We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Wallbrook are useless. They won't communicate anything of worth. We'll just remain in the dark as per usual until RNS tells us what's going on
It says this on Companies House: "Register a charge (MR01)
A ‘charge’ is the security a company gives for a loan. For example, a mortgage is a type of charge.
You can send us the details of a charge created by the company. We’ll then register the charge on the company’s public record."
As DHSC has not, to our knowledge, paid ABDX for equipment ordered from them, delivered, and used (byBiobank) I'm at a loss to know what constitutes a loan from DHSC to ABDX. But it does seem to suggest that DHSC might have paid up, and this is a clawback provision in case GLP win and the judge orders the Government not to pay (which seems exceedingly unlikely to me as the kit was supplied and used). But the company do need to clarify what is going on.
Someone has already emailed Wallybrook
Pumpkin makes a rare good point
I’m going to take a stab in the dark here and say it is a consensual charge agreed by Abingdon over the ‘x’ (payment due) that effectively the DHSC can/will pay it but claim it back in the future should they have to by law or whatever
But seems it complicates any creditor agreements tho as the charge has first dibs
Look towards the bottom pages for confirmation letters
Surely if no one understands it;email nomad?
Whatever it is it is DHSCs favour and contains a ‘negative pledge’
Defined as
“The purpose of a negative pledge is to ensure that other creditors do not obtain a preferred claim over the assets of the debtor in the event of insolvency.”
That’s what I though. I was wondering if if had anything to do with the disposal of surplus stock held for the DHSC.
Still why now , more business from the DHSC ?
It reads like a credit facility not a payment of monies owed.
It's very frustrating to be an ABDX investor. The BoD communication is very poor. I'm up to 70,000 shares now so hoping for some positive news soon.
Why should we have to be playing bloody guessing games? This charge is now in the public domain and it is incumbent upon the BoD to explain to shareholders its meaning and implications. It is clearly price sensitive information (see SP movement today) and consequently I believe should be subject of an RNS (or are we simply to be treated as mushrooms?).
But having read the charge again
"Event of Default" means the Technology and Construction Court makes a final order in the JR proceedings (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) that the company repay all or any of the Sums paid to the company by the chargee in respect of all or any of the contracts (as defined in the Settlement Agreement)"
That doesn't sound good !
I think this is an account in ABDX name, into which the DHSC have paid the money owed to ABDX and have a charge on the account (ie need to give permission for money to be withdrawn). In this way the DHSC avoid the punitive interest payments that they would be subject to for not paying on time.
Just my hope anyway !
I agree Chris especially as this was registered on 22nd June. I like to think it is positive perhaps just for accounting purposes and SP is looking OK.
I might be interpreting incorrectly but 2nd para on page 21(25 of 27) refers to "including but not limited to interest...") sounded positive
Not sure how the second scenario could be possible?
No idea if good or bad. The charge is very vague. Either the DHSC have paid monies owed to ABDX but are holding a charge over it until GLP case resolved like a credit facility (good) or ABDX have had to use cash in bank to secure a debt owed to DHSC (bad). The BoD should really tell us what is going on
I think this will be positive.
Good morning,
I have e mailed Walbrook and will share any response, as way above my level to interpret the meaning.
Regards
Red