Member Info for Nanogeddon

GigWitty, you said that Samsung would not settle before the Texas trial. It is a fairly reasonable extrapolation that they would not settle after the Texas trial (and up to the next trial) if they did not settle before the Texas trial.

The next trial would be Germany, and the Germany trial would have happened if settlement had not.

Germany would have provided an injunction and the negotiation WOULD have been in excess of £1bn. No arguments! Because Samsung would not have been able to argue with an injunction in their face.

YOU were WRONG about this settlement and YOU are WRONG to accuse others of over pumping this share. Billions on the market cap is what would have resulted under your own assumption of no settlement.

Thank goodness we got rid of them... now where were we...

Try not to count your ticks Feeks... it's an emotional rollercoaster :D

Kat, IOG has only been dropping for 2 days. How does that correspond to what you're saying? Sorry if I'm missing something.

FH finally some things we agree on. Everything on this thread. It's good to see someone who is awake :)
740 thousand was the number undiagnosed, as at a few months ago, rather than the deaths so far I believe. (But shhhh the BBC doesn't want to report on that)

The BBC are liars.

The BBC are full of shat. Don't believe anything that they say.

Oh... Sorry .... I thought you were trying to estimate the settlement value...

GigWitty your numbers seem to indicate £25m for Nanoco, rather than £50m.

I am in for the long term if the settlement provides a significant balance sheet. I.e., >$100m to Nanoco. If not then will lose all confidence in the BoD, in light of their miscommunications and overselling of the litigation value.
Even with $100m I will be annoyed with them but I will stay for the year to see if contacts materialise.

I did research and made my own assessment of the value. Did you assess the value? If so, do you believe the value after settlement will be higher than 34.7p? If you believe it should be lower then why haven't you sold, so that you can buy back at the lower value (since you are so good at assessing the value)? And if you believe it should be higher, then why aren't you surprised that a fund would be willing to sacrifice the potential gains due in only 19 days?

Exactly Troublesome. Exactly.

Simple GigWitty. 19 days left. LOAM know the value of the company and the settlement better than anyone. They are selling sub 40p and sub 38p and it seems they are probably selling sub 36p now. So they don't appear to value the company very highly.
Is that so complicated?

You're right... I heard this from GigWitty and it influenced how I read it. Blame him :D

Ok you have a point Troublesome, I am extrapolating from Edison that the speculation and volatility triggered the RNS and that isn't necessarily true...
Still the communication is appallingly bad.

Last sentence of the following passage (link below): "On 6 January, Nanoco announced that a term sheet for a no-fault settlement of the current litigation has been agreed with Samsung. Both parties have 30 days to agree the detailed terms of a binding agreement and have jointly requested a stay to the trial, which was scheduled to start on 6 January 2023. This has triggered significant speculation on investor forums and led to share price volatility."

https://www.edisongroup.com/research/context-on-no-fault-settlement-of-litigation/31841/

Frustration at the appalling level of communication!

Market volatility on 6th supposedly triggered the RNS on monday due to speculation on forums.

But the market was far more stable on the 6th than it has been since then.

"Nanoco will be much cheaper if the settlement doesn't justify the market cap"

Any more obvious remarks?

"What is the point of doing a lot of R&F if you don’t get money for it and let someone steal your research because this is what a low settlement would mean to me and others.
It is like stealing the Ferrari from your neighbour and than avoid trial and keeping the Ferrari by paying GBP 10k."

Exactly Henry! And it's like the neighbour subsequently expecting that the Insurance company will still want to insure your other Ferraris even though they lost money on the first one, and they know you let the thief keep it for GBP 10k.

It's bizarre.

GigWitty - he mentioned an inflection POINT! Not an inflection blughhh... It means that at that POINT the value to shareholders changes. That means that she share price changes!!!