Member Info for NGR1616

Nano story is it possible that the persons you have assembled to replace the board are known to one another! You have to marvel at your logic in this argument….

Those claiming fraud have likely all fallen victim of overzealousness and missed the nuances in the messages that are in plain sight. Yes we could have expected $xm dollars at trial but similarly BT said a settlement for fair value was always the objective. Since Edison is often referred to here’s the numbers on their calcs June 2022:

$200-250m lost revenue in US alone. (Remember revenue not income)

Then they use words like “may” and “possible” in relation to infringement and wilfulness. Then state Samsung “would likely” seek a global negotiated settlement.

So $250m if jury finds in favour x may x possible + appeals + cash burn + interest on loans versus

Or

A negotiated settlement of $150m for lost INCOME ‘now’ - appeals (years) - cash burn (cash on balance sheet- interest (zero).

Chris Richard’s is a wealthy individual who’s 70…..I doubt he’s too worried about job security

Tariq are you an early riser?

Kooba - how many people invested for the trial and how many sold when it disappointed crashing the SP?

Kooba Edison mentioned that Samsung would look for a negotiated global settlement.....which is exactly what happened.

I suspect the $300m was achievable potentially at trial. But we know that needs a Jury to find a verdict that suits. It needs a decision on that amount. As we all know only too well this would inevitably this would trigger a long drawn out appeal process that needed funding all the while the IP remains unvalidated and costs for running the business would only go up with inflation and interest rates. I think people have to honestly consider what the share price might be now with such a backdrop and not one cent in the bank from Samsung. ZERO.

Kooba you ignore words like “up to” when $300m is mentioned. It’s so easy to see both sides I can’t understand why so many don’t.

Without in-house expertise……..:-)

To me it looks like Peel Hunt said sales “award [potentially] translated into a $260mn claim on lost revenue…..”

Investors Chronicle Jan 6th

There are so many ways to read all the narratives it’s easy to interpret them how you want but so far everything I’ve read has some sort of disclaimer potential that I think any attempt to screw down the board is folly; and I say that because for every piece of evidence or argument for there is a counter piece against.

They actually said "may make an additional allowance"

At no point did they state anything as fact. In fact, the FACT others chose to read these words differently is their problem and theirs alone.

FH Edison said this previously about lost revenue NOT DAMAGES..........the settlement was for income which is revenue less cost of sales not on the licensing. It's all there really, people have just chosen to continue ignore the bits they ignored in the first place

"There are further options as well. Applying the low-end valuation model, we assume the QD-enhanced TVs had an average sales price of US$2,200–2,500 compared with the average price of a top of the range TV without QDs of c US$1,000. Had the alleged patent infringement not taken place, we believe that the volumes of QDs Samsung required would have been higher than Nanoco could have produced in Runcorn, so it would have licensed its technology to partners, primarily Dow Chemical, and would have received significant royalties. If we assume that the cost of the QDs in each TV is equivalent to 10% of the uplift in price between QD and non-QD TV displays, and that Nanoco would have received a 12% royalty (as per our May 2017 initiation note) on these QDs, this represents US$14.4–18.0 in lost revenue per TV display or US$200–250m between April 2015 and the present in the United States alone.

A damages award may also make an additional allowance for future sales of infringing TVs and a possible uplift of up to three times for wilfulness. While the ongoing litigation only covers the United States, we understand that Samsung would also be likely to seek a global negotiated settlement covering sales in other territories. Nanoco would retain 50–80% of the award, depending on its magnitude, and would have to pay UK corporation tax on the amount received, which could be offset against £36m losses.

Can someone explain how a different board can influence the adoption of emerging technologies?

Good Lord ……agreed.

One Caveat that is applicable however is Nanoco can’t force the supply chain if something changes upstream in for example new product development delays that subsequently impacts commercial orders for Nanoco.

I had pie and chips the other day with Brian. He’s also a good bloke. And I do hold shares in the company and I don’t think letting a disgruntled investor take-over to monetise short term and effectively create an IP shell for some form of restitution is in the best interests of the company and serious long term share holders. I’m only joking about the pie and chips btw.

Fannies

Nanogeddon………………………………embittered and embarrassing

Nano…..what’s your story?

.

"Explore sale of other assets including Runcorn facilities to focus on licensing business model"

How much do you expect to make from sale of Runcorn? The USP there is in the internals not the property which I believe is rented space.

"third-party IP monetisation"

"JV's equity partnerships, spin-off's"

BEWARE : This is an asset stripping exercise to mitigate losses

Slide 13 quotes "Edison, retained by Nanoco, estimates low-end past damages for the US only to be $200-250M"

What Edison actually said was "Although the value of a potential payout has not been disclosed, we calculate that lost revenue in the United States attributable to the patent infringement to date could be in the region of US$200–250m or more. Any damages awarded could also make an additional allowance for future sales of infringing TVs and a possible uplift for wilfulness"

Completely different