Member Info for Nanonano

"That drop from 30p plus was painful last time. I thing that was after ME sold shares and the US contract didn't pan out."

It went up to +30p in February/Marchyear, but didn't stay there long. I think some were speculating a sale was imminent, but it didn't happen.

Nice to see some of the gains held onto at close. Still 40% down for me, so a way to go before I get to break even.

Fingers crossed for some positive news soon.

Cash through to December 2022 so closer to two years. That's also assuming no STmicro contract.

I think Samsung's successful implementation of cad free QD's rules any opinion about flawed technology moot. Also I'm pretty sure any such secrecy could be classed as withholding vital information to investors and hence executives could find themselves in a very sticky situation.

I agree wholeheartedly. A firm contract with STMicro would put the company on a sure footing financially and allow them to make some meaningful forward looking statements.

In the absence of that however, the markets will look at what we have, and at present it's the case against Samsung- everything else is a 'maybe'.

Well I'm not counting any chickens until they've hatched. Potential upside is huge, but so too is the downside. We just have to hope and trust that the pressure testing was sound and that Samsung's team fail to find a chink in Nanoco's armour.

$600m - $1bn would be letting Samsung off very lightly indeed. I think a minimum of double those figures plus costs. If it goes all the way and Nanoco's wins the case, then I'd expect a far greater award.

If it works out similar to Kaist, you'd be looking at an award of around $17.5B, with a final settlement of around $5b. That's just for the north American market. Three times that figure if you take into account the rest.

100m is around 30p a share. Who will take that seriously?

"just my thought, samsung probably didn't realise they infringed on nano patents?"

Believe that, and you'll believe anything.

"Current marcap of nano is only about 45 million pounds, how about samsung just buy nano its much cheaper."

That assumes parties wish to sell. Less than half is in the hands of PI's, the rest is held by large investment companies who will most likely wish to sell at a much grater profit and/or let the legal action run its course.

They'll be operating entirely out of self interest, I doubt the Nanoco case will have any bearing whichever way it swings.

"Nanonano, they would never sell IP, but they could license it."

That's what they've been doing (or trying to do ) all along though, isn't it?

I don't think Nanoco have tried to force Samsung's hand- hardly in a situation to do very much to a behemoth like that.

I think they've simply tried to create every opportunity for Samsung behave with a degree of integrity, and that legal action was absolutely the last resort. Hopefully that should work well for them in the eyes of the court , as they should be able to adequately demonstrate they've done their bit, and it's Samsung that have rebuffed all attempts to settle this amicably.

Surely that is effectively buying the company? Most of their worth is in the IP, hardly heavy on assets.

Also any such attempted buyout is likely to be considerably lower than a potential win in court, plus ongoing license arrangement, so probably a bad deal for shareholders.

Any valuation would be subjective.

We can estimate the value of lost business as a consequence of Samsung's alleged theft is in excess of $750m, based on the estimate of $250m lost in the North American market alone, which represents about a third of total sales.

Then you have the value of the rest of Nanoco's IP, existing partnerships etc. I would estimate any reasonable offer would need to be North of $1b. Around £3 a share?

"Other news from samsung is there has been management vacuum at the top."

They certainly 'cleaned'up with our tech!

No amount has been given.

It's been estimated that the loss of income to Nanoco is circa $250m for the North American market alone, which we are lead to understand represents about a third of the worldwide market for Samsung.

Added to this costs, plus damage to company plus multiplied damages for wilful infringement, and the figure could run into the $B's. All subject to a win of course, and if it goes all the way to trial, I think we can expect an appeal, so we could be waiting a while to see some serious money- Samsung aren't known for prompt payment.

In the meantime, I keep looking at that STMicro contract.

I think BTB is just projecting his doubts.

Well let's wait and see. After all if the legal action is successful, a cut of 85% of QD display sales will do very nicely.

LG are clearly feeling the heat from Samsung and the Chinese OEM's.

This is 2021 not 2019. Certainly very likely Nanosys dots, but seen no follow up to that article to confirm.

Nanoco have worked with plenty of OEM's, but no firm contracts to date for a product.