Member Info for NGR1616

Poker

Someone I’m often associated with made a good point recently on ADVFN….according to many a settlement was always the most likely outcome and large corporations don’t make large payments exceeding the potential damages pre-trial; they always reflect some sort of discount for early settlement. So you can’t have it both ways. BT said the settlement for fair value was always on the table…..people conflated the two outcomes sadly.

Encouraging that the penny is finally dropping guys. I didn’t think you had the mental capacity or the maturity to get over your tantrums and finally understand we’re past the point of inflection but based on your last posts, seems I underestimated you. So yes we now agree, just a matter of waiting for the orders now.

FOFH

Stop messing about with your pathetic attention seeking attempts to predict the collapse of the financial system’s and society……instead you should be predicting WW3 or a E.L.E. caused by contrails or an asteroid….that would be not messing about !

These companies do due diligence but there are other factors at play that means they don’t always follow through to a win despite the decision to fund the case. It’s impossible to know everything about the case even if the premise looks true……only at trial (or in this case pre-trial) do you fully expose all the facts and the risk profile can shift. And that’s before you factor in a jury. And appeals.

Not according to your earlier post he didn’t

Anyone concluding litigation funders take no risk and they have a 100% success rate is a muppet regardless of how much due diligence they undertake. I mean just think about what you are saying for a moment…..

Nanogeddon you read an article in a newspaper that mentioned “some on the city suggest it could be worth up to $500m!” and you believed it? What a mug.

Good luck nanogeddon you may well be right and I’ll be miss piggy! But I have more confidence in BT and get the rationale for the settlement where clearly you won’t or can’t. Only time will tell and if anything regardless you’ll have lowered your average !

Did you sell at $150m? What about if it was settled at $299m?!

I suspect you’d have been in the long termer minority not selling. There’s no profit holding unless you firmly believe there’s more important news to come.

The cherry has been readied…..

Toroublesome - what do you think happens at the opening auction?

Nanogeddon let me explain what would have happened if $300m was the award. The myopic would have sold and fkd off just without crying to mummy like they are now….and the SP wouldn’t be so transformational looking then either. That’s market mechanics. The bleating here is purely because of a misreading and subsequent miss of the sale point on release of the initial news (always sell on the news).

In reality any award was always going to be divided up with those acting fastest getting the lions share.

All that ever really matters is the organic business…..the cake so to speak.

And suggesting the IP wasn’t validated is folly.

Surely the point about your post Nanogeddon, is that what happened is commonplace in legal cases and you should have known that as a competent investor………

Provide evidence of his lies that don’t include preceding words such as potentially or disclaimers in the small print of any articles published…..

Hint…..you won’t find any.

You really are quite ignorant if that doesn’t seem like acceptable vernacular to you. Gîmp

If you’d all held your shares the price would not have shifted one cent. You only have yourselves to blame. Suck it up muppet.

Unlike some I’m able to absorb new information and change my opinion. Previously I was in the « we’re going to court » camp but now the whole charade seems more likely to have been a game of bluff and negotiation and the lawyers and backers and BoD knew it and had a target that to all parties represented a ‘win’. The backers got paid. The lawyers got paid. Nanoco got paid. The IP was validated. And it all happened in January 2023 not 24/5/6/7/8……..

Troublesome - if that’s your genuine belief I suspect you are incapable of rational thought.

It’ll be far more nuanced than Samsung suddenly producing info that would swing the trial, but more likely they presented their defence, why they felt they had a better chance of success than Mintz factored and how they would be prepared to appeal at various levels if they lost until they had damages reduced significantly or the case overturned all of which would take years and millions of USD.

Or you can have $150m now…..