Member Info for HenryHistorian

I follow the discussion here with interest and have to confess that I also interpreted the Edison note the way FlyingHigher had done but now think that JBongo might be right.
Which all leads me back to how awful communication has been. The Edison note was not clear enough and I wonder whether they should be even allowed to put out such stuff as it actually not is really helpful. First they write about revenues and than 5 past 12 talk about earnings…
And than this sentence about retention….
It almost seems to me that someone wanted to create concern amongst shareholders.

@lejjib: Unfortunately more will be taken off for litigation funding.., it is a sliding scale I think from 50% for a low award to 20% for a high award.

@NGR: I believe that you genuinely hold the opinion that you state here.
I guess if we walk out with a modest net payment to Nanoco management will have sold their research efforts cheaply to a thieving organisation.
It would also signal to me that all the rhetoric about major inflection point in value and being transformational were conveniently forgotten when negotiating the settlement.
Again no one knows anything for certain as we are all waiting for the “final” RNS.

@intrusivethought and NGR: I respect both your views and hope that you are wrong as obviously I am more optimistic but one can legitimately hold very different views as let’s be honest the second RNS still left things deliberately wide open.
I think my figures would be more reflective of major inflection point and transformational messaging from BT but I also note that the rhetoric was more restrained in the RNS.
Anyway not long to go but for me the outcome here is a real test of the credibility of management to me as I only want to invest/stay invested in companies where I can trust management and its messaging.

@intrusivethought: Are you serious with being happy with GBP 50m retained by Nanoco?
I mean let us revisits Edison research notes:
-lost revenues alone in the US is ca USD 200-250m
-the US is only one third of the market so time USD 200m with 3 and you get USD 600m in lost revenues for the past alone.
Now let us really be conservative and say hey we are willing to compromise/make sacrifices to come to an agreement as well and we from Nanoco will slash the USD 600m by 50% and you would still arrive at USD 300m for past global sales.
However there are also future sales with patents going to 2028 and even I think 2035. Again let’s compromise and we get only USD 100m on all future sales.
So now add USD 300m for past sales past USD 100m for future sales and you end up at USD 400m as gross payout to Nanoco.
Honestly I think my numbers are not far fetched and should be achievable unless Nanoco caves in.
S doesn’t risk conviction, wilful multiplier etc and again USD 400m for them is small change.

@Nanonano: I tend to be on your side but some passages in the infamous second RNS struck a funny note. Gone was the word “transformational” which BT had used himself a couple of times and instead reference was made about eliminating concerns about Nanoco not being a going concern etc which I found unnecessary as due to the fund raising from this summer we were funded until 2025 anyway.
Anyway the fog is still very dense here - personally I think anyone having bought in their 30+p range will be happy, those in the low 40p range content and only those in the 70p range have reason to be unhappy- and rightly so as there should never have been two RNS but only one.

@NGR: And why does suddenly needs a line to be drawn quickly? I mean BT was very aware of the potential timeline of appeals etc but also would have been aware that with injunctions in Germany etc the screws would have been on Samsung.

@NGR: This would be an utter capitulation and would go against the whole messaging of BT during this year etc talking about major inflection point in value and transformational in value.
This would not only mean the loss of faith of shareholders on this past messaging but also on future as when a company fails to live up to its promises on past events why have trust for future promises?
And again it seems to me that S approached N for a settlement- so signalling they don’t want this in court giving N a strong hand to negotiate.

@Gigawitt: I hear you but Nanoco was fully funded until 2025 and injunctions against Samsung could have brought to bear in Germany and elsewhere already in 2024. So yes Samsung can exert pressure but so can Nanoco- it is not like we don’t have any claws.
BT has repeatedly stressed he wants a fair settlement and that it would reflect a) past sales, b) future sales for duration of patents and c) be covering global commercial activity. So if he sticks to his words which he repeatedly stated this year I would be surprised if we don’t walk out with at least GBP 160-180m net.
Again this is small pocket change for Samsung.

What has not been discussed or considered here in this discussion is that the fund raise in summer this year was done at a price of 37p. I guess the management knows that if a settlement will not maintain at least this share price after agreed settlement that they will have lost the faith of investors…

@BlahBlahDoh; I respect you and others on this board so I was not interpreting your words as an attack. I was just thinking aloud how the whole first RNS came about. Do we really mean to accept that at say 11.55pm someone from Nanoco knocked or called BT in his hotel Room and BT just said fine we accept and push out an RNS? I mean I totally agree with you that Samsung must have approached us with a lower amount than USD 500m but I would think BT would have pointed out to them that on our side there is the litigation funder to pay and that USD 5 is a low license rate…. and that a court case would mean reputations damage to Samsung (if they care…or loss of face…actually I think they care more about this) and possibility of an infringement multiplier which could have come really costly….
You have picked up rightly that I am slightly defensive but that is because my number of USD 500 does not sit quite right with BT’s more restrained wording of “will put Nanoco on a firm financial footing”… somehow if it really was USD 500m I would have expected a somehow more stronger wording….or was he afraid that people would pile in like crazy if he used these words? All hard to tell.

@BlahBlahDoh: Just because the offer came from Samsung does not mean that BT accepted it as such and did not push for a slightly higher rate. Remember all Edison was calculating a license rate of USD 10-15 whereas I only USD 5.
So to me USD 5 is the low end…

@BlahBlahDoh: If BT sticks to his guns and agrees a deal that accounts for past and future sales until the end of the patent lives than I don’t think it unreasonable to expect a USD 500m gross payment.
Certainly not the USD 1bn some people were hoping for but still very good.

Dear all,
If we take that ca 45m QD TVs were sold in the past and assume that 45m QD TVs will be sold over the next 5 years than I arrive at 90m QD TV sets. Times 90m with USD 5 as license amount per TV we arrive at USD 450m. If you shave off let us say 1/3 as payment to the litigation party than you arrive at USD 300m net payout to Nanoco.
I think this is a reasonable ballpark figure reflecting global past sales and future sales at a modest license rate and could be termed a fair outcome. Do others agree/disagree?

I repeat the cleanest way would have been to suspend share trading on 6th January alongside the issuance of only one RNS. The second RNS did not provide a lot of clear guidance as even long term investors here are interpreting it in very different terms. Given that lawyers must have drafted it not surprising as lawyers rarely use clear language.
I guess in the absence of any clear amounts these two camps will continue to fight it out:
1. Settlement will bring cheer to investors and share price as BT achieved a settlement that is global and accounts for the whole duration of our patents and is fair and acceptable to Nanoco.
2. Settlement will bring disappointment to investors and share price will tank as the settlement amount does not present a fair outcome.
I personally think that S must have approached N for a settlement at the last minute as BT has repeatedly stressed that he would prefer a settlement out of court - which makes sense for both parties to be honest.
So coming from that angle I would expect BT to negotiate a settlement that reflects a fair value for past sales and future sales and be global in scale as S approached N for settlement and not vice versa.

@Philkley: To be honest I would rather have LOAM continue to be selling until they have reached a position size they want to hold for the mid/long term.
The unfortunate RNS communication coupled with LOAM selling put us where we are. Now that the RNS is a thing of the past I want to have LOAM cleared out as a seller before the next big RNS.

GBP 120m would be modest as:
1. S has infringed and given the many years of collaboration must have infringed knowingly thus multiplier would have been a high probability
2. If Edison publish reports saying that lost revenues were USD 200m only for the US it would be logical to put USD 600m for global lost revenues
3. If we add all future revenues for the duration of patents I would think we need to add ca USD 250m
Now we all know that a settled agreement requires compromise but adding the above USD figures and halving them to account for compromise would still give me a gross award of USD 425m - a sum that Samsung could easily pay!
What Samsung misused was not some small unimportant IP after all but central to their product.

@bluerill: Management spoke about major inflection point and transformational in value when the share value was already at the current level hence I am not impressed if we get a modest amount.

@Bluerill: Thank you for answer. Does this amount to transformational? No!!! Edison for whom Nanoco paid to do research put out a number of USD 200m just for the US business for PAST loss of revenue. So are we giving away future revenue under the patents that are still valid until 2028 and 2035 for free???

@Bluerill: GBP 200m or USD 200m? And are these numbers net after the share for the litigation party or gross?