REMINDER: Our user survey closes TODAY, please submit your responses here.
Flying higher, Gigwitt - would be interesting to get your take on this given that this came directly from the outlet who wrote the article of which you were using as context for the “absolute facts” that you’ve been discussing for the last two days?
FH - Remember “ Retaining nothing is now entirely credible.”
Gig - Remember - “ The 9/1 Edison note explains this and the possibility that Nanoco may not retain any of the settlement at all.”
Re: FAO: Anne Margaret Crow - Edison Note on Nanoco Litigation Update
Dear Ryan,
What we mean is that one Nanoco has received the settlement cash - management is likely to seek to retain enough cash to support the commercialisation of its organic business, and then is likely to redistribute the balance to shareholders.
Thanks
Dan
Dan Ridsdale?
Head of Technology , Edison Group
Tel: +44 (0)7930 166512
dridsdale@edisongroup.com | www.edisongroup.com
280 High Holborn , London , WC1V 7EE
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
LinkedIn
All - I had a response this morning from Dan Risdale, Head of Technology at Edison. For transparency, I’ll also share the email that I sent:
Hi Anne
I hope this email finds you well and that you had a nice weekend.
I am a Nanoco Investor and recently read the note that you penned for Edison following the Nano vs Samsung litigation update (Settlement RNS and additional RNS on expectations)
One statement in the note that seems to be causing confusion is “ If the company retains any of the final settlement money….”
Most PIs are interpreting this as meaning that Nanoco may use its portion of the settlement to distribute as dividends or to invest rather than use for cash runway as opposed to Nanoco not keeping any of the settlement once the funders and lawyers have been paid.
Are you able to clarify what was meant by that statement?
Many Thanks
FH, Gig - I have fired off an email to Anne Margaret Crow who penned the Edison note to ask for clarification on what she meant by “If the company retains any of the final settlement money….”
Will await a response and post here so that we can all get some clarity.
Gig - the market will be pricing in the worst case scenario of the settlement and has found its level in the mid/high thirties. Ergo, the market doesn’t believe that this could settle without Nano retaining any of the settlement. Pulling out a sound bite from the Edison note - when people have already pointed to what it likely means, the RNS is clear, and the market has reacted in a way that £0 isn’t realistic - is pretty irksome.
I find it unkind when the Stock Bashers suddenly appear from nowhere here - intent on overloading this board with their tirade of negativity. So will find myself fighting back.
All well balanced opinions formed using evidence at hand are welcomed.
“Litigants often get into situations they later find they can't handle. There's always at least one party who comes out of it badly and very often there are no winners except the layers. It happens every day”
Not denying this but bit that is pretty easy to follow if there a few bits of grey matter between the ears is that
1. The RNS statement was released 13 days ago
2. This statement was released AFTER an offer was presented from Samsung and accepted (subject to landing final loose ends in the following 30 days)
3. The company used the words “fair value to the company and its shareholders” in the RNS
4. They would have know EXACTLY how much of the settlement will be dished back out to the lawyers and finders at this stage.
If you think that, with the above in mind, that Nano can still end up retaining £0 then you either need to book a trip to the GP pretty sharpish or your motives are very obviously questionable.
Thanks JBongo - well stated.
He’ll probably just ignore but it appears as if he may have a head injury.
The company have seen the settlement on the table and have agreed it and have stated that it provides fair value for the company and its shareholders.
I’m not sure whether to believe that OR believe someone who’s appeared out of nowhere three weeks ago and is peddling that fair value to the company and to shareholders could well be £0!
What an embarrassment to this board.
“ Nanoco will pay full legal costs from the reduced early settlement and a multiple of that will be given to the funder.
The reality is zero is a possibility.”
Can you please explain in English how your suggested outcome of zero being a possibility equates to the “fair value for the company and its shareholders” specifically stated in the RNS put out by the company?
The Monday RNS said “ In evaluating the settlement offer and concluding that it provides a fair outcome for the Company and its shareholders”
If you are suggesting that the “fair outcome for the company and its shareholders” involves £0 retention of the payout then you are even more embarrassing than your string of posts suggest.
Nano make the decisions, not the funder nor Mintz. Any poster supporting the theory that Nano may walk away after all of this and having agreed to settle, without retaining any of the award, loses all credibility. (Regardless of the Edison note). Not that the posters in question had any credibility in the first place (all activity straight out of the stock basher / shorter playbook).
Ah makes sense now. Sold at a loss - now wants to see others lose.
So a slight variation of my previous metaphor.
You’ve lost all your chips at the poker table but instead of leaving the casino, you are standing next to the poker table shouting at the other players in hope that they will also lose all of their chips.
Class act.