We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
I hold my hands up and admit I got this wrong, and apologies to anyone I offended in the process. I am disappointed naturally and do feel somewhat misled but I think there are several reasons to be optimistic:
- the share price is evidently way too low at the moment, clearly traders exiting.
- while the litigation was ongoing the share was effectively a litigation play, which a lot of institutional investors shun. Now it is a tech play. We can expect more institutiona interest as a result.
- Tech stocks can get silly valuations. You only have to look at Nanoco's valuation before Samsung pulled the plug. If we get some commercial production orders in who knows where this could end up.
- The Samsung deal could/should lead to further tens of millions in licence fees from other players like LG and Sony. That's what BT meant by willingness to protect IP.
- The trading update says they are recommissioning Runcorn for CFQD production, a point I feel has been missed. This sounds encouraging.
But by the same token Nanoco aren't going to agree to dismiss the case until they can be certain they'll get paid. Transferring the money to lawyers eliminates the risk on both sides. Same thing happens when you buy a house.
Sarcasm aside, I actually doubt you would have thought about this given you thought a settlement was never going to trial.
I still remember all your "Brian Tenner says we're going to trial, why are you so stupid?!" type of posts. What an amateur.
In M&A deals there is often a split signing and completion, with the money transferred on signing to the lawyers who hold it on trust and distribute it to the sellers on completion.
May be similar here: Samsung transfer the money to Mintz, and once Judge Gilstrap formally dismisses the case the money is transferred to Nanoco.
At this stage I think it's unlikely the parties will ask for an extension. Could happen, but probably would have happened earlier if they could see extra time was required.
I also think any final agreement could be done tonight around midnight GMT due to the time differences in Texas, Korea and the UK. Any agreement done tomorrow afternoon Texas time would be the weekend in Korea. I expect there will be an all parties call where the parties sign off and the money transfer is confirmed.
Pure speculation though.
If the final settlement amount was effectively agreed on 6 Jan, why were further negotiations necessary, why the 9 Jan RNS say the final amount was uncertain due to those negotiations, and why have the negotiations dragged on for 30 days?
Makes no sense.
Ok, if you want to read the RNS and blur together "settlement offer" with "final agreement" then do that.
You're also free to praise GW, but this is someone who harangued people like me for promoting a settlement and has since refused to admit his error or say sorry.
Buzzfledderjohn, the first two bullet points relate to the US litigation only. The third bullet point says that it's "likely" the final agreement will be a one-off sum.
The reason that it's "likely" is that the settlement offer related only to the US litigation, but N's lawyers know that Samsung will want a patent peace when agreeing the final agreement. If the settlement offer related to all historic and future sales, why would the RNS use the word "likely"?
Buzzfledderjohn, that is completely false.
The RNS doesn't say "gross final amount", it says "gross settlement value" in relation to the settlement offer. If the settlement offer only concerned the US ligation, that is to say US historic sales, which it almost certainly did, then that gross settlement value relates only to that element of a final agreement.
The suggestion that Nanoco don't want to settle is ridiculous since the offer couldn't be put forward in court due to the NDA.
Feeks, I have to disagree with your assertion that the 6/1 RNS was misleading. That RNS clearly said there wasn't yet a binding agreement. My view is that the 9/1 RNS needed significant advice and time, which wasn't possible in the short period before the market opened on Friday.
Samsung will only pay Nanoco once Judge Gilstrap has officially dismissed the case. The last day for judge doing that is surely Friday, unless the judge agrees to do it over the weekend. Otherwise on Monday the stay will have ended.
I don't know for sure, but maybe they've set up to automatically sell at a certain price to take profits.
My point is that they're still positive about the company's prospects, otherwise they would have sold out. And NGR, yes it's not like it can be done in an afternoon but it could definitely be achieved.
Gigawitt, you repost that old post of mine as if it has been disproved.
The only thing wrong with it at the moment is that we won't get future royalties. But I stand by the potential for a £3 share price, although frankly some of that is dependent on how much the business is valued post-settlement, which I don't have much of an idea of.