Member Info for HenryHistorian

@bonzoful: What is the point of research if you let other people steal it? If Samsung gets away with a pitiful sum than they have won.
In this case I do wonder why on the eve of a trial where Nanoco were holding all the trump cards we caved in.
Outcome is to be decided but so far I don’t see any transformational value…

In response to Lobo’s quotation from BT’s email to him (Lobo post of Monday evening).
Wonderful that BT never made any numerical statements what transformational means to them but I note that they were fine for Edison to post reports that quoted USD 200-250m just for US lost revenues and that US sales are only one third of global sales.
BT and others must have also seen the USD 500m figure published in The Times article in May after the PTAB ruling.
In my opinion if we don’t come close to this than Nanoco has misled investors and BT has no credibility left,
I await details on the settlement as only hard numbers will be the judge of how this was handled.

Why was share trading not suspended?
The two RNS - for which there was no reason for two RNS - catapulted the share price upward and than pushed it downward. All the volatility was solely created by Nanoco communication and it is a joke for Edison to insinuate otherwise.

As an investor I don’t appreciate misleading communication from the company I invest in,
So far we don’t know but it is very clear that BY led investor expectations high, I’d that so hard to understand?

@Gigawitt: You repeatedly miss the point here. If we don’t get a good amount here than Nanoco will have needlessly thrown away many millions that they would have won in court and they entered the trial here with a clear PTAB verdict!
And not just that: BT termed this case as a major inflection point in value and transformational in value.
If we don’t get a very decent net amount than all his words were misleading and his trustworthiness in my eyes close to zero.

What is the point of doing a lot of R&F if you don’t get money for it and let someone steal your research because this is what a low settlement would mean to me and others.
It is like stealing the Ferrari from your neighbour and than avoid trial and keeping the Ferrari by paying GBP 10k.

@intrusivethought: Hardly transformational and hardly an inflection point in value.
Such a low sum would effectively reward Samsung for the dastardly manner we were treated.
I want a trial to take place now.

@GigaWitt: I think you are letting BT off far too lightly here.
He termed the case/Trial against Samsung as “major inflection point” and “transformational in value” - those were the terms used in 2022.
We should also remember that Edison a broker paid by Nanoco was using figures of ca USD 10-15 for license fee per QD TV. I am sure that BT must have read these broker reports and that investors would use these numbers to calculate.
Sure a settlement means making some compromises but not unreasonable ones and not those that are far removed from the rhetoric and tone of presentations given this year.
Again if Nanoco would only get net GBP 100m out than this would constitute betrayal of investors here.

@katstrangler: What cloud will a modest settlement give to Nanoco? Effectively this lawsuit is now in the hands of lawyers and hardly something that BT would need to devote a lot of time to as the lawyers are doing the vast majority of the work.

I am looking forward to the first BT presentation after this mess.
I would be interested to see why two RNS were released.
I would be interested to learn how much LOAM knew and at what stage,
If the settlement amount is small than I would like him to explain why he used phrases such a “major inflection point in value” and “transformational”.
Again the jury is out there unless we know the amount/terms but we entered this trial from a position of strength, clear PTAB sweep, funded until 2025, injunctions looming within one year in Germany etc.
So based on all this a (potential??) sell-out to a major IT company with deep deep coffers for which USD 500m would be small change needs some explaining.

BT was right when he said that this is a major inflection point.
A complete and utter shambles it is.
Let’s go to trial if we don’t get a good and fair deal. Samsung has infringed and they have the money to pay USD 500m in damages.

I agree with Lobo. I am not happy with the messaging from the company. BT spoke about two major inflection points in his presentations this year. The current share price is not a major inflection point - far from it. I noticed that he only spoke about in the second RNS about “setting Nanoco on a firm financial footing” - quite frankly this is rhetorically some kilometres away from “transformational value”.
The way things were presented to us that we are happy to go to trial and would only accept a fair settlement that encompasses past and future sales etc.
If we as Nanoco would get a small net amount as a result of all the legal wrangling I would question why did we go down to these lengths only to fold ignominiously?
Again the jury is out as we don’t know how this will play out but I didn’t like the second RNS at all and as BeContrarian said BT’s reputation is on the line - and his trustworthiness for investors.

@Screenlearner: A delay might be happening on commercialisation of the new materials - can happen. However I don’t believe that ST Micro would have pushed Nanoco to settle. For the simple reason that the whole world knows we are fully funded until 2025 due to the fundraising. And ST Micro would surely place an order bug enough to keep Nanoco going since we have cut running costs to the bare minimum.
I am keeping faith but have become more cautious.
The outcome of the settlement will tell me exactly how much faith I can place in BT.

@Bluerill: Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. However as someone who has worked in finance for many years the FCA is not that well known to put it mildly for reacting quickly…let alone reacting.
You might be right but I doubt that the FCA was actively involved or behind the second RNS.

Shortly after the PTAB ruling in May there was an article in The Times where USD 500 million was suggested as outcome for Nanoco. If BT had thought this number outlandish I would have thought that he would be under a moral obligation to manage expectations down in one of the subsequent presentations.
We will see what the outcome will be as quite frankly none of of knows (apart that the RNS is as clear as mud).

Where Nanoco is based is not relevant in the latest.
Remember all big companies started small…in a garden shed, in a bedroom etc.

In the Edinson report the USD 200-250m is for the US only… so one needs to triple this to arrive at global numbers…BT was always clear he wants a global settlement and if we accept USD 200m that would mean gifting Samsung with USD 400m.

@Sammy, Kind: Thank you for your contributions and I still think this is a great board. I think it is only human that the less ideal communication from Nanoco (why two separate RNS, why the downbeat tone in the second RNS, why now only speaking about putting the firm on a “firm financial footing” instead of the term “transformational value” that BT was using this year when the share price was already in the 30s…). If the USD 500m was a number that BT thought too high could he not have dampened expectations right after the Times article was published earlier this year?
To put my cards on the table: I sold a modest part of my Nanoco shares earlier this week and retain the vast majority as unless we were told real porkies or caved in (why if we had such a strong case???) the payout should still be good.

@Lobo: If alone the US is only one third of global sales than a gross USD 150 million would be a complete joke which would not even in the slightest cover past global sales - let alone future sales on patents which are valid until 2028 or even 2035.
I watched BT’a presentations repeatedly this year where his emphasis on “fair” and “global” and “full duration of patents”.
The number you have been quoting would mean a betrayal and breach of faith.

@Hawi: Sorry I replied to Barbon who mentioned GBP 100m plus and quite frankly GBP 100m net for Nanoco would be ridiculous.