Member Info for HenryHistorian

@Feeks: And this Oracle like nature left me disgruntled.
So far BT has not done anything wrong but the communication of the two RNS is just bad.

@bonzoful: No I have never but BT and Nanoco have known all along that this is a jury trial and at least outwardly were very confident so I don’t see this as an argument to suddenly roll over.

Look I believe that GigaWitt is genuine. I don’t necessarily share his views but I think it is important that different views are heard.
I continue to believe in a middle outcome: Less than what I may call the optimists like Sammy88 and Feeks believe in but more than the pessimists like FlyingHigher and GigaWitt.
For me there is simply no rational explanation why Nanoco with:
A) having scored a resounding PTAB win
B) being fully funded until 2025
C) being able to put injunctions in place against Samsung in some key markets
D) being approached BY Samsung for a settlement
E) having repeatedly spoken about major inflection point in shareholder value…
…suddenly roll over and than accept a settlement that would give them just GBP 100m net.

Yes some compromise must be made for a pragmatic early resolution to this saga but I and other shareholders should expect BT to deliver on his messaging. No Ifs and no buts…

To be honest I am less interested in “good” PR. Ultimately what will decide the share price is whether Scancell has good research/platforms so that one or two major pharmaceuticals want to either buy us or license us.

@Sammy88: Rationally speaking I totally get where you are coming from but honestly honestly if you were right I found the words in the second RNS too muted in my case.
Which leads me to the whole point about communication that I found so topsy turvy/clumsy etc - fact is that the second RNS as well as the Edison note was confusing / open to different interpretations etc.
I personally think that Nanoco will have a good future (and am not saying that just because I am invested) but because let’s face it if a global giant like Samsung needs to “borrow” our technology than this speaks volumes about the intellectual firepower behind Nanoco.
However I will also see this case and the settlement that is achieved as a test whether Nanoco can commercially exploit their expertise as there is no point in being intellectually brilliant and only to be commercially taken to the cleaners by unscrupulous corporate players.

@Sammy88: As someone with a substantial Nanoco holding I would wish that I would be sharing your optimism - and mind you going into the trial I was very optimistic.
To be frank I am less so now. I have read the second RNS and my impression (and that is just my personal impression) was that Nanoco management wanted to size down expectations - and also take a bit of cover behind advice from experts they consulted.
Whilst I am more optimistic than say GigWitt and definitely more than FlyingHigher I am also not in your camp.
Personally I hope that Nanoco is left with say at least GBP 160m net.
Anything else and I would easily wonder whether shareholders were led up a garden path as the very bullish comments from BT could not be squared up with a modest outcome- especially as it was Samsung that must have approached Nanoco for settlement talks.

@FlyingHigher: Ridiculous- USD 200m is merely covering the past US sales - not even past global sales!

@lejjb: I think that NGR has posed a very legitimate question here and I would be also curious to see the response of others to his question.
Sorry NGR I can’t answer you that one.

@lejjb: We read the same RNS. What struck me and stuck in my mind was that any mention of transformational was gone and that now only talk of a “firm financial basis” for Nanoco was given.
Look maybe Nanoco didn’t want to appear triumphant in this RNS given that they are still in negotiations about some matters with Samsung but the above was and is some food for thought.
Don’t get me wrong I continue to hold Nanoco and believe that the current share price is too low but I would now be happy with a payout that would put the share price in the 60p range.

@leijb: I honour your enthusiasm but having read the second RNS which was muted in tone I would tone down my expectations.

@RedOrb: According to the last Edison report Samsung will compensate Nanoco for lost earnings not lost revenues.
Now Edison put the lost revenues figure just on US sales at USD 200m but unfortunately didn’t make a guess:analysis what in USD terms this would mean for lost revenues just on US sales.
Any wise people here to comment further?

Oh no please no business with Samsung!!!!!!

Dear all,
Can we move beyond calling each other “tamper” or “deramper” or “basher”?. This is not really conducive to a good debate.
I honestly think that it is possible to look at all the recent communication and come to very different conclusions. So everyone maybe accept we hold different views and maybe hold them passionately but let’s not go down to Kindergarten level.

@Ginodog: Thank you for sharing. Very fair of you!

I don’t think that Edison would be told by management whether there is a dividend or not.
I mean this would be insider knowledge.

@Tevans: Reliably told by whom? As far as I know BT stressed that patents in question were running to 2028 and even 2035. So interested to hear you being more specific.

@Ginodog: Would you mind to enquire what the difference might be between revenues of USD 200m and earnings? That bit in USD amount terms is a bit unclear.

@GigaWitt; I very much doubt it that Nanoco would have released the wording in the second RNS if the net result for Nanoco would have been GBP 0.
I guess this is my final position on this.

@Gigawitt: Ask yourself this: Would Nanoco have gone through all the stress and effort surrounding this litigation only to end up with GBP 0 in its bank account? Surely the answer is not!
I also think that management and BoD are well aware that they cannot accept a settlement and call it fair if it leaves Nanoco not with a decent/good net sum.
Let us all remember here: It was Samsung that approached Nanoco to settle this so they must have made a reasonable offer.
Not ramping up here just stating some obvious points.

@MattyBoy: I just find the Edison phrasing so odd: When Nanoco receives a payout they would surely not distribute it all as dividends? I mean no sound management would say we have a windfall here let’s spend it on 100% on dividends…. Also I don’t think that Nanoco is in the business of acquisitions…. So apart from bolstering their cash position and a partial distribution to shareholders I don’t think they would spend their money…