Member Info for lejjb

What you saw in the streets is your own personal anecdotal evidence, not a rigorous nationwide data collection exercise, and not even for the purchase of houses but of "crap" as you said yourself.

The Bank of England says otherwise:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-01/uk-mortgage-approvals-fall-to-lowest-since-first-lockdown

We are having a double-whammy of
(1) people who cannot afford to buy houses / homes and
(2) interest rates that have risen very fast so that the land that housebuilders have on credit is becoming too expensive to keep as their interest rate repayments are increasing dramatically.
We may witness soon (if not started already?) a fire sale of their assets, in turn leading to a substantial downwards rerate of the NAV of housebuilders.

The immediate recent results and the increase of the dividend (especially the latter) can get people excited. BDEV and PSN did not have that luck. Barring any substantial macroeconomic news, I suspect that in 1-4 days the reality of the housing market will come back to weigh on the sentiment.

The "head in the sand" approach of the vast majority of posters on this board and that of the other UK housebuilders is typical of many PIs, trying to turn into a positive spin forecasts of minus 30 to 40% of completions.

We are witnessing one of the worst downturns in housing demand in decades, combined with the highest interest rates since 2008 which puts enormous pressure on the existing interest repayments for all housebuilders for the land that they still own.

Yet people still splutter "fundamentals are goods"!... Absolutely insane.

It's definitely not a dog considering that its business has mostly recovered from Covid and even achieved operational improvements vs its state in 2019.
However, throwing around dividend suggestions for the near term, especially numbers from 2006, borders on the insane (or desperation to get the SP to rise). Right now Marston's is (rightly) focusing on paying off its debt.

The NAV per share of £1.02 and the evidence of the trading recovery to around / a little above pre-Covid levels, and reduction of energy costs globally (gas especially, although the tariffs were fixed already), make this an attractive investment.
The debt is of course problematic but the figures shared that it is being clearly reduced.
Whether takeover offers like those of early 2021 (£1 per share was the highest one IIRC) is a question: interest rate (hence the cost of borrowing) were much lower back then, but the SP is now lower but with higher NAV than 2 years ago, so this company is effectively cheaper than it was so does remain very very attractive vs early 2021.

As I posted so much before, it's fair that I close my participation properly by sharing my final view for whomever interacted with me (based on the latest facts, my view can change if those change too):

- Insanely low settlement value vs the facts that I listed several time this week and before.
- The sale of some patents, even if they are mentioned as "non-core", makes me question what they truly are, how many years are left in them, and why Samsung was simply not granted a license. So while Nanoco can use them (due to the license back from S to N, but not written as being "exclusive" as far as I could see), S, as the owner, will still be able to license them out to other parties and make more money off them. WTF?!
- The very low value of the settlement does not look much of a deterrent for any other major company (vs medium / small ones). So if were Apple, I'd be less afraid of infringing any of N's bestest patents if I knew I could make £300-400m profit from using them.

The financial results have demonstrated that it is a growth company, but I am far less confident about the scale of that future growth, especially Nanoco's ability to make big deals with big companies (vs medium or small ones) considering this stunning caving in by BT.

I wish all the best for all remaining and new holders.

I was wrong about the probable value of the settlement in spite of the facts of the matter, apologies to all!

I never said it was a fact, I just said there was no credible reason to make the US global, esp as this is not what BT said either. While you treated that as likely with no evidence for that.
Was your rhetoric and law teacher Derek Zoolander?

I just publicly proved that you had made up the global figure and now you are responding with a baseless « the typography changes the legal meaning » claim.

Buzz - you contradicted yourself. The $250m low possible award is only mentioned for US sales, as per what you quoted.
There are thus no reasons for the rest of the world (about twice that amount, so $750m in total incl USA) to be just given away for free.

LordWM - it all depends on whether you’ve been a good boy.

FH - sorry for appearing finicky on words, but I am not describing a "scenario" but a succession of facts (counting the publication of the Daily Telegraph report of the possible £500m for the USA as a fact too).
Officially and according to the press, the facts have not changed from the list I gave.

I won't try to speculate about the reasons of the tone of that RNS from 9 Jan, especially as the writer still refers to a successful jury trial. It could just be an attempt by the board to be professional and not to make overblown claims, it could be something else: anyone's guess is as good as anyone, so longs as they stick to the facts.

As I listed, the facts show that Nanoco is an extremely strong legal and financial position vs 47 massive infringements from Samsung (whether "willful" or not), so until I witness a change in those facts, I am expecting a likely very big net cash payoff.

Legally:
- A matter in the making since 2015, when the patent infringement first transpired with the release of the QLED TVs by Samsung.
- Nanoco attempted to come an agreement in the early stages, which benefits its position in the eyes of the court.
- Samsung attempted to buy Nanoco in 2019 (and was rebuffed due to the relatively low amount).
- Nanoco is formally suing in the USA, Germany and China (well-known to be a bad place for IP owners, i.e. one must have an ironclad case to start legal proceedings there).
- Nanoco is looking into suing in 2 more countries incl. the UK.
- All 47 claims of patent infringement in the USA were validated in May 2022 - the postponed US case is about whether Samsung wilfully infringed.
- A litigation funding company agreed to finance Nanoco - i.e. that company believes its chances of success are high to stake its money in it.
Conclusions: (1) Nanoco's legal position is very strong and (2) it is much more likely that it's Samsung that approached Nanoco for a settlement rather than the opposite.

Financially
- Oversubscribed fundraise in June 2022, supporting Nanoco financially through 2025.
- Significant increase in revenues last year (+18%) and decrease in operating losses (loss decrease of 26%).
- Funded for its legal actions (see above).
- Extremely high estimated high value of the US claim, the Daily Telegraph reported it could be as high as £500m (so Germany/EU and China would be on top).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/01/01/manchester-firm-sues-samsung-tv-tech/

Conclusions: Nanoco is not under immediate pressure to accept any settlement offer from Samsung.

@GigaWitt - indeed, so not you then.

Before you reply, please remember that it is a UK criminal offense to falsely claim to be a chartered professional.

(That was addressed to GigaWitt.)

Says the man who claims to be a “qualified company director” while there is no such qualification (anybody with around £50 can set up a company and appoint him/herself director) and an experienced litigator yet confuses jurisdictions and types of law.

My "Key reminder of facts" post of yesterday that explicitly listed basic published info about the state of the legal proceedings and their funding status has been deleted... and replaced by an identically named "Key reminder of facts" post that was literally proposing a (pessimistic) "theory" and nothing else , so explicitly NOT a fact and therefore an explicitly misleading title.
The likely reason is that several people acting in concert decided to report my original post which was clearly making them uncomfortable, but then misled others by re-creating an identically named thread. This is fraudulent behaviour.

Feeks - unfortunately LSE makes navigation to find old posts very difficult, so people are limited to seeing the latest posts.

Nanoco is the second most talked about share on lse.co.uk so far today, it massively increases its visibility!