Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
@amerloque, thanks for the response.
It's fair to point out that having only invested here recently (June 2022) I may lack the experience of others. Let's see. Like BeContrarian, I am actually agnostic about a pre-trial settlement.
@amerloque, perhaps but I've not got that impression from BT, who has consistently talked about being satisfied with a fair value settlement and a settlement requiring compromise from both parties.
@BeContrarian, exactly, if we get a high damages win with a wilfulness multiplier, any eventual settlement should be significantly higher than a pre-trial settlement would be. Which is one reason why it makes sense for Samsung to settle pre-trial.
I have to say, I just don't understand why Samsung wouldn't want to settle pre-trial. I understand there's a slim chance of them winning and they have a history of dragging things out, but here I don't see how it makes any sense to do that.
The board have indicated it's likely to go to trial, so there may be some facts or reasoning which I don't know about.
In short, I'm expecting it to go to trial, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if we get a settlement.
Wow, goes to show how you can't rule out a settlement until the jury's given their verdict. And it also goes to show how undesirable to be on the end of an unfavourable verdict.
The dispute was over the correct royalty rate, rather than infringement of a patent, but it was similar insofar as Ericsson were suing Apple around the globe.
Agree, it's great to finally have certainty on the trial date. It's the lack of visibility which has been the hardest part!
Now we have to see whether Samsung are prepared to come to the table. Despite the annual report, I think there's a very good chance that they do, albeit I'm expecting it will go to trial.
The Friday start date is interesting. Could give an opportunity for a weekend of settlement talks.
This is a fantastic trading entry point. It's unlikely the share price will be lower on the morning of the trial and you get the upside of a possible settlement and positive organic news.
I think the annual report which dampened expectations of a settlement pre-trial might keep it below 60, maybe even 50. Anything in the 40s is a great entry point and I hope it stays like this as I'm getting paid next week.
I can see a compelling case why Samsung would want to settle pre-trial. Their defence looks weak, Nanoco aren't a direct competitor, they face the bad PR of losing, they face injunctions in China and Germany, Nanoco aren't short of cash and they can negotiate a better settlement now than post-trial if high damages are awarded.
That said, BT has said it is "very likely" Samsung will go all the way. Although that may have been managing expectations to an extent, I'm not going to contradict him by saying a settlement is likely when he's far closer to the action.
Lol I don't think my predictions are that awful.
Hawi, I remember BT saying that but he didn't give many details. We should treat it as exceptional. As much as Gilstrap wants a rocket docket he will use common sense - telling lawyers to come to court on Friday for a five day trial on Monday is a bit much in my opinion.
On reflection, I should maybe tone that last post down given my wrong assumptions previously about the court process.
It could happen, although I think it unlikely. Of course I'd be happy if it does go ahead.
Don't wish to be a spoilsport here but even if Apple and Ericsson settled now I don't think there's any chance of us going to trial on Monday. In September we were second in the queue and on the Wednesday we got an RNS saying the trial wasn't happening. It's simply not enough notice to give to all the lawyers and witnesses.
The trial scheduled for 31 October settled on the Friday before and a new trial didn't take its place.
Appreciate the support Henry et al, although I'll probably stay quiet until there's a material development. What I suspect could happen is that we get the first trial slot in January and get informed of this in the w/c 12 December. I haven't been able to find any other trial scheduled for then.
My final word on the "very likely" phrasing in the annual report (and apologies for labouring the point) is that there is no way Nanoco's lawyers would have used those words when advising Nanoco. As I said, lawyers are very conservative when giving predictions and even for slam dunk cases I've seen opinions putting the odds at 65%. In my view, those words have been formulated by the board after being told that Samsung have a history of dragging cases on for years and that there is a realistic chance of that happening here.
What was encouraging from BT's webinars was how quickly he said a settlement could be reached. This contradicted my impression that it would require weeks to negotiate the docs.
You have to remember though that lawyers are the most conservative, risk averse people you can find. There's the joke that if you ask one what the chances are of the sun rising tomorrow he'll say 95%.
No doubt the lawyers are telling Nanoco - look, don't think Samsung are going to fold easily, there's a very good chance this will drag on for years. Which would be correct, but again a conservative message. What a lawyer is never going to say is "Samsung are probably going to offer acceptable settlement terms". As a lawyer you always want the surprise to be on the upside, not the downside.
When the board hears that message and sees endless speculation and expectation of a settlement on here, they would certainly want to dampen expectations. What they don't want is a lot of disappointed shareholders and online negativity.
I'm not saying that the board are wrong to take this approach. In fact I think it's prudent. What I'm saying though is that in the absence of specific reasons why Samsung do want to drag this out, which the board hasn't provided, I think it's going a bit far to say this has >80% chance of going to trial and being appealed for years. I just don't see *how* they can say that, even though I understand *why* they have said that.
It's a bit like the tech CEO who says his tech is going to be the number 1 in five years time, when currently it's 5th in terms of market share. I don't see *how* he can say that, but I understand *why*, because he wants to build momentum for this company.