Member Info for Kooba

But he had also pointed out that Samsung had tried to frustrate the legal process at every turn and every hurdle thrown up by them had been successfully overcome specifically in the pre trial conference where Samsung wanted everything thrown out and wanted all Nanoco models excluded and our expert witnesses struck off …all of this failed , despite the approach of Samsungs top lawyers to bully Nanoco out of court ..Nanoco was ready for court claiming their high model with their case fully intact.

They had withstood the attempts at bullying all the way to the eve of the trial being very confident in the very strong case.

I see no reason why not i post facts not fiction .

I back the facts up.

I don’t post fantasy tales like you.

Imagine….telling the truth and understanding facts what a different world yours would be.

TG2D ..it seems a complete waste of time when you prove QD s talking rot and making stuff up he doubles down…extraordinary fellow.

Think will disengage completely but would warn others that they post very disingenuous comments that are easy disproved with things called facts if they wish to due a small amount of background work.

In the mean time things I'm told are hotting up.

“You claim that Brian Tenner's statement that the thrid party funder receives less than 50% is incorrect.”

Where did i , i said settlement costs $60m plus i not have a breakdown i don’t think company gave that out , so what exactly the funder took of that i don’t know , do you?

“…why didn't Tariq point out that Brian Tenner misinformed shareholders and the cost of the third party funder is nearly the entire settlement amount when you factor out the IP sale ..”

He did point out there was a negative as it goes after legal costs.

Look it up.

I need a holiday from the serially confused and misleading folk on here thats for sure. Schooling challenged folk is exhausting.

The costs certainly cant go entirely against the asset sale that was not the purpose of the legal case at all.in fact selling any asset as part of the settlement was never mentioned until they unveiled the poor settlement and made out it was a $150m to settle the case ..when the bulk of it was them selling patents.

HMRC *

What were we going to trial for what was the costs related to? It was for getting payment for infringement of IP not to force a sale of assets that was unapproved by shareholders.

Brian can say what he likes but the costs were incurred going to trial for infringement not selling the assets. Unless he is saying the asset sale was a ruse to avoid tax…if he wants to admit that then HMCR might be interested i guess.

Still waiting for your answer QD, we know you like to change the topic into a broader discussion

A one off global licence agreement covering all past and future use..yep never said anything else…$65m one off.

Net down covering the over $60m of legal costs to get it and then what do you get? I await your answer..if you wish to account for it over the next 9 years..thats fine.

Hawi ..i know the balance sheet quite well as it goes. Here’s my post from yesterday discussing the net cash position widely assumed to be well over 20p.

Going to disagree on your net cash figure there.

They recently said unaudited £8.2m year end

They have £4m loan notes outstanding.

So net £4.2 ( less than edison last estimate £5.3m)

https://www.edisongroup.com/research/returning-cash-and-investing-in-the-business/32434/

The final tranche is $71.75m net of Korean withholding tax

The company has a slightly increasing burn rate but lets take £100k a month still.

If you take yr net cash at £4.2m and add final tranche at £56.5m (@1.27) then the company will have about £60m cash post receipt of Samsung funds. With 324.4m shares in issue that equates to 18.5p net cash so they really are trading around pro forma cash per share. It also explains the proposed distribution up to £40m leaving £20m to be retained by the company.

Twist on this.

We got a $65m global past and future licence settlement

It cost us over $60m in legal fees to get that out of them.

Extrapolate that.

I really do not understand the point you are trying to make and pretty sure nor do you.

No one is questioning the settlement it is fact as stated.$65m represents a global past and future licence…extrapolating that as an annual licence is no correct to be fair.

So saying they are getting £6m a year as that is how they are treating the revenue in the accounts is not correct.The bulk of the settlement should be assumed to be settling the past infringement that was going to court , that is being spread over the remaining life of the patents that is all in no way an annual licence fee as you promote.

End of Its impossible having any sensible discussion.

Samsung are making a one off settlement for all past and future use .

It is Nanoco that are recognising the revenue across the life of the patents.

I don’t think anyone is disagreeing that samsung are paying $65m in total for past and future licence to settle an infringement case. And are buying $85m of IP from Nanoco.

You banging on about how Nanoco treat such income in the accounts as though they are getting further £6m a year is nonsense…its just accounting treatment of the derisory one off payment spreading the past and future settlement over the remaining life of the IP.

So not even £6m a year as that takes in all the past infringement too.

The accounting treatment of a one off payment in revenue recognition should really not be interpreted that there is anty addition annual income from licences. It’s just an accounting treatment of the payment over the life of the IP. Simple and fully reported as such. There is no ongoing revenue stream to make out there is is disingenuous.

The settlement with Samsung is structured as two agreements: an IP licence agreement worth $65m (£54m), which encapsulates royalties that would have been paid in the past or the future, and an IP sales agreement worth $85m (£71m, see following bullet point). The income from the IP licence agreement will be accounted for in accordance with IFRS 15 and will be recognised over the average estimated remaining life of the existing entire IP portfolio (excluding the IP sold to Samsung), which is approximately nine years. This gives rise to a significant deferred income balance of c £54.0m and annual revenue of £6.0m until the deferred income has been recognised in full (ie c £3.0m in licence revenues for H223).

https://www.edisongroup.com/research/litigation-settlement-concluded/31947/

I have to disprove your fantasies…righto.

If you think your 11th hour campaign of nonsense will make a difference to the outcome you are more deluded than your posts suggest.

Chin chin

Shall I pick out some of your conspiracy posts? Do you really want me to expose you here Kooba? LOL

Knock yourself out …so far you have posted nothing that i do not stand behind and in no way supports you quoting me as saying “Bod is incapable and there will be no organic business"

I am pointing that the company serially miss timelines and have failed to gain any commercial orders in 14 years as a listed company..if you disagree on that then prove that is incorrect.

So not entirely sure what your game is but a silly game it is.

I think you are being ridiculous and hopefully folks can grasp the sheer nonsense that you post is more conspiratorial rubbish than any shareholders concerned at the stewardship and governance of the business ever post.

Get a grip…ffs.

You quote me..apparently

Conclusion: You yourself contradicted your story about "Bod is incapable and there will be no organic business" because it would take years for St Micro to have an alternative product.

Where did i say that? I didn’t.

Stop making stuff up.

Qd a few posts ago

“U explained quite well that even if the bod would change St Micro could not easily pull out of the deal as the development of those materials takes years and St Micro would have an issue with its clients. That’s all correct. I agree with you.”

Then reposts the same imagine guff.

How do you like that imaginary nonsense? Wrong right !