Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Edison note has been updated.
I found it interesting that BT still referenced an increase in shareholder value in the medium term in the RNS. I would have felt the last few months would have taught him, if anything, that he needs to dampen down those sort of predictions and stick to the facts. That he didn't suggests he either hasn't learnt his lesson and is seeking to inflate the share price or, hopefully, that there is a high degree of certainty to the road ahead.
Also like the sound of 'The group aims to add a third development partner, potentially in display, in FY24. In the longer term, the pursuit of potential IP infringers could open up other commercial opportunities or licensing opportunities.'
TG2D
I think you mean 'allude' - to infer or hint at something - and not 'elude' - to tactfully avoid.
Nanostory
The most prosperous route for this company and for us all is sustainable, long-term commercial growth, would assume that's the reason most people remain invested.
Hamoodi's CV is almost exclusively short-term interventions - insolvencies, distressed investment opportunities, one-off funding etc. Rather than for people to disprove that he's no worse than the unknown, surely it's for him to convince investors that his vision and/or the expertise of his team is remotely investable.
HH. I would contest that your reason for posting is to warn and help others; to the contrary, I would suggest the reason you post is to project your own anger towards the company in a place that you hope/expect the subjects of your anger will be able to view it and feel the hurt you felt when the details of the Samsung agreement were announced.
I fully sympathise with that, I was probably as disappointed as you and e-mailed Mr Tenner at the time with my thoughts. But I don't think that's a reason to outwardly seek to influence others' decision-making (whether you do or not, I couldn't possibly say), we all invest for ourselves and our families and we all take our own risks. This Board has often been a place for thought-provoking discussion and I sense we've lost that in recent weeks. What you're trying to initiate with the Board's future impacts every other shareholder in this company and I'm not sure any sort of witch-hunt would be for the right reasons or for anybody's long-term benefit.
"Not interested" HH but still presumably invested here and still posting the same things on repeat every....single....hour of every....single....day. The Henry doth protest too much.
I totally understand why you'd be annoyed by the Samsung outcome - a lot of us were. But investment is primarily about what happens between the here and now and the day that you sell. If you are going to remain embittered about the past then I would suggest it may be better for you (and certainly for the rest of us) if you sell up and move on.
As far as I can tell your suggestion for a route forward is to replace all Board members with, well, anybody. Anybody who probably doesn't know a lot about QDs, the background of the company, the relationships with stakeholders or means to commercialisation. I have often disagreed with NGR in the past but I totally agree with him at the moment, what you are proposing would most likely be far more damaging to Nano than it would help it prosper.
Gig,
You still haven't answered the question about where the company had previously given any indication of a damages model consistent with the settlement amount today. There were warning signs - yes, you heeded the warning and guessed correctly on the back of them - well done. But please spare us the condescending 'I knew all along and you didn't' tone, unless you can point us to a source of any quantifiable indication of what we have seen today.
Gig
You will naturally indulge in a degree of smug authority given today's announcement, your hunch was right and well done.
However, 'the 9/1 RNS was crystal clear' - are you able to point us towards a previously disclosed damages model that equates with what we have seen today, that is consistent with the message on 9/1 that it should be 'towards the lower of the range of expectations for a jury trial AS PREVIOUSLY GUIDED BY THE COMPANY'?
Shouldn't that be un-tenner-ble?
Even if they did disclose their low-end forecasts, they certainly didn't indicate these figures (directly or indirectly) to the rest of us.
The RNSs on the 6/1 and 9/1 were an opportunity to put the market straight and they certainly dampened expectations with the latter but 'towards the lower end of the range of expectations as previously guided by the company' - when or where has the company ever indicated a damages model of $1 or below per TV, which is surely what this equates to when you factor in global sales for the lifetime of the relevant patents?
Speculation around a special dividend of 8-12p a share - if today has taught us anything it can be that the reality is likely to be 'towards the lower end of expectations', or infact just massively beneath them.....
'The gross settlement value should be expected to be towards the lower end of the range of expectations for a successful jury trial outcome as previously guided by the Company.'
Surely this settlement is well beneath the lower end of expectations as previously guided by the company and, as such, that statement was misleading? Edison were quoting $14-18 per set for lost revenue which equated to the $200-250m for historic US sales. This must work out at no more than about $1 per set globally for the life expiry of some patents - when has the company explicitly given us that guidance beforehand? I must have missed it. And Richards claims it's 3x the value of the lowest model! With, also per 9/1 RNS, consideration for the time value of money - again, what was the value of that statement?
It's not £90m, it's about £73m.
"So, even in a modest outcome, you are talking about multiples of our current market cap" - BT, Nov '21.
This settlement clearly opens a door towards achieving commercial sustainability and there was always going to be a compromise but it's difficult not to feel that some of the earlier rhetoric was incredibly misleading.
Yet of the hundreds of people who use this board Nig it's only ever you that claims to be a victim of bullying. Quite the narcissist. Have you ever wondered why you're a common demoninator in many of these abrasive discussions?
Re: your point about the 9/1 the litigation outcome being priced in - we kind of got that from your last 400 posts, why you're still here repeatedly shouting the same point over 3 weeks' later when you're (supposedly) not invested is anybody's guess really......
Gigawitt
'The quality of the discussion won't improve if you Feeks and others who share your closed-minded perspective keep poking those of us with more nuanced opinions in our eyes.'
Unfortunately Nig, history has proven that the quality of discussion is unlikely to improve whilst you're here due to your almost autistic inability to recognise any other arguments but your own and insistence on shouting loudly and insulting others whilst conveying that. Whenever you return to these sites (after previously leaving under a cloud) the respectfulness of the discussion inevitably deteriorates. And that's not because nobody likes a contrary view - I think many here are happy to be challenged - but more how it's delivered.
Think you missed the bit where he calls Marjorie a cretin for having a different opinion to him or daring to ask him for confirmation. Can imagine a dynamic like Alan Partridge and Lynne.
stt1 - you're quoting the $500m it was felt the claim was worth. The claim is based on US sales. The settlement will be for global sales, past and future.
FH - we got that from your last 500 posts.
If you'd been here for 200 years you'd already know that this share tends to drift without news.
Also, could be wrong here, but am certain BT has been quoted as saying that N retain the vast majority of any award, which would effectively rule out a 50/50 split anywhere on the spectrum.