Member Info for RevoltingPeasant

SP suddenly on the up. Up 7% as I type. 39p just paid. Does someone know something?

Anyone think Woodsford might have been Nanoco's litigation funder?

Positive article will be in IC tomorrow (preview available on line to subscribers this evening)

Am I missing something here? The principal and interest combined is £3,640,000 which was satisfied by the issue of 3,068,421 new ordinary shares. Divide one by the other gives a value per share of £1.18. The shares have not been that low since about the beginning of January. When was the payment due? Was it at the start of the year or is there some wrinkle that enables the bondholder to benefit by the issue of the shares as at 24 January when the price is considerably higher?
Apols if the answer is obvious. Busy day today so I don't have time to trawl back through the fundraising agreement RNS.

Anyone thinking (maybe hoping?) that agreement was reached late on Friday in advance of the New Year holiday and there will be a RNS on Monday?

For me, the key sentence is "... confirming the tumour targeting potential of the pre|CISIONTM technology." This is not just about AVA6000, good news though that is. This is about the platform. It works!

Fall in SP of 15% currently looks like a significant over-reaction

Volume today (so far) about one_third of yesterday and one_sixth of Monday. Have LO stopped selling? I do hope so

Nano, surely it will be part of the negotiation that in return for an agreed royalty on sales going forward there will be no further litigation. Or , if you prefer, in return for no further litigation, Samsung will agree to pay an agreed royalty. Either way, I cannot see how it is possible to agree a lump sum one off payment that reflects both the past and the future. The settlement must reflect both the past and the future and the future can only be assessed by reference to on going and future sales, the volume of which cannot be known today.

I think DW has this right. How can you assess future royalties today? The settlement looks to be in respect of all claims to date and all sales to date. My view is that there will be a separate settlement for sales going forward.

I'm not familiar with the American legal system's "no fault" settlement, but it sounds a lot like a payment made here in the UK "without admission of liability". As the lawyers I used to deal with said, it doesn't affect the colour of the money!

RNS says agreement relates to current litigation. Is this the Texas case only or also the other jurisdictions when actions have commenced?

Been out all day. Just discovered a second article on Nanoco in the Sunday Telegraph. Under the heading "Which shares should you buy to fill your portfolio in the new year", the same author of the initial article has Nanoco as his tip of the year. Every little helps!

Short piece in today's Sunday Telegraph business section. Reasonably accurate apart from saying Nanoco is an AIM company. Google "Sunday Telegraph Nanoco" to find it.
Might generate some new interest when the market reopens. Plenty of time for new investors to research.

Good new thread from MMcN on Twitter

You can see Samsung rubbing their hands with glee at this. Grounds for appeal - Texas is biased against defendants!

Hawi, isn't BT also legally qualified? Didn't that come out from the last presentation?

Interim results due tomorrow

The large UT is probably due to the rebalancing of the MSCI UK index, combined with the poorly received RNS. Trackers have to sell. Two more of my portfolio also drop out of the index. Same thing happened to WJG and to AVCT. My portfolio has taken a hammering today! Now the forced sellers are gone, I hope for better tomorrow!

This is probably due to the rebalancing of the MSCI UK index. WJG drops out so trackers have to sell. Same thing happened to KETL (combined with a poorly received RNS) and to AVCT. My portfolio has taken a hammering today! Now the forced sellers are gone, I hope for better tomorrow!