Member Info for NGR1616

I apologise for hurting your feelings but also add I think you are naive.

“ Although we do not control the litigation, we monitor our investments in many ways, including by asking our counterparties to keep us informed of any major developments. And, of course, there are many smart people at Burford and we often can add value to the litigation team, depending on the extent to which our counterparties want us involved. But in every case, and for every decision, the client has the ultimate say.…”

Sammy I think once again you are wrong. The suggestion a funder has no say in what the lawyers they are funding do if a settlement has been tabled is frankly ludicrous.

Agree.

Sammy will be happy with the delay!

Your arguments make no sense.

I’d love a settlement. But I don’t see sufficient risk for Samsung to do so. I’ll be over the moon if my stance on this is wrong.

Samsung will be convinced of their innocence. As much for future PR purposes as anything else despite what they actually rate their chances as.

On the reverse outcome scale their top end result is being found not liable
Mid case is payment of lost royalties to Nanoco which they’d have paid had they played with a straight bat
Worst case is being found wilful and to what degree the wilfulness is ruled on.

Outcomes 1&2 will have no real impact either financial or for their reputation.

The worst case could cost them 1.5 times what they’d have had to pay had they entered an agreement with Nanoco. No big shakes……unless the model used is on the value the tech brought to them by creating that niche. And this is realistically their only risk and one I’m guessing they are confident won’t be applied.

I very much doubt further damage to their already tarnished ‘reputation’ will even compute. It will be yesterday’s news to a small sector of the global population likely only ever referenced again by people involved in future patent disputes. And even then they will have maintained their belief they acted within the law.

So, “we’re going to trial”.

Samsung have nothing to lose going to court in their view I think. It’s all relative.

Morbox….you got it. And soon $42bn will be worth more than £42bn

Lots of theories being postulated. I think logically when you ask what the ultimate answer to the ultimate question is it’s obvious what the answer is………

How have they been out of the market? They can traced when we’re open.

We don’t lose our stake. Not all of it anyway. There is an organic business waiting to germinate.

Second attempt….People in the US can trade during our trading hours. I’d not expect anything particularly uplifting tomorrow that didn’t already happen today. I trade US stocks by completing the requisite forms (W8-BEN). I’m fairly sure there will be a reciprocal arrangement.

Testicles?

Low volume. Nothing to be excited about!

Personally I think that Samsung will be held liable for the lost revenue over the piece plus interest and we’ll end up with a forward royalty arrangement. Nothing to lose from Samsung’s perspective going to trial, just deferred payment. I’m not confident on the wilfulness element and would view that as an upside should we win and be awarded damages. Either way the outcome is good. Yet of course we could lose……

Rumour has it BT read the musings on here, became so exasperated he turned to the drink and called up the Telegraph on Sunday night. Those two quotes were the only ones they could use because the rest were calling the posters on here (in a stronger than we’re accustomed to) Irish accent , “a bunch of feckin’ ****s!!!”

So now we’re suggesting that it’s Samsung that supplied the quotes to the Telegraph…….

Hawi, that is as maybe, but why does it have to be after trial? Surely the claim in itself is enough to make another display company sit up and take notice sooner of our CFQD tech!

This case has been rumbling along for a while now. It amazes me that the rest of the display sector not supplied by Samsung hasn’t approached Nanoco directly to develop a competing display offer in the intervening period.