I hope they only had to pay Barclay's if a deal got done. If they had to pay them as a reward for chopping the company's share price, even if a deal doesn't eventually get done, just more salt in the wounds.
BTW, IR got back to me already. Put the response on Mickey's board. They stress that they know there's a firewall, and that mgmt & BOD have been very active in discussing their positions and strategies the last few months (?????????????????).
What may be closer to the truth is...The BOD is leaning more towards the consortium that Evercore brought to the table than the consort that Barclays brought.
The Barclays analyst's move has very little influence on the sale of the company.
Remember, the added value of the company over its value as a stand alone company derives from the ability of a large company to use IDCC's IP as a weapon in the patent wars. That value is not questioned by the Barclays analyst report. His report is his opinion of the value of IDCC if it were to stay independent, and he makes some big mistakes in not accounting for the reduced licensing that may be happening because of the sale process, and not accounting at all for the value of the patents in a potential future sale. These points were made by the Morgan Keegan analyst that JimLur quoted an email of to the Barclays analyst ( http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68408260 )
I agree with others that investors are making too much of this target price reduction from Barclays. This too shall pass, and investors in IDCC will be rewarded.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
