Question: Is not this post by AMS on this subject right on target..$360 Million at issue in Nokia/Samsung IMO: puts the Insurance contingency issue in proper perspective. TIA
By: ams13sag 15 Aug 2003, 03:41 AM EDT Msg. 120813 of 120849 Jump to msg. # Per 10k.
I wonder what the contingent liability of $27 million actually relates to. It is not a small amount, and I can not imagine the insurance companies merely thought it a good idea.
It would appear to me from the accounting treatment affforded this potential liability that the $27 million is contingent upon Nokia and perhaps Samsung settling. The %'s would seem to be similar to those agreed based upon the Ericy settlement.
Corp; if the insurer is looking at settlements with companies other than Ericy, I think they are on thin grounds. If you carry that idea to its logical conclusion, then any company that pays Idcc as a direct or indirect result of the Ericy settlement should ceate an additional Idcc liability to the insurer.
Corp_Buyer, is it possible that NOK fighting the ERICY matter via arbitration may actually assist IDCC in the disagreement with the insurance carrier?? Had NOK agreed quickly to pay after 3/17 it would have given more validity to the ERICY settlement being an automatic trigger for monies based on the legal work paid for by the insurance carrier. However, now that NOK is going the arbitration route would seem to somewhat "de-couple" NOK's monies being attributed to the legal work performed with the ERICY settlement.
FWIW: These legal loose ends that seem to never end is getting very tiresome and I agree with your ending comments concerning too much legal time spent on "tightening-up" personal matter items and not on licensing contracts.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
