Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Yes but mediation sessions last a day typically and require a mediator who needs booking in advance. It could well be that the parties have arranged, or the court required even, a final session of mediation before trial, the best time for which given Christmas and NYE would be the few days before trial.
So when you say we're not in mediation now, that's almost certainly true, but it may also be true that we have a session lined up, which if it were the case would require a member of Nanoco and not just lawyers to attend.
We've only got a couple of weeks before trial so discussing this stuff is fun but it isn't going to influence anyone's buying or selling. We're all committed to it going all the way.
If you go back to my original point it was wonderjng whether David Folsom would hold further mediation.
The first session of mediation was suspended. He said he would continue working with the parties to achieve settlement. It is very possible he could hold a day session on Tues/Weds 4/5 January. If that were the case, someone from Nanoco would have to attend. Not only would BT be the best person to do that, since he is CEO and probably has a good poker face, but it also demonstrates that Nanoco took the mediation process seriously in the event an agreement isn't reached, which David Folsom would report back to the Judge about.
Thanks for telling me about power of attorney NGR.
If you'd read para VII(B) of the Court Annexed Mediation Plan you would have seen that outside counsel cannot fulfil the criterion that the parties must attend the mediation. Entirely separate from PoA.
Let's not create an argument out of nothing. Yes, he'll be interested in the trial as we all will. However, if he knew for a fact there couldn't be a settlement it wouldn't make sense to go when there's the organic business to look after. But because no-one knows if there could be a settlement it makes sense to go, even if the chances are slim.
The only reason he is there is to sign off on a potential settlement agreement. That's not to say there necessarily will be settlement talks, but if there's a chance there will be some he has to be there.
Going there just to watch the trial wouldn't make sense.
This assumes he's not a witness.
Interesting. The EDTX's Court Annexed Mediation Plan in para VII(B) requires the attendance of each party or a party representative i.e. someone with authority to agree a settlement. Outside counsel don't meet that requirement.
We know that the previous mediation with David Folsom was suspended and that he would continue to work with the parties. It wouldn't surprise me if he does another session before the trial.
Do we know when BT is going to arrive in Texas?
The royalty rate is relevant because it affects the bargaining position of the parties. If the judge sets a royalty rate of e.g. 2% then Nanoco will probably settle for 1%. But if the judge gives a rate of 3%, then Nanoco may want 1.5%, otherwise they would be tempted to take their chances at appeal.
There are two stages to the award: the jury's damages and wilfulness verdict and the judge's written judgment. The judgment is important because the judge will set a future royalty and wilfulness multiplier. BT has said the judgment will probably come in Q2.
The question really is how much the market will discount the award to take into account appeals and delay. Suppose we get an award and royalty which would reasonably give a £5 share price without an appeal. Will the market settle at £1, £1.50, £2? It's hard to know.
I think it's because we don't have many details on the Chinese timeline, since they launched the litigation after presenting the annual results.
I've read you can get an injunction within as little as 12 months, but it's hard to know whether that applies here.
In my experience, it's impossible to know why small cap, highly volatile stocks like this move in a certain direction, in the absence of major news.
I'm very pleased this is at 38 rather than 50 because, assuming it stays the same, I'll pick up 25% more shares when I get paid this month.
Settlements typically occur immediately before events in a case's timeline which can significantly affect a party's bargaining position, for better or worse.
The question, therefore, is will the trial significantly affect Samsung's bargaining position?
On the one hand, they can automatically appeal the outcome. On the other hand, if Nanoco win high damages and a multiplier then Samsung may have to offer more in a settlement later down the line if they want to avoid a German injunction.
What I'm trying to say is that if Samsung think they could pay e.g. 100 in a settlement now, compared to 200 in a settlement before a German injunction, then that would incentivise them to pay 100 now. But whether the trial in January is important in that respect is unclear, maybe it won't really affect the bargaining positions.