Member Info for lejjb

@Compass007 - that figure was made up to scare people away as several trolls have been working almost full time.
It's very likely to be several hundred million USD in Nanoco's pocket, multiple reasonable calculations were posted on this forum.

I 100% concur.

Ecclescake - thank you for those links.

It’s not just about lawyers’ ability to draft a final agreement, it’s also their clients’ ability to agree to every single word and not try to dither with the approval of the phrasing of every single detailed terms and conditions, especially when one of the parties (Samsung) is a very large and inflexible top down organisation with no real delegation of decision-making power.
A simple final approval takes far longer to obtain from Samsung than Nanoco.
than

Because he is a troll probably hired to keep the SP as low possible so that it does not get too high straightaway if/when the good settlement figure is released, and so that the II does not buy at a too high premium then.

The hard facts point towards the very strong legal (and associated financial) position of Nanoco and Samsung being likely the one seeking the settlement, which worries trolls, and today one of them can only throw a (heavily arguable) old phrase from LAND law practice like “ Possession is said to be nine tenths of the law”
https://www.fredlaw.com/alert-is-possession-really-nine-tenths-of-the-law

@GigaWitt - So you don’t for certain if there is such a legal case to which you had previously referred with certainty then? You just look keep sounding like a liar.

As explained multiple times, all the hard facts point towards the strength of Nanoco’s legal case, a company already fully funded for several years.
Samsung is very likely to have approached Nanoco for a settlement at the last hour, not the opposite, considering that Nanoco’s case was well advanced already in 3 jurisdictions (and 2 more possible ones incl the UK) by then.
So Nanoco is very likely to have the upper hand and trolls have probably been hired to continuously disrupt this board and seed doubt (even by reinventing patent law which such claims as “royalties don’t apply anymore”) to keep the SP depressed so it does not jump too high when details of the likely agreement are released, maybe so that some II don’t have to buy in at too high prices when they can see the actual confirmation of the extent of the settlement.

Agreed with the earlier comment that GigaWitt had inadvertently demonstrated that he was a liar with his statement of “you can look all up all the other big cases”. Because there was not such appeal case as he had claimed before.
Reported.

Now GigaWitt plays the victim.
And we still all want to know which “big case” you were referring to please.

Of course you are. You’d have no reason to bombard this forum daily otherwise.

To cover up the fact that one actually quoted a website made of algo-generated articles:
"Algorithms are written and maintained by people.
However the analysis has been produced, it's backed by sound data so the site is more reliable than speculation on here. The valuation of sub 5p is based on industry Averages. That's how you sensibly value anything."
That's an astonishing level of desperation to drive the SP down.

Mikey279 - belated hey yourself! ;-)

BeContrarian - the transactions in shares of the past 1-2 weeks seem to be almost exclusively from PIs. Why do I think that? Because somebody posted a fraudulent "RNS - deal for £650m " message yesterday (deleted since then) and the SP shot up by about 4-5% second later before crashing back down minutes later after the corresponding thread was deleted by the admins. An institutional investor would not be swayed by that tripe.

So currently, PIs, most of whom do not have professional enough attitudes and/or mindsets, get easily swayed by the outright lies and enormous distortion of facts spouted by 3-4 trolls that appear to be working in concert.
Latest example of enormous distortion of facts: someone claiming that the management is in an "impossible situation" while actually it is the opposite:
1- very strong legal case, considering that a litigation funder has committed money to support Nanoco, and considering that Nanoco is formally suing Samsung in jurisdictions around the world (incl. China, well-known to be the wild wild East of IP). And remember all the preliminary rulings from the Texan court that were all in favour of Nanoco.
2- 11th hour approach for settlement - it is very likely that it's Samsung who wants to end this considering Nanoco's strong case (see point (1) above.
So the management has the choice between suing Samsung to try obtaining max bucks or seeking a faster a resolution. Basically the management now has two options. It's great to have options!

They conveniently ignore Nanoco being fully funded (by an II that specialises in funding lawsuits which it seems to have high chances of success) for three law suits (already launched) around the world, and being contacted at the 11th for a settlement.
And they/he claims patent holders don’t get royalties anymore - gee, patent law does not exist anymore then, does it?

tbow - "putting the [aggrieved party] in the position it would have been in had the issue not arisen" is a principle of English tort (especially negligence) law.
Totally irrelevant to what is (1) US (2) patent law, and that irrelevance was already pointed out on this board. But the trolls are now recycling discredited material as they are running out of bull-byproduct arguments.

They won’t stop talking. There are clearly several (paid?) trolls intent on drowning this board with false or irrelevant info.

The trolls have done a superb job at seeding doubt and drowning all factual (vs speculative, if not outright lies) exchanges here. The combination of superficial authoritative-looking writing and obvious tripe to maintain a confusing picture is absolute art.

Whether they have shorts in place (or are paid by institutions with shorts in place, or IIs that want to keep the SP as low as possible so it does not get too high for them to jump in once the award money is confirmed), are mentally ill, or have other unknown (but not altruistic) motivations is anyone's guess.

I'm fully locked and loaded and wish all the best for everyone else with a long interest in Nanoco.

No, it's user MSA who made a misleading post at 13:56 claiming that an RNS for a £650m deal had been issued. Of course that was all BS and he has been reported, and the whole corresponding thread deleted as a result.

I don't see why tomorrow vs any other day up until 6 February 2023?