Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[jfacwc] 22/7/2021 17:33

Surely this is the kind of event Nanoco should be involved with?Or is it a case they are not financially able. Many reasons can be offered, no doubt. Samsung rubbing it in yet again.https://www.photonicconference.com/home?_cldee=am9obmFsbGVuQGN3Yy51ay5jb20%3d&recipientid=contact-5387bbef2f0fe711b425005056bf096c-d5a8d12129b84c9e9c99a87b27e4cdf6&utm_source=ClickDimensions&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Phosphors%20%26%20Quantum%20Dots%202021&esid=9b4dcbf7-5fea-eb11-bacb-000d3a86d1cb#Speakers

[clarea] 21/7/2021 09:56

Right I've copied and pasted below the part from the RNS which covers off what they expect to retain after the litigation company have had their share if you don't believe its real/i've made it up then I can't do any more than wish you good luck other than to say hopefully it will be a monster award above what the funder/corparate lawyers themselves expect it to be and it will be the 80% retained by Nanoco figure. Importantly, the terms of the subscription for the Loan Notes ensure that there is no dilution for equity holders at this transformational point in the Company's value. The terms of the subscription are superior to all of the offers received in the independent tender exercise carried out to select the litigation funding partner. The Subscription will not materially alter the economic impact on the Group of any litigation award and the Board still expects that Nanoco will retain around 50% of a modest award from the litigation, rising to around 80% of a more substantial award.

[clarea] 21/7/2021 09:43

If you check recent rns's you will find the 50% figure there its 50% of a modest award retained expected $200-$250 million if its vastly above this Nano get to keep 80% of the proceeds I can't make it any plainer than that its coming from company announcements. Assuming that Nano do win another 9 million will have to come off the figure to repay the loan note funders who are on a 105% win bonus all be it I don't know if that 9 million is dollars or sterling. Whoever the funder is faces 100% of the downside if they lose and one would imagine they work on a sliding scale of percentage recovered retained by them its mainly very rich individuals that fund these types of companies looking for a good return on their capital. If you think the case is a sure fire bet you might do it for 25-35% but if theres more risk why would you take it on if your looking at 100% downside for 20-25% upside.

[spastics attack] 21/7/2021 06:44

Clarea...still wrong this not a whiplash claim for a few grand..completely wrong anology...I don't doubt that the funder will get a decent return but it won't be anywhere near 50% of the legal award it will be a multiplier of costs, probably 3 or 4 times costs linked to a performance bonus graduated scheme. I expect costs of say $10m, a performance payment $40m, of which $10m is paid by the defendant settling plaintiffs legal costs and the balance $30m deducted from the award.

[clarea] 20/7/2021 07:48

"still wrong" presumably you have your own hard earned invested here in this stock if you had done some very/any basic research you would see that the 50% figure quoted is in the public domain. Even the ambulance chaser's charge a minimum of 25% of anything recovered for cases they know insurance companies most of the time won't fight as its cheaper to just pay out 3-5k for whiplash claims than go to court. If your taking on a multi billion corporation where the end result is uncertain you will want more than than the bottom rung of the ladder 25% charged on shoe in whiplash claims. "Muddled" if you read it properly it says $1.6 billion recovered $0.8 billion profits from recoveries not the other way around as you claim.

[spastics attack] 20/7/2021 05:33

I doubt very much if Nanoco's legal costs will be that high..more like $20 to $30m and in a settlement these would normally be paid by the defendant on top of paying any legal award.

[spastics attack] 20/7/2021 05:29

Still wrong recoveries is not the percentage of the final legal award that the plaintiffs won...And how do you earn $1.8 billion profit on $800m recoveries. This sounds more like a multiple of the legal costs incurred. In other words they spent $800m but received back just over x2 what was incurred. The $800m can't be the actual legal award unless you have the figures back to front..Even then a near 50% ratio of return on legal award would not make sense to the plaintiff. Equally recoveries may well be the sum of legal costs recovered from both defendant and plaintiffs so you will have some cases the plaintiff wins and defendant pays legal costs in the award and some they lose and the defendant pays..So again your analysis appears muddled.

[clarea] 19/7/2021 20:39

hxxps://www.burfordcapital.com/media/2080/fy-2020-report.pdf Go to page 8 recoveries $1.6 billion profits from recoveries 0.8 billion which ties in with the 50% recovery figure quoted nobody knows who acting on Nano's behalf but Burford are a likely candidate that specialise in corporate litigation actions. You might need to copy and paste into browser if the link doesn't pull through.

[clarea] 19/7/2021 20:12

I would imagine given it is possibly someone like Burford or Gately that are taking the case on you have a situation where its a company worth hundreds of millions v Samsung worth billions. If you were running such a company and Nano rocked up unable to fund the legal action themselves with about a years worth of cashburn left and near zero revenues, an average share count that has increased every year since 2015 and given if you lost the case you are on the hook for the legal costs and possibly Samsungs as well would you say we will do it for 10-20% of any compensation payout given when dealing with Nano and you hold all the financing of the case cards. If you re-read my last post I did say if the payout is above what is reasonably expected Nano get to keep a higher percentage of the overall payout. Its entirely up to you whether you believe my rambles or not but as I also said I am long myself so have an interest in seeing the price go up but the person who I got the information from has a direct link for management for updates and he has been in the investment game for north of thirty years with a good reputation. Your entitled to your view same as me and if you think I'm wrong then feel free to load up at 20p.

[spastics attack] 19/7/2021 18:19

So Clarea that makes absolutely no sense in seeking a legal action if the main beneficiary of any payout is the legal cost funder..

[andycapped] 19/7/2021 08:16

For me the true value lies in the validity of the patents and future licensing revenue.

[clarea] 19/7/2021 07:44

The information is behind a paywall so I won't be reproducing the full article here but its from a source I would imagine is far closer to management than anyone on this bulletin board. The percentage payout figure for the company could be higher if the award is above what the people fighting the case expect but the figure I quoted is what the source says the company fighting the case expect so they should have the best idea as they are the one's taking on Samsung. I would add i am long so would be happy to see multiples far higher than what the article quoted but this is just meant as a warning to any possible new investors thinking that making 3 to 4 times your money here will be as easy as falling off a log in my opinion that is unlikely. At the current price 30p payout would still be 150% upside which isn't bad for a company with near zero revenues.

[spastics attack] 19/7/2021 05:40

Clarea..how do you arrive at backer receiving 50% of the award?..Have you just made that up as normally its a multiple of costs in incurred with a success bonus none of which equates to anywhere near 100m or 50% of a win and besides a win also extends to coverage of legal costs incurred i.e. a main financial award and then some hence 200m plus legal costs incurred.

[blackchain7] 18/7/2021 20:33

The payout and the further contract rights would b much much higher than that, IMO for sure

[clarea] 18/7/2021 20:26

Just reading the backer of the court case will most likely keep 50% of the proceeds if the payout is in the 200 mil area after they have been paid out would be worth about 30p per share on the current price.

[andycapped] 16/7/2021 18:49

I don't recall seeing Michael Edelman's name on Nanoco's patents. Surely the credit for the inventions in the company primarily belong to the late Professor O'Brian and CTO Nigel Pickett. Neither of whom enriched themselves to the same extent.

[davidw1] 16/7/2021 17:06

Supernumerary - you got me - lol

[supernumerary] 16/7/2021 16:45

Ah diddums.... Did it never occur to you that you don't know us?

[nigwit] 16/7/2021 15:32

“It was his job to understand his customer. He patently didn't.“ This is an especially moronic remark given that Samsung have sold the technology millions of times. As to the rest of you. You haven’t been there so you have no idea what you’re on about. You come across as cruel, inexperienced and prejudiced. I don’t want to know you.

[bagpuss67] 16/7/2021 15:19

This list is endless. Anyone who presided over the pouffe approach to marketing a cutting edge scientific product should have been sacked for that immediately

[supernumerary] 16/7/2021 15:15

It was his job to understand his customer. He patently didn't.

[bagpuss67] 16/7/2021 15:14

Worse supernumerary IMHO. He spent a huge amount of shareholders money: a lot of it raised at much higher prices. Overall it was a terrible performance in my view leaving the shareholders and Mr Tenner to mount a last ditch attempt at survival.

[nigwit] 16/7/2021 15:11

How would you like it if your lifetime’s work was misappropriated after five years working with people you believed you could trust?

[supernumerary] 16/7/2021 15:04

NigWit - I'm sure his discomfort is eased by having made himself wealthy, something he never managed to achieve for shareholders. If they feel upset about it, that seems entirely reasonable to me - why wouldn't they? david - ascorbic -> acerbic I presume