company” and it expects “meaningful M&A” in the near future" despite warnings that a stronger won will increase production costs and reduce earnings for the first quarter. I doubt a buyout of Nano will happen but at least it looks like they aren't short of a bob or two to make the problem go away.
Nanonano,I think that if Nano manage to get an injunction at Markman then they would get a massive boost to even those figures. An injunction against sales in the US alone could add a significant amount to a settlement likelihood,speed and size.It could be potentially catastrophic to Samsung. Nano may not be awarded one of course,but if they are I don't think the presiding judge could give a stronger signal of a likely verdict.
Is that done to manipulate the price up/down?
Agreed. Although if Samsung are worried enough to drop $10bn to try to sway a jury why not have it in Korea? We could probably scrape enough together to say thank you to their imprisoned chairman in person with an award in that area. Seems the polite thing to do.
In fact,should Samsung pay out I propose a board night out in Runcorn to celebrate.
Ddubya,with all due respect to sunny old Runcorn I couldn't agree more.
Putting down $10bn on a factory quite a distance from their main centres of production seems to be a bad business decision to some degree (Samsung main factories are quite a distance away) why would they not just offer $5bn to buy Nano or offer that as a pre-trial settlement? I imagine nanoco would be pretty happy with $5bn and Samasung then wouldn't have the logistical headache of how to get the dots from the plant to their screen making facilities. I can't see Samsung shifting production to the US as I can't work out how that would make financial/business sense (Samsung in Korea are essentially bulletproof and nigh untouchable). If the factory is a thinly veiled bribe then we must be looking at potentially over $10bn at court. I would love to see that figure but I just can't quite believe it. I'm MORE than happy to be convinced otherwise if anybody else has any thoughts though.
I think that this sort of thing is widely known by the public in Texas plus it'll be in Austin.A quick google reveals it to be almost a meme so the actual impact may be aimed more at garnering political leverage,I can't see that flying well with a judge who has ignored the supreme court of the US a few times .A lot of "potentials" stated in that article as well.Samsung may potentially build a factory which would potentially be open in 2023 at the earliest. Surely TSMC will contest this as well so maybe this will have less of an impact than we fear. Personally I'm quite happy to see this if it is indeed a Nanoco related development as it tells me some big sums may be involved and if they are I don't think it'll be Nano paying them....
If it is an indirect attempt to sway a potential jury/verdict at least we know now how much Samsung may be worried in that they are dangling a £10bn carrot to try to get some sway.Also the size of the carrot may be an indication of how much is at stake financially for them.Having said that they do already have a $10bn factory next to one of their manufacturing facilities in Korea so two may be extravagant,a smokescreen or doubling down on the future of quantum dots.
Maybe if future developments related to the court case look likely to give a positive outcome then that would encourage interest from a potential buyer? Would that then have an impact on Samsung's likelihood to settle/make a take over offer as well as the size of said settlement/offer? Admittedly very much an outside possibility though.
It's definitely a possibility.Perhaps Samsung couldn't foresee a situation in which a small fry company would be stubborn enough to refuse to cave in to a no doubt low end settlement offer and then be able to wangle some decent financial backing further down the line to back up the "buy us or fight us" threat.If that is the truth it must be quite disconcerting for Samsung right now,especially with the current legal issues they are experiencing.
I can't see anything happening before Markman,that is the event which will allow both parties to work out their positions relative to each other.Knowing this is crucial to formulating objectives/plans for negotiations as it will form the framework for the conversation to happen within.Markman will set the stage and then it is up to the actors to perform their role to the best of their abilities upon it.
I may have missed it in the avalanche of posts over the last 24 hours but didn't the RNS cover 3 out of 7 drill samples? Why were we given information regarding only half of the cores we sent for analysis,apologies if this has already been covered or if there is a glaring answer I may have missed.
Agreed,the last few weeks have definitely seen an uplift in frequency of trades and size of buys compared to the last few months. Maybe private investors grabbing a few shares before a possible late Feb-March rush?
If anyone would like an insight into how Judges Gilstrap and Payne (presiding over the Markman hearing I think) work together these are worth a read;
https://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2013/06/this-weeks-texas-lawyer-contains-part-1-of-a-may-1-roundtable-discussion-patent-law-best-practices-as-seen-from-the-b.html
https://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/2013/06/texas-lawyer-patent-law-best-practices-as-seen-from-the-bench-with-judge-gilstrap-and-judge-payne-pa.html
Excellent reading for background to the Markman/trial processes and how a judge looks at things with some very positive statements when viewed from the Nanoco context.The section titled "On limiting claims, terms, and time at trial" is one of the best parts. The Gilstrap line "... I uniformly set time limits on trials. I've never set one 25 hours a side. I think the most I've ever set is 15 hours a side..." is one of my particular highlights. Markman duration seems to be just a few hours although deliberation and opinion forming may take up to a month on average.
Have they given any explanation?
Perhaps,but in my view a worst case scenario (calculated purely on a refund of lost license fee alone without proof of wilfull infringement basis) would entail 30million tv sets sold with a fee to Nano of $17 over the last 5 or so years.
30million setsx$17=$510million
$510m/306m (current number of shares in issue)=$1.66
$1.66=£1.25 (1USD=0.75GBP) per share exclusive of any other additions/costs
So unless one had bought in at pretty much the peak of Nano share price there's a fair chance you could sell at some sembalnce of profit or break even.