Member Info for NGR1616

Precisely ; if others want to replicate Samsungs displays it’s either buy a whole panel or work with Nancoco to produce their own….

Of course they can undercut Samsung. Nanoco had reported an increase in enquiries for QD material supply directly or via license likely from companies outside the Samsung supply chain who could be infringing otherwise.

What if Nanoco starts to sell material quantities of QD’s for display to other following the successful litigation outcome? Would that be viewed as another valid reason to settle?

Thanks Renegade and also to SM for his tweets which correlate.

Goes to show some only read the parts of the RNS they want to see and ignore that which they don’t……

Hopefully the settlement removes these risks but in doing so it might include a discount…..value of time and money, interest on borrowing, the chances of losing versus a guaranteed pay out. All explains the SP reaction which is driven by II’s not some PI spouting uncertainty as gospel truth.

Sadly ddubya that last line you wrote is precisely why RNS are written so…..

He said he’d settle for fair value right? You and everyone else on the same side of your argument have concluded that value is at least double the actual amount. He and his advisers disagree.

Go figure.

The case had the potential to transform shareholder value. Find the specific point in a presentation when he was promising you anything. There are always caveats. Always.

I’m not being obtuse. I know what was said at the time and I also know what resulted and for me there’s not the connection or for that matter a disconnect. It’s normal speak for these types of situations and you shouldn’t put too much stock into it. Could would should. Only one matters and he believed after consulting with the various stakeholders that the settlement does deliver on what they would see as fair value (when balanced against risk of losing/winning/appeal/time/borrowing etc)

Where did he say “would”

Can’t argue with that. Failure to receive commercial orders in FY23 will be viewed negatively unless the reasons for any delay are accepted. We must be careful not to make the same mistakes re guidance on what value those orders may amount to e.g. “Runcorn could generate sensing application revenues of £100m/year working 24/7” when the initial figure could be a fraction of that.

The mistake he made was giving any guidance on the potential value of the settlement. At no point did he say what the expectation was. Subsequent to that more mistakes were made by those taking that guidance as gospel.

I don’t see that makes him a liar.

If anyone is looking for advice, mine would be if you arrive at the conclusion the CEO is a liar, sell up forthwith. You’ll lower the share price in the process but at the end you’ll be unburdened.

They’re cheap because people are prepared to sell cheaply. If ‘people’ had listened to the cherry part of BT’s comments and not instead fixated on a multi billion dollar settlement then perhaps no one would have sold and the price would be higher…..but I get it, trust in your own judgement has been eroded so it’s all someone’s fault. Classic.

Possibly Hamoodi is throwing more toys out....be good if LOAM pick them up on the cheap.

You’ve had your first intrusive thought! Well done.

There will be no meaningful dividend I suspect

Did something else get pulled? People are obviously making allegations that could be considered libellous…..

No I guess not

Winnifrith?

I guess not