Member Info for NGR1616

I read it. Sour grapes

How are they going to pay off duped investors? With what? How? Why?

BS all BB speculation is grown from hope rather than reality. It gets nurtured then it catches fire then the flames are fanned and then……ashes. What rises next?

What messaging?

How about the one issued immediately after the settlement was agreed (but the details not yet finalised) on the 9th of January indicating it would be at the lower end?

"The gross settlement value should be expected to be towards the lower end of the range of expectations for a successful jury trial outcome as previously guided by the Company" you can read that two ways (or three as most people did) towards the lower range from [1] above.....or [2] from below.

After that RNS I said $50m net at the end to Nanoco and yet people on here were still bandying around figures of $1bn like our lawyer who isn't a lawyer for example.

but it isn't how everyone interpreted it though was it Henry. Gigawitt was one who said he'd sold and I wish I'd followed suit. LOAM sold. RG sold. Others would have seen the messaging I missed. So you either continue to cry over spilt mil or you realise that settling with Samsung is the single most profound mopment in the history of the comapny and rightly can be described as a major inflection point. What you expected was a major uplift in the share price and sadly that hasn't transpired because of people like you dumping shares because you don't/won't/can't see the value and underpinning of the IP and finances.

You want a short term win. I'm in long term. 5-10 years.

It's as much about perspective as anything so stop bleating on that I'm paid because each time you say it the more ridiculous you sound.

It's hardly rocket science. An inflection point is the turning point of a business due to a significant change. That change is settling a dispute, being paid for it and validating the IP so we can monetise elsewhere over time.

It's not an 'engines on lets go to the moon exponential point' he was discussing as many here believed more than likely because that is what we were all telling ourselves. It happens on every single BB at some point I think and is highly dangerous especially for what is still an embryonic company in revenue terms.

Noted ;-)

anyone who concludes that by 'supporting the board' (in contrast to a bunch of disgruntled PI's who are upset they dropped their ice cream because BT didn't warn them it might melt) means I'm "close to the board"........is a muppet.

why?

PJ I refer to my previous post. Supply chains rarely work to schedule.

I think you just have to accept that most negotiating is on a quid pro quo basis and will rarely result in a settlement at the higher range of estimates.

Instead the minute the SP went ballistic specifically due to speculation on these very boards, he stepped in.

So “the city suggests the figure could be as high as $500m” (being a rumour) is something BT should have dampened down months before the actual settlement discussions had even started? Am I reading you right?

There was plenty of talk on here about various models and naturally people are magnetised towards the upper end. When the outcome is at the lower end there’s disappointment. At this point I expect a pile on because of the Edison report but it suits people’s narratives to say “ah yes but they are paid research so you have to take it with a pinch of salt” one minute and then to say “but surely as a paid researcher they should be trusted”

In my opinion the figures quoted were a negotiating tactic.

I’ve been stung by this too. Maybe I’m the one with confirmation bias not joining the sack the board band of brothers but I’m trying to see the settlement as a defining moment that removes uncertainty and now look forward to receiving the commercial orders in the next 12 months. This should be a good long term hold.

Against the possible benefits of continuing the litigation, the Board weighed the possible downside risks which included :
[1] the risk of losing at trial,
[2] winning at trial with an award based on either Samsung's damages model or on Nanoco's own 'low case' damages model (sometimes referred to in public court papers as the 'Dow' approach, which was considerably lower than the settlement value agreed).
[3]The Board believes that winning with Nanoco's 'high case' damages model would inevitably have led to appeals process potentially lasting a number of years with the risks of losing on appeal,
[4]a re-trial, or a re-trial of damages only and possibly resulting in a lower damages award.
[5] The Board also considered the incremental funding costs of an extended litigation process and the potentially significant impact of the time value of money.

1 : would result in a near total wipeout
2 : results in lower than what we got
3 : years of uncertainty whilst increasing costs to be paid on success plus interest on loan(s)
4 : see 2 and/or 1
5 : see 3 and 4

Even if 3 was the outcome you would still only get around half. So say we were awarded the mythical city rumoured $500m you’d get $250 million some 3 or 4 years later….maybe. Or maybe not.

The settlement deals with every single one of these variables.

This is a supply chain, not the magic circle. Supply/demand. Apple AR delayed for example.

All as per previous guidance from the BoD.

"orders anticipated by the end of 23"......is that accounting FY23 or CY23?

How has BT benefitted from this? Financially for example.

This is a case of Hamood and CO expecting a big pay day and being ****ed that they got it wrong. It’s then turned into a poor attempt to get control, possibly a takeover with other investors, before commercialisation. Clearly they won’t be buddying up with LOAM or RG who could themselves be considering legal options in light of accusations of insider trading. Pandora would be pleased her box has been exposed.

BoD has no intention of stepping down. End of matters