NetList Inc (NLST)

[Methinks]

Who was the Samsung Executive that blew it on this NRE Fee Decision.
How would you like to be the person at Samsung who decided to violate the JDLA with Netlist! Read what the judge wrote in his ruling and understand that whoever the "Fool" at Samsung was that made the decision to withhold the 1.2 million from the NRE Fees ultimately cost Samsung "BILLIONS" in what they are going to owe Netlist. They decided to do this just so they could save $430,000.00 In a Breach of Contract Case they had to know would eventually come. In their "Conceit" they ended up allowing Netlist to "Leverage" $430,000.00 in expenses into 1 dollar in Nominal damages and that ONE DOLLAR will be worth Billions to Netlist!!!!

https://www.reddit.com/r/NLST/comments/stvs7f/who_was_the_samsung_executive_that_blew_it_on/

Judges statement below:

Third, Samsung contends the breach of JDLA § 3.1 was not material given the

lack of damages awardable to Netlist. (Id. at 26–27.) As discussed in the Court’s

summary judgment order, “Samsung’s failure to pay a significant chunk of the NRE

fees was material.” (XMSJ Order 19.) See Taub v. Marchesi Di Barolo, S.p.A., 480 F.

App’x 643, 645 (2d Cir. 2012) (“It is axiomatic that failure to pay is a material breach

of a contract.” (citing Arp Films, Inc. v. Marvel Ent. Grp., Inc., 952 F.2d 643, 649 (2d

Cir. 1991)). Materiality is measured at the time the breach occurred. See KLS

Diversified Master Fund, L.P. v. McDevitt, 507 F. Supp. 3d 508, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Accordingly, the Court’s conclusion as to the materiality of Samsung’s breach of the

payment obligation did not, and need not, rest on Netlist proving recoverable general

damages. The evidence concerning materiality is and was “clear and substantially uncontradicted,” so the Court’s ruling at summary judgment on the issue stands.