Member Info for NGR1616

HH believe me I’m also hoping I’m wrong and it is a much higher figure.

I’m holding. No sales no purchases. I’m also trying to illustrate that the net figure MAY be lower than others expect however the result no matter what will be a vindication of Nanocos’ tech, gives us financial stability and a clear path for the future. So you could say I’m trying to protect the SP iF there is a net settlement on the lower side.

Consider what happens without balanced views and no second RNS and LOAM not selling. The unchecked rhetoric here would send the SP into the stratosphere. Then what happens if the news disappoints? So I’m simply painting the less optimistic picture so that people don’t panic and part with their shares if the news looks on first glance to be bad because it’s not in the £000’s of millions. Which it won’t be. In my opinion.

Screenlearner there are clues. It’s how they are interpreted that matters and I’ve reached one conclusion but others are entitled to arrive at their own. We’ll see what happens but there are clues and they are around lost income and lower end guidance…

FH you continue to ignore what the settlement represents and the future organic potential for the company……that’s myopic.

FH you’re incorrect. The settlement validates the IP and opens up further prospects in display aside from the sensor potential.

Unverifiable unless BT want’s to issue an RNS [insert ****ing oneself emoji]

Sammy88 I previously admitted that I was wrong on the settlement although I did think it was possible during the trial.

We can be sure that something that only happens once will never happen again and is something has happened twice it will surely happen again. So let’s see shall we.

If you think the settlement is not at the lower range when the mcap was “c. $75m” as per the excerpt from lobo’s post please tell me where you think it will be. Then tell me what you think the legal costs to be deducted will be. Then please tell me what the loan repayment cost will be and deduct the lot and give me your net retained amount for the balance sheet as you seem to think it will instead be based on the upper (“c. $400m) which is not what is being guided.

NB Tenner allegedly told Dario/Lobo in his email that :-

“in a very real sense the $500m we have heard in some reports is a product of speculation by some investors interpreting of inferring from Company statements”

HH the other suits are moot. The deal is done bar the t crossings. The guidance was for a lower range. Then there are costs and loans to be repaid. This is the reality as I see it. $250m was a potential put out there for Samsungs benefit but it has no place in reality. That’s not to say I don’t want it, I’m just not expecting it not after reading BT’s email which I’m my opinion shouldn’t have been sent.

So what’s your ‘lower guidance’ estimate?

My guess is BT negotiated a deal that covers all costs and repayment of loans and leaves £10m-£20m on the balance sheet. Some may see that as negative and if it’s what turns out to be broadly in line with reality others will undoubtedly view it as a complete capitulation.

But if that’s what we get then I doubt any further negotiations would have delivered anything meaningfully different. Yes we can argue we could have gone to trial but that comes with risk and delay. Mintz clearly have advice and what we get is what we get.

A line needs to be drawn under it quickly and then the future comes into focus.

I think he said ‘you’ not ‘I’

Sorry but companies like Samsung don’t become companies like Samsung with a small change mind set. They are in this for minimal expense.

I’m which case where’s the PO? If they are shipping lens modules next month you’d have to think they order for QD’s would be in place.

Troublesome yea I agree but I think you also agree with my premise. Whilst various figures were being bandied around they are only there to illustrate a certain negotiating position. The end settlement is unlikely to be at that level and certainly not higher as some here still try to suggest.

Does anyone here think BT or ME would publicly say figures that were anything other than at the high end? We’ve all sold a second hand car right? At no point do you start with what you’d accept.

Suspension would achieve what? More fkn chaos. Imagine when the RNS hit the market what would happen on a ‘disappointing’ or for that matter a ‘positive’ outcome when the suspension was lifted?
A. You’d not get a price and
B. When you do the horse will be in the other field.

Suspensions are rarely implemented and when they are it’s not for this purpose.

Henry…..what’s your definition of modest?

Feeks I don’t think you were wrong on all of this. Just the conclusion that we’d all be buying new cars and yachts might have been worthy of a reality check. Now we have one but I think the outcome will be fair and we should recognise that, enjoy a bolstered cash position, applaud our IP being validated and that we can ensure anyone else using it pays as well, and to the future which hopefully includes commercial volume production of QD’s for sensing applications that give us a profit after costs and deductions. Doesn’t sound too bad to me.

Dario I’m surprised BT hasn’t replied to you after you shared the content of previous correspondence on a public forum and then went on to denigrate him on here repeatedly. It doesn’t add up…….??[facepalm emoji]

Dario I’m surprised BT hasn’t replied to you after you shared the content of previous correspondence on a public forum and then went on to denegrate