Member Info for NGR1616

TG2D my answer is you lack the mental capacity to understand what’s going on.

They are not obligated to buy at all times and have vested interests anyway and there’s still the risk of a potential customer reneging so why risk their money? They are not in control of the downstream supply chain even if TH would have you believe otherwise. And what would you say I’d they bought shares, you follow suit then orders didn’t materialise?

PPE - stay on ADVFN will you please!

PVX a voice of sanity. At last.

Oh come on it’s business!

Anyone who thinks the CEO is a failure after overseeing a $150m settlement with Samsung should vote for his removal. You’ll be in the vast minority but go ahead.

42

S&A i was invested before the trial for the organic business potential

Nanonano that was for a win at trial then delays with appeals though. BT explained that a settlement reflects a discount in effect hence the $150m.

Imagine us now winning the low amount but having no money and facing PTAB appeals and a trial appeal when interest rates are rising along with inflation and we as yet have no positive cash flow……it could take years to resolve court proceedings and it could take years to be profitable. To survive we’d need to borrow or dilute or both or be wound-up into an IP shell. In my opinion the company made a decision for the long term security of the company that was non-dilutive and will involve potentially a return of capital to investors and underpins the financial stability of the company whilst is pursues organic business growth and also other possible infringers. All of that has value. I just don’t think everyone can see it.

Kooba there’s simply no way we or anyone else on the other side of these arguments will convince the other they are correct. I predicted £50m net left to the company when the settlement was announced (or maybe it was £20m i cant recall and I’m not going back to check). Others it seems expected $750m gross at settlement without a trial. You can’t reconcile these disparities with rational arguments when the figures arrived at were irrational to begin with. People are going to take their dissatisfaction to the grave it seems.

Maxi the company has responsibilities but it can’t attempt to manipulate opinions. However an RNS was issued to calm the market if you recall.

All of this scrutiny is entirely expected under the circumstances and the accusations being made don’t help temper opinions but I think if you or anyone are hopeful for full disclosure you need to be mindful that the settlement was negotiated under a confidentiality agreement and as such it’s unlikely that the CO can be fully transparent even if they want to. I’m not sure what that would mean if this were for example to end up in court though.

Yes maxi

Troublesome I think you are confusing those being lost vocal with the majority. The vocal ones are not happy and are justified in voicing their opinions but I think come a vote you’ll find they are not the majority at all. Not even close.

It’s as if you wanted the company to have told it’s lowest case model in public during preparations for a trial and possible settlement negotiations (when it never gave any models officially other than some examples from Edison of possible outcomes)

Yet if it had provided the lowest model and it stopped the wild ramping here and elsewhere then I suspect those same people would convince themselves it was the wrong model anyway and cone up with some other higher model regardless. It’s the way of things.

Any I'm not sure everyone was prepared to go to trial and lose...

'YOU' believe the board guided you to a higher amount......which was based on a successful jury outcome with a multiplier for wilfulness and global sales for a patent that is possibly not in use in current displays with a backdrop of risk of a loss and delays with appeals meanwhile BT specifically said that the companies preference was always a settlement reflecting fair value.......

Ok instead the exploration drill showed the presence of oil……but the DST showed it didn’t flow…..

Maxi the company is under scrutiny because disgruntled investors aren’t happy and are slinging mud because they didn’t get the outcome they wanted. If you remove all of these people then would the BoD be under scrutiny? I’m perfectly happy with their performance and I suspect many others are too.

No my analogy holds water. There was an outcome, just not the desired one.

What happened to the SP here isn’t any different to that of a small cap oil and gas company drilling an exploration well in a new field……overinflated expectations of a get rich quick mentality dashed by a duster when TD is reached. People then bail out and the SP crashes. So I’m afraid to say that for many, you’ve only yourselves to blame !

Twogoodtodie you see to be suggesting that the legal funder had zero risk? Am I missing something ?