i have to say when you look at this play it just reaks of pay day just dont get irrationally exuberant to quote an old talking head !! the bias is definitely in nlst's favor, flat out... this is a good one
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!!!!
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.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
