Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the video here.
Well put BeContrarian.
If I'm a defendant in a case being sued for 100 and I think I have 75% chance of winning, I would still pay 5 to settle the case. That's not an admission of liability, but simply a payment to get rid off risk. Similar to fire insurance.
Can you be more precise? When you say they think they *can* win, are you saying they think they have a better chance of winning than not? Because obviously they think they can win, in the same way as I think I can win when I buy a lottery ticket, but that's different to thinking they are likely to win.
You need at least 75% shareholder approval for a takeover, and together Lombard and the directors have over 25%. The board wouldn't recommend a takeover offer that is less than what they would settle for at trial, so there wouldn't be much point to it. In fact it would basically be an admission of liability, so could do more harm than good if the takeover failed.
I completely agree that they've got *a* defence (every defendant has one) and that the jury could very well agree with it.
But unless you think your defence is really strong I don't see why you would disregard the multiplier. That doesn't make sense.
Lawyers are not so short termist to give clients inaccurate advice in the hope of getting extra work. Particularly not firms like Kirkland.
Put it this way, any lawyer that advises a client their chances of winning at trial are favourable is putting their balls on the line, because that client is going to be extremely unhappy with the lawyer if they lose. In that respect, settlement is the easy way out. Of course, a lawyer may advise a client that their chances are unfavourable and the client still wants to go ahead, but if they do lose the lawyer isn't going to get it in the neck.
NGR, I'm certainly able to consider Samsung going to court, as I've said a million times I'm agnostic about trial or settlement.
As for your view that Samsung has zero regard for a potential wilfulness multiplier, you're entitled to that view but I don't think it makes sense.
@troublesome I think I factored in interest previously but I need to look at that again because Samsung's sales have been disproportionately recent rather than equally spread since 2017, which would reduce the amount of interest.
I've said before that if I were Samsung I'd be wary of getting slapped with a treble multiplier. The judge hasn't exactly been impressed by their conduct so far.
Just to confirm my actual belief, I think if we win higher damages and get a wilfulness multiplier we'll get in the region of $1b. I'm not sure any of us have the energy to argue about damages again though do we? Let's focus on the Samsung CEO in his speedos.
I did deliberately put billions but not the best joke because it could have been a typo. Should have said 500 trillion.
What with the trial delays and rampant inflation maybe it will be worth 500 billion by the time we get paid.
Lol, by the way I was obviously joking about wacky posts bringing down the SP.
I think there's actually a really good trading opportunity for when the confirmed trial date is announced, let alone a settlement or trial win. I can't see anything but it popping up over 45p, even 50p. 10% easy gain. If it settles before trial confirmation you're even more in the money.
I think these wacky posts is why the SP is drifting down. Potential buyers are coming on here and thinking WTF, this share is weird, I'm going elsewhere.
That said, I won't be able to resist topping up on payday at this price.
Personally, I wouldn't phone up the Texas court, if anything it might cheese them off and make them put us lower in the schedule.
What I'm wondering Henry, is if we get another "Notice of hearing" docket filing but don't get an RNS, does that mean Nanoco have been told they're not number 1 in the order currently or does it mean that order hasn't been determined yet.
Troublesome, I'm not sure how the figures come out but the average time from filing to jury trial is under 2 years, so it really is quick. I think we're coming up to the 3 year anniversary early next year, so I don't think the judge will want to delay much longer.
I came across this good article in the link below about Judge Gilstrap. You probably won't be able to access it because you need a subscription, but my work has one so I can see it.
The key extract: "To solve the dead week problem, he adopted a "trailing docket" system in which five cases may be set for trial in a given month, with the expectation several of them will settle. Litigants know far in advance they need to have their cases prepared for trial by a certain month, but they don't know exactly which week they'll face a jury. So if Case A has settled, Case B will move up a week on the schedule, and juries are picked weekly, on the Monday of the trial. What lawyers lose in certainty, they gain in overall efficiency of the court, the judge said"
Perhaps his system has been slightly tweaked since this article in 2015, but it suggests there is some kind of order if priority, so that now we have been delayed twice we will have jumped up 2 spots in the order.
https://www.law360.com/articles/628732/judge-gilstrap-keeps-eastern-district-s-tight-ship-alfoat