AMSC Transcript from most recent conference call—
Key date is July 6,2018 for intellectual property (IP) law suit
See below
——————————————————————————————-
Philip Shen, ROTH Capital Partners - Analyst [8]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great, thanks, Dan. One other quick question on Sinovel and then I'll pass it on. I know it sounds like it may be delayed another month, the hearing. Does that mean the date now is July 6 or does that mean the date is now in August?
And can you talk through the scenarios of what the possible sentencing could be? After sentencing is concluded what are the scenarios that could be -- that could play out for you guys? And I'm guessing it's tough to ascribe probabilities, but insofar as you can help us understand (multiple speakers).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McGahn, American Superconductor Corp. - President & CEO [9]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Multiple speakers) at this point and try to give people comfort on what we know and what we understand. So in regards to the date, I think it's public. And we tended to not really announce the dates and stuff for this case because it's not our case, just so people understand that on the call because it's a US Department of Justice case.
We aren't really pretty to the behind-the-scenes dealings between the prosecution and the defense. We are the victim and we are a witness. So information flow to us is at best limited. So my understanding is that the date that was June 6 is now July 6. And the reasoning that was given from the court was it was because of the scheduling of the court. So my understanding is I guess the judge had a conflict on June 6 so they moved it out to July 6.
Our understanding on what should happen is the sentencing should include a fine and it should include restitution direction to us. I think that once a number is established, whatever that number might be, it gives a clear endpoint for the US government and the Chinese government to understand what the damages are. Having two criminal convictions, having a US case conviction under this current administration I think bodes well.
There is a lot of these trade issues that are out there. We are front and center as part of that. In many ways we have become the poster child for intellectual property theft in regards to China. As part of this 301 action our understanding is the way that the administration has presented some of these trade issues to China is there is principally an issue over IP theft, and secondarily an issue over trade imbalance. And the idea is to use one to leverage the other.
There is a three letter company in China that they have sanctions and fines. I think today that company actually has a $1 billion fine against it, so there's some additional precedent being set that helps us. (Insert ZTE)
Our hope is that our four letter company ( Insert AMSC) gets restitution through this process. And I think the court setting a number makes a lot of our claims in China, the 1.2 billion in claims in China, hopefully not only vindicates the facts of the guilty verdict but also the claims of the damages and the value of the forced IP transfer. So hopefully that's helpful, Phil.
