Member Info for lejjb

Please don’t engage with GigaWitt and FlyingHigh: you will see that they systematically disrupt all flow of conversation 1- with figures which, when proven wrong or totally pulled out of thin air, are replaced by 2- platitudes or generalities with little relevance to the present (RNS and media-backed) facts.
These are very common Internet trolling techniques.

FlyingHigher said: "You don't value businesses based on speculative market projections, you value a business in its present form based on earnings. Valuing a £2.6m revenue generating company at even 10-11x earnings is generous."
Of course a company is valued on growth prospects, taking into account the evolution of its figures in past quarters, its IP, and many other factors.
That desperation to drive the SP down is extreme.

£300m - £500m: countless legit articles published on that (including the Daily Telegraph).
Ignore the tripe on this board, people even try to rewrite US patent law retrospectively in spite of the explicit decisions in the Texas court, or try reinvent Nanoco's business model to justify lower damages.
And they ignore the court actions also launched in China, Germany and the litigation funding in place.

I don't think we read the same RNS then.
" it provides a fair outcome for the Company and its shareholders"
"the lower end of the range of expectations for a successful jury trial outcome as previously guided by the Company." (not "below expectations").
And the litigation funders did not go away, they will still want a return on their investment.
Thus bringing back to the amount of a no-fault settlement, as if Nanoco had granted a proper patent license to Samsung, without any punitive damages on top.

Revenue = money coming in directly.
Income = the above after operational costs are deducted.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/122214/what-difference-between-revenue-and-income.asp

Here, the objective being to reach a "no-fault settlement", it looks probable that Nanoco is aiming to get the money that it would have otherwise obtained had a proper patent licensing agreement (negotiated by parties with the same bargaining power) been in place.

How the money for that licensing agreement will be calculated is anyone's guess, but nobody will ignore the HUGE impact those inventions have had on Samsung's TV (and other screens?) sales worldwide. Certainly the financial institution who are funding Samsung's litigation across three countries (incl. China, which is known not to be IP friendly, thus confirming that Nanoco's case is very strong ) think so too and expect good chances of success and big bucks to be paid.

irnbr - so far, yes, your interpretation seems correct: it appears that there is nothing binding.
There is only a rough agreement about the main heads of terms to guide the rest of the negotiations.

So unless an extension of time is requested and granted by the Texan court (which I suspect is probable), if there is no final detailed agreement in place by 6 January 2023, the full proceedings will resume and a new trial date would be set.

So based on the official info by RNS, Nanoco is bound by nothing so far. And as it is fully funded for its main action in Texas as well as those in Germany and China, Nanoco has no pressing need to agree to anything - certainly the litigation funding businesses will not want that either as they will want some return from their investments.

6 January 2023 RNS:

"The Parties now have 30 days to agree the detailed terms of a binding agreement."

=> "binding agreement"

Patty - lse.co.uk has unfortunately become a cesspit in the past few years. At best I skim it once every 2-3 days - a rule that I broke this weekend and will resume following right now.
Best wishes.

Evidence that GigaWitt is NOT legally qualified:

1-The CPR are ENGLISH, not UK law (Scotland has its own system.
2- He would have highlighted what rule of the CPR part 44 to look at. It’s a large mix covering different situations and there is even one sectio which EXPLICITLY says that a court could have the discretion to award full costs to the winning party, which is the contrary of the point that some (small) litigants can get overwhelmed by legal costs.
Rule 44.2
(1) The court has discretion as to –
(a) whether costs are payable by one party to another;
(b) the amount of those costs; and
(c) when they are to be paid.

3- And anyway, none of Nanoco’s actions are not before English courts so the CPR has no relevance.

Thank you.
The earnings (ie profits) vs royalties (ie pre-tax income) is a good point, but it would still leave between 60 to 80% of it.
And approx 10-20% off through legal and litigation funding, so around £110m to £145m approx: 70% to 100% of the current marcap approx.

Hence “conservative”.
And a patent has “only” 20 years life - when was the relevant patent granted?

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/news/2023/01/06/nanoco-shares-leap-after-samsung-settlement/

£219m
($10 per TV, 26m TVs sold since 2015, so $260m)

Conservative estimation from Peel Hunt.

Screenlearner - Amen.

Nobody knows, we are forced to just wait and see.

Trying to guess the short term, in the absence of major immediate events, is a bit of a mug's game.
However, at a push, it looks more likely than not that the SP will retrace a little (5%? 10%?) due to a very substantial rise after the company actually reported bad results, even though it did announce cost savings measures - which fueled a fast big rise,. Right now, the sales show it is a company in decline. Any return to growth is a "jam tomorrow" promise, not a data-based fact.
There is a clear support zone at around 580-605 which might be where the SP would settle for a little while.

Two things to take into account as to the likelihood of a takeover in the near future:
1- the price of borrowing money: rates are higher than they were last summer, so any M&A decisions will be more cautious. This is not an incentive for a takeover.
2- profitability: Darktrace has just become profitable (albeit marginally), which means that as an acquisition, it is more likely to start paying for itself than requiring more cash injection to stay afloat. This is an incentive.
On balance, I SPECULATIVELY think Darktrace is a little more likely to be an acquisition target than not, but the picture is definitely not as clear as most try to claim here.

I echo everyone else - there is no delay yet.
The only very short-term drawback is this afternoon's publication of the minutes of the meeting of the Fed from 14 December 2022 which are very likely going to confirm that higher interest rates are here to stay longer (Jay Powell said something along those lines last month already). That will put 2 x as much pressure on this share as:
1- higher interest rates means govt bonds pay higher % so equities get sold, and
2- Darktrace explicitly mentioned that its figures were adversely impacted by a the higher USD.
Both those things will put very short-term pressure. But short-medium term, things are looking good for the share - the fact that it's become profitable (albeit marginally) cannot be underestimated.

Well, #FXPO is bouncing like the war is over!... Glad for all holders.

I am certainly on the same page as you re: the outlook on the iron ore prices.
Covid spreading like wildfire in China ain't certainly going to help.

Do you appreciate you are now partially contradicting your previous post saying literally "Read a few of the recent rns."
What I am trying to say is that the SP has been moving up since that RNS (minus an immediate 1-2day drop probably for games...), likely on the assumption that there was now power to keep some lights on.
No RNS to the contrary has been issued, and the news in question implied that the associated power infrastructure in the centre of Ukraine (vs South and East) had not been more damaged to have those lights off.
I have been explicitly saying that there may soon be an RNS saying NO POWER (vs a little power), which might precipitate an immediate drop.

CleverThoughts - no.

Re-read the 1st Nov 2022 RNS:
"repair work has now sufficiently progressed to allow for the partial resumption of production activities at its operations in central Ukraine"

Which means it temporarily went back up, so it can go back down again with the (unfortunately) new waves of missiles hitting Ukrainian ground.