The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
Fulham: Slavisa Jokanovic had led a thoroughly attractive side to Championship promotion in 2017/18, but a £100m+ summer spending splurge failed to bolster a suspect-looking backline that leaked goals at an alarming rate. They finished the season having shipped an eye-watering 81. Jokanovic got the boot in mid-November.
Hawi, I've enjoyed reading your posts over recent months and appreciate your knowledge here............but there's an obvious reply to that one. We've effectively "been here and have the jam tomorrow T-shirt" through previous "transformational" scenarios. As I said, I'll wait.
I am fairly sure that BT had enough confidence in the case to have taken it to trial. However, why would our funders want to do that through risking what is already a tidy profit for them? I now suspect BT's hand might have been forced and we therefore approached Samsung. Therefore, BT's 'reverse comments' at the end of the second RNS may well have been an attempt to achieve what many on here have accused BT of - a face-saving exercise. That might well explain things.
"This is all about the organic business having a firm foundation to propel it forward."
I am sorry but much as I respect and like BT based upon his presentations, the bottom line is that we have - and continue to rely upon a payout to fund our future. Furthermore, there's no point basing future promises on organic growth when the people running it are those who've failed to produce any sales of note whatsoever to date. Build it and they will come, or 'not' in this case so far. I'll believe the future "sales" when I see them.
I think I would have more confidence in BT's words if this company had shown any profits whatsoever since it's formation. This new financial baseline is no guarantee of this leopard changing its spots, imo. I believe the board was presuured by its funders who understandably wanted to take their profits while the going's good. I also suspect BT would've gone to court if he'd had his way - but that's business.
Brian Tenner, Chief Executive Officer of Nanoco, said:
"A settlement provides certainty to all our stakeholders and further reinforces our confidence in the validity and enforceability of the Group's global patent portfolio.
"I am more confident than ever about Nanoco's future prospects. A settlement provides a firm financial underpinning to focus on our organic business, which has made significant progress over the last three years. It also demonstrates the Company's willingness to vigorously defend our global IP portfolio against any potentially infringing parties in the wider market."
Nanoco Group PLC
("Nanoco", the "Group", or the "Company")
Litigation Settlement Update
Nanoco Group plc (LSE: NANO), a world leader in the development and manufacture of cadmium-free quantum dots and other specific nanomaterials emanating from its technology platform, provides a further update on its proposed settlement with Samsung.
Nanoco announced on 6 January 2023 that a term sheet for a no fault settlement of the litigation had been agreed between Nanoco and Samsung (the "Parties"). The Parties have 30 days from that date to agree the full terms of a final settlement agreement and therefore jointly requested a stay to the trial that was scheduled to commence on 6 January. Following the announcement, the Judge in the case agreed to that joint motion for a 30 day stay just before midnight (GMT) on Friday 6 January.
The settlement process requires further negotiations and continues to operate within the control of the US judicial system, and hence the outcome of the litigation, its settlement, and timing are not wholly within the control of the Parties. As a result of these factors, the value and terms of any final agreement are not yet certain.
Details of the terms sheet and of any final agreement with Samsung are covered by a confidentiality agreement to protect the commercial interests of both Parties during the ongoing negotiations.
In evaluating the settlement offer and concluding that it provides a fair outcome for the Company and its shareholders, the Board, having consulted with its advisers in the litigation, took into account the following considerations:
· 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.
· A settlement removes the risks of the litigation process, potential appeal processes of the trial and the ongoing appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions, further litigation costs, and the time value of money.
· Historical precedent shows that any final agreement is likely to be a one off payment, with no forward royalties, for the full and final settlement of all current and future patent litigation between the Parties in all jurisdictions (colloquially referred to as "patent peace").
The Company expects to issue a further update on the final agreement following the completion of the further negotiations between the Parties.
Christopher Richards, Non-Executive Chairman of Nanoco, said:
"The Board, having taken extensive advice from its advisers in the case, has concluded that the draft settlement offer provides a reasonable and immediate fair value for the litigation. The draft settlement accounts for both the potential downside risks of a jury trial, followed by what would likely be very protracted appeal processes, as well as the considerable adverse impact of further litigation costs and funding, and on the tim
Gigaitt, I sued the C&G before Lloyds took them over. They too applied brinkmanship and behaved pretty much like Samsung have. I was stupid enough to be willing to go the whole way and on the day before the trial - knowing they were in the wrong - they made an offer that fell short of "everything". I told them I wasn't interested and later that day they called back to say they'd pay everything I was going after them for. Samsung's lawyers will know by now that BT is a serious contender with a very strong case - and "costs" will be very much on the table. Otherwise we'd be discussing the ongoing trial now instead of a settlement. Why should we be penalised in any way for their shnaninigans?