The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
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.
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.
NGR1616 - OMFG, you have literally proven again that you are troll who just posts to disrupt. There are literally small summaries that explain what market makers do and how dark pools operate at the top of each page.
Market Makers
A market maker is an individual participant or member firm of an exchange that buys and sells securities for its own account.
Market makers provide the market with liquidity and depth while profiting from the difference in the bid-ask spread.
Brokerage houses are the most common types of market makers, providing purchase and sale solutions for investors.
Market makers are compensated for the risk of holding assets because a security's value may decline between its purchase and sale to another buyer.
Dark Pools:
Dark pools are private asset exchanges designed to provide additional liquidity and anonymity for trading large blocks of securities away from the public eye.
Dark pools provide pricing and cost advantages to buy-side institutions such as mutual funds, and pension funds, which claim that these benefits ultimately accrue to the retail investors who invest in these funds.
However, dark pools’ lack of transparency makes them susceptible to conflicts of interest by their owners and predatory trading practices by HFT firms.
For NGR1616's benefit: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dark-pool.asp
NGR1616 - so if somebody prevents you with a fact you don't like, your response is that it does not exist?
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketmaker.asp
NGR16:16 - a buy sales ration of shares is rarely 1:1 Because of a think called "market makers" who are contractually obliged to buy or sell some shares regardless of whether there is enough demand on the other side, within broad limits.
The notion that there is always a buyer for a seller on the stock market is fallacy (vs dark pools).
This is also why any charting tool with a volume option turned on will show larger or smaller red/green candles to demonstrates a bigger or smaller volume of sales/purchases of shares in a given time period overall.
@blitzed - one of Twitteratti quoted by Hawi, Borg, is actually a respected trader who almost exclusively relies on technical analysis (i.e. charts), and who posts many before / after "predictions" (i.e. he does not make too many claims of success after the fact). So while he is definitely not always right, Borg is one of the few who are respectable on Twitter.
It's probably the fact that the 30 day deadline to finalise the binding agreement is coming up soon and some people may finally be taking positions.
It's possible that the multiple trolls disrupting this forum have tried to distract / deter PIs from buying in too so as not to push the SP up too much before the news release, so that IIs can get in for a better price.
But that technique does not last forever, especially due to the quality of the research and clear / simple wording from other posters on this board that don't the disruption have too much impact.
GW - "company director" and "commercial design expert" are not qualifications, unlike "solicitor" or "chartered accountant".
And anyone who spends about £50 (IIRC) can set up a company at Companies' House and appoint him/herself director.
And only a qualified solicitor, or an another officially qualified legal professional with an accredited top-up litigation qualification (e.g. chartered trade mark attorney) is allowed to conduct legal proceedings (different from being actually allowed to plead in the high court and above) in England and Wales. Other civilised countries have comparable official qualification requirements.
Who's the moron?
Samsung is in big trouble and Nanoco has a much stronger legal hand, based on the succession of events since 2015. Samsung needs an exit before things escalate badly for it.