Member Info for tbow112

Ecclescake, your logic completely ignores the fundraising at 37p in 2022, for which Nanoco, rather than the brokers, is responsible.
In that fundraising investors were effectively offered a double-or-quits bet on the legal action, but, having been told that they had won the bet, then discovered that the organisers had given away the prize.
To date we do not know why, but the excuses put out so far do not add up.

"Sadly the company figures were unavailable. Only Edison and broker figures, which proved to be wide of the mark."
The figures are not only broker figures. The figures also appear in the 2022 capital raise as Nanoco"s figures. The relevant paragraph from Turner Pope is
"Nanoco believes any damages it ultimately receives should reflect the value enabled by its IP. Based on no win, no fee litigation funding, the Board has agreed a risk reward sharing mechanism that would lead to c.50% of a ‘modest’ trial award being retained by the Group, rising to 80% for larger ‘wins’. From April, retailers in the US were offering Samsung’s latest second generation QD-OLED SB95 devices for sale at between US$2200 for the 55-inch model and US$3000 for the 65-inch, around double the price of similar premium, but not QD based devices. Assuming that Samsung’s US QD display sales totalled 25m units over the five years to end-2021, upon which it is realistic to estimate a low-end royalty payable to Nanoco in the range of US$8.0 to US$12.0 per display. This amounts to lost revenue in the range of USS$200 and US$300 million for the US alone. Although royalties negotiated might have been expected to taper with rising volumes, Nanoco’s annual take might nevertheless continue on a rising trend to the point of expiry of its various patents."

I had a look at a Samsung QLED display the other day and did not see anything which made it look superior. Is a lot of adjustment required ?

I seem to remember that the $200 - 250 million figure was also used by Taylor Pope when selling Nanoco shares and must therefore be endorsed by the company.

Another theory on the Monday RNS - it is simply a cover-up for a ****-up with the Friday RNS.
IE Samsung have little intention of settling ( as evidenced by the fact that their offer apparently appeared at the last minute before the trial) and were simply time wasting, but somehow Nanoco were persuaded that they had a serious offer and so put out the Friday RNS.
Over the weekend Nanoco realised that they had got things wrong, but rather than admit their error (which might have involved some financial liability to investors who had been misled), they put out an RNS intended to return the share price to its previous level.

"Tell me when was the last time anonymous posters predicting sudden riches on an internet forum were proved correct?"
Paid for this house as a direct result of advice given on an internet forum. However it was not a forum populated by people principally concerned with their own ego.

A lot to be said for a cultural change. I wonder how much their reputation for dishonesty and sharp practice actually costs them.

"Samsung wants to settle before the Trial.
That much is clear."

Not sure that that is at all clear. The settlement offer may just be further time wasting.

"I still come back to the legal principle that the court seeks to put the parties back in whatever positions they should have been in."

This supposed legal principle is a nonsense. If it were a legal principle few people would pay for patents before they were taken to court.

Was the 37p price at which shares were issued in 2022 also put out for Samsungs benefit ?

"Whilst various figures were being bandied around they are only there to illustrate a certain negotiating position. The end settlement is unlikely to be at that level and certainly not higher as some here still try to suggest."

Last time I went to court the judge said in his judgement that we had not claimed enough. Seemed to be an effective way of making sure there were no appeals.

So who thinks that LOAM do not know where 50% ends and where 20% begins ?

To quote BT during the last results presentation (about 1hr. in), "Any announcement has to include enough information so that the reader of that information can actually figure out what it means."
Something seems to be missing from the latest RNS.

Has anyone asked the company to indicate where "the guidance" is to be found ?

"And finally again to LOAM."

LOAM are quite clearly behaving as if they have inside knowledge and believe the shares to be worth less than 40p.

If people are going to do calculations re Samsung, please could they use the wholesale price of a TV rather than the retail price.

One thing I read into the RNS is that the judicial authorities may refuse to accept the settlement. If it is substantially lower than Nanoco may have received had the patents been recognised then it only encourages other large companies to ignore patents.
It is almost a case of a working patent system vs. more money for lawyers.

I disagree. Given the massive scope for market manipulation during the trial, a suspension would be sensible.

The fact that we end up with 2 share trades suggests that it is a pretty half-baked algorithm. Are we dealing with a student auto-trading from his bedroom ?

Can someone explain why anyone would set up a trade for 2 shares worth less than £1 ?