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.
With respect your comments don't make sense. Novacyt haven't been paid for much of the disputed goods so how can DHSC claim the value of the contracted goods? We were told by Novacyt that at worst they consider this to be a warranty claim. Under English Law there are quite strict limitations on what can be claimed for breach of contract including the requirement to mitigate your losses and difficulty claiming consequential losses, e.g. if DHSC were arguing they incurred expense buying the same goods from an alternative supplier.
Btw @Anders….no need to go on your private ‘NCYT Share Research Chat’ on Telescam and bad mouth me there with your 18:21 post.
Steve,
So it looks like all this BS about wiping out the whole cash balance is juat that BS!
Not that any sane onlooker would have ever thought anything else!
Brilliant stuff Steve.
Appreciate the detail Steve. It certainly supports our case. I'll never understand why these things take so long to resolve. Clearly, feet are being dragged.
Having read the whole contract word for word several times, to me the position is very clear
FROM SCHEDULE 1
Optional key provision (ticked box) 6 regarding quality assurance standards.
6.2 - the authority has to inspect within timeframes set out in clause 9.1 and if it doesn't meet the standard then:
6.2.2 The supplier shall at it's option either replace the goods or refund
Let me repeat
THE SUPPLIER SHALL AT ITS OPTION
Right moving on to clause 9.1
9.1 The authority shall visually inspect the goods within 7 days of delivery
I find it highly unlikely that £129m worth of goods were delivered on the same day and all were inspected. Case win to Novacyt again
Then we have optional clause 12, warranty. This says
"if any instrument or reagent fail to meet requirements [...] The supplier shall either repair or replace at the suppliers discretion"
Let me repeat
AT THE SUPPLIERS DISCRETION
Also within the same clause "Suppliers maximum liability with any claim under this warranty is to replace the faulty good free of charge or refund full costs"
RIGHT NOW ONTO SCHEDULE 2
Clause 3 - passing of risk
3.2 - Ownership of the goods shall pass to the authority on the earlier of full payment of goods or use of goods
This one is a bonafide, nothing but net 3 pointer - if the DHSC paid for it it's no longer Primerdesigns problem. They will have had adequate time to inspect. So dispute IMO now already MAXIMUM for unpaid invoices
Now here is where things get interesting, clause 4.5
"Where the authority rejects any goods in accordance with clauses 4.2 and no longer required replacement goods, Should the authority have paid the supplier shall refund such payment along with costs"
"Oh no Steve! We're boned!" I hear you say
Well that clause would seem so, except THIS IS SCHEDULE 2
Lets have a look at clause 3 in SCHEDULE 1
3. Order of precedence
"in the event of any conflict between any parts of this contract the order of precedence shall be
1 The order form
2 Schedule 1
3 Schedule 5
4 Schedule 4
5 Schedule 2
Etc
Etc
The above clause 4 (Schedule 2) is clearly in conflict with parts od Schedule 1 - Schedule 1 rules. Novacyt choose whether to refund or replace!!
I can go through tons more **** like this, but it's not like people haven't had months and months to read it for themselves
Imo a negative dispute resolution would not clear our bank account. For 2 reasons.
1. Of the £129m and £49m only £105m has been paid. This includes VAT so let's call it £85m we would have to refund. By year end we will likely have £77m + £18m + £10m let's call it £100m. Even if it got settled at year end and we had to cough it all up immediately we would still have £15m left in the bank. That is still a pretty amount in AIM.
2. We would never agree to a full refund so it would be the courts who decide and that would take years. During that time we would be raking in around £36m+ per annum so by the time we would have to pay the bank balance would cover it comfortably.
3. It is unlikely the courts would demand ncyt to pay immediately as ncyt would argue it would significantly disrupt business. Imo a payment plan would be put in place therefore minimal affect on the bank balance.
The cash pile isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Just growing. With any luck we'll make a sizeable acquisition in the next 12 months that will use up some of that cash and also some shares.
Telescam they should call it. When's the elliott wave ramp starting?
@Anders, you didn't answer the question. Why have you made 4 comments today after not making any comment for 6 months?
If I was short on some long term spreadbet, I can tell you that I would be celebrating and telling you rampers how great I was. Unfortunately, I am just a normal punter who invested his hard earned in a company at the wrong time and whom is now a long term holder under duress; As are most here, thanks to the ineptness of the management of this company
You are back as you can see a quick trade might be on the cards and you say you were not part of Fridays pump......pull the other one.
BigYellowPig, easy to answer - I spend more time on Telegram now than here. You'll see I hardly post on the EUA board now either despite still being heavily invested.
I don't spend much time on lse any more, but your posts seem to be all over the board on the few occasions I've come back for a look.
So you're hours here for the good of potential new investors, warning them of the potential downsides to the stock and assuming they can't make their own investment decisions? You've made 12 posts today and 136 posts in the last 30 days and you're not invested to the downside? Pull the other one.
41000 cases...... 263 deaths...........
Btw @Anders…..if you are so great at picking winners, how comes your very frequent posts on NCYT stopped altogether from 23rd April until today (apart from one on the 30th September)? Can you answer that question please, since I answered yours.
@Anders….. I’ve answered that question a million times to others. It’s a stupid question. If you claim that you see me “trolling” all the time, then surely you have seen me answer that on many occasions. I do not short stock or spreadbet. Incidentally, I thought Novacyt had been removed from lg for spreadbetting?
If I had a spreadbet open on this epic I’d be shouting about how good I am and counting my profit. I would also be heavily trolling the stock when it’s price is rising like it did on Friday. But that’s just it, I don’t troll and I posted once on Friday and the next on Monday and not at all over the weekend. Most derampers would be typing furiously if the price was rising so what’s your next theory Sherlock? I can tell you that most negative posters or realists stayed quiet and were secretly hoping that the sp would continue to rise to a point where they can finally sell this POS at a reasonable loss.
BigYellowPig,
That's right don't bother answering the question, I'll assume your shorting or spreadbetting with the agenda driven posts...
I wasn't buying on Friday. But as you mentioned EUA perhaps it shows I have an eye for spotting stocks with good long term potential? Just like this one..
@Anders….. with your millions of pounds worth of holdings in EUA, I might ask you the same question why you are here? Perhaps you had something to do with the spike on Friday?
He's stated 'retired CEO' on his linkedin so yes he is retiring.
Retiring for a CEO doesn't mean a lifetime of travel and pottering around in the garden, it will often involve work of some kind such as advocacy but at nothing like the intensity of a CEO position.
BYP, 2020 £35.5m of Opex will also be linked to direct material costs for £277m in sales.
The business continues to make money and the EBIDTA and subsequent capex guidance they give considers the headcount.
Also, its because of ongoing operating expenses that they wouldn't be expected to pay back a settlement in one go. It would be paid off over an agreed time.
“Retirement in business can simply mean ' the withdrawal from ones position '. “
Normal people call that a resignation
@bluelight…..really, you are calling me and others trolls after the negativity YOU brought to the board with your comments over the last 2 months or so. Lol
@christoffer, do you think £5m would be enough headroom? OPEX in 2020 was £35.4m and business has added more personnel since then.
Retirement in business can simply mean ' the withdrawal from ones position '.
Assessing the mood here previously and recently, who would have been happy with a 'quick hello'.
I would imagine the new CEO wants clarity on some issue before making any kind of statement and will want to choose his words carefully given the present situation regards the dispute etc....
Just hope that anything that is said won't be full of weasel words, empty rhetoric and false promises to which a lot of people appear to have become accustomed to for far too long IMO.
Brentw1
Undoubtedly shown the door either because he allowed the dispute to happen and didn’t resolve it or it happened and he didn’t resolve it.
Why else would they say he was retiring for him to completely contradict them by advertising himself on LinkedIn.
That is very poor form whichever way you look at it
“BigYellowPig, you continue to troll this share. I take it you're short or have a speadbet open to the downside?
Why else would you spend so much time on the board?”
@Anders….. with your millions of pounds worth of holdings in EUA, I might ask you the same question why you are here? Perhaps you had something to do with the spike on Friday?
Completely concur Kaeran. It is becoming increasingly apparent that there has been little in the way of a handover from the old to the new CEO. My feeling is that this would only happen if, as I think most poster suspect, GM and NP had more or less been shown the door.
If you think sensibly about it, its going to be a couple of weeks at least to get round everyone, get up to speed, maybe even travel to the States (possible now after 8th Nov) and generally get his head round it all.
Like many on here though, I would have thought a quick 'hello' would have been appropriate but personally I am prepared to give DA some slack for a bit.