If you have any questions for next week's webinar guest speakers (Atlantic Lithium, Cora Gold and Valirx), please submit 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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
InvestorSteve: Thanks for reminding us of this term of contract from DHSC:
“ The parties agree that where such new products are made available by the supplier, they may be ordered by the Authority under the terms of this agreement at the same price per reaction as (or less than) the price listed for the original good".
When I originally read this a long time ago it raised quite a few alarm signals to me.
Surely, I thought, no supplier could agree to this without clarification of how broadly this might be interpreted.
If, for instance Novacyt spent several months research time and several millions of £s improving its testing equipment/methodology, could the customer say we won’t pay anything extra for this better product?
On the face of it, this seems to be what the customer is demanding.
So if the CEO or BoD or Plummer/legal counsel agreed to these terms I feel they should all have been shown the door.
Perhaps they have!
@Steve annnd I thank you. I think its largely me that is responsible for putting forward. I knew I had read it somewhere but I couldn't find it. I even went thru the latest contract I could find on line and still couldn't find it, I don't know if its now been redacted or if I just wasn't paying attention.
I knew I hadn't just made it up so thanks for the clarification
Blue83, not really an 'elusive' term in the contract if you bother reading in. it's pretty early on too:
"Due to the rapidly evolving nature of the COVID-19 response, updated and improved versions of the goods may be developed/launched in the future which the Authority may wish to purchase. The parties agree that where such new products are made available by the supplier, they may be ordered by the Authority under the terms of this agreement at the same price per reaction as (or less than) the price listed for the original good"
Suppose GM or someone else was responsible in some way for the entitlement the DHSC is reported(*) to feel for swapping exsig tests for later products launched by Primer Design (i.e. PROmate).
Reported (*) this BB discussions with referred to an "elusive" term in the contract allowing replacement of exsig with later products. The 28 Sep contract seems very clear in specifying tests are exsig. I can't find words to support a claim on future products & would appreciate help if anyone else has it or more information on it. Perhaps the reason for the impression is not documented.
BUT it seems from the dates that the relationship with the DHSC went pear shaped at the time PROmate launched.
The last DHSC regular payment under the contract was made on 29 Nov. It must have related to exsig delivered up to 15 Nov, ie the day before PROmate was launched on 16 Nov.
In the RNS 29 Jan - Full Year 2020 Trading Update discussions were said to be still active about extending the contract but with PROmate. "the Company continues to support the DHSC and the NHS following the deployment of its rapid PCR testing system, for the contract with the DHSC, announced on 29 September 2020, and the Company is in active discussions with the DHSC to extend this phase of the contract. Novacyt's PROmate™, a new product to improve the workflow efficiency when used with the Company's q16/q32 instruments successfully completed an in-service validation conducted by Test and Trace's Technology Validation Group (TVG), with the TVG concluding the performance of the PROmate™ aligns with the acceptable standard for point-of-care (rapid testing)"
Section 2 of the 28 Sept contract on its Term says
"This Contract shall commence on the Commencement Date and the Term of this Contract
shall expire on 28 January 2021, (“the Expiry Date”). The Term may be extended in
accordance with Clause 15.2 (Extension) of Schedule 2 provided that the duration of this
Contract shall be no longer than six (6) months in total
i.e. 29 Sep commencement, expiry was officially 28 Jan but with possibility of extension no longer than 6 months from commencement - i.e. 29 March. We know PROmate was supplied in Q1 separate from the contract in NCYT's view & is dragged into the dispute.
Nick Plummer, legal advisor, was appointed on 1 April. GM announced the existence of a dispute on 9 April with his intention to "retire" announced on 29 July.
Graham has been sent packing and has thrown his toys out of the pram.
Now he is open to the highest bidder .
But why was he sent packing and by who ?
Ummm. I felt it was most odd. Most in corporate life know the relentless pursuit by headhunters. There is a dire shortage of individuals with the expertise he has. I find it very strange that he chooses to advertise his availability via Linked in. Without doubt the entire sector is aware. I have never seen such a thing before. Imo it becomes stranger by the day. So not so sure BH2
Chuckled at this for those not on twitter
I thought there was a possibility Graham retired because of ill health.
Gladly, todays 'advert' in LinkedIn scotches that thought.
GM actively looking to assist businesses less than a week after retiring.
So therefore GM must be thinking when the truth comes out about the dispute, his reputation will be upheld or even enhanced.
He obviously thinks he played the game with a strait bat, and DHSC are the villains, or he would not be promoting his experience and services in such a way.
A healthcare experienced CEO who has the skills to develop and commercialise new technologies, build high growth, successful businesses and create shareholder value. Extensive international experience including living and working in the US, Ireland and Singapore. Includes significant M&A experience from targeted roll-up strategies. Building high performing teams is both rewarding and fun.
Specialties: Significant international CEO experience in Pharma, Biotech, Medical Device and Diagnostic sectors
GM had much M&A experience.
The next thing he was going to do in Jan/Feb/March/April 2021 was to M&A big time with the cash generated from DHSC part2, and blitz Novacyt to Mid-cap status.
RNS - Jan 5th 2021 - GM makes Anthony Dyer Chief Corporate Development Officer full time:
"His (Anthony's) new, important role reflects the Company's growth strategy, which includes selective potential M&A to supplement organic growth initiatives."
I think the fun stopped when the DHSC spiked his guns with the dispute, and he could say absolutely nothing about the cause.
* IF * the above is anything like true, we as shareholders have lost out big time on those plans (Mid-Cap status would have been easier to achieve with only 70.6 Mil shares).
Not totally on the same page as those who think he was pushed.
Can't help thinking that those responsible for manipulating the sp for many months have stopped there shenanigans and are the ones who collectively bought today, and are expecting sp to be catapulted back toward fair value.
We'll see what happens Monday.
I think the words 'retirement' in relation to Graham may have been used loosely and don't ever recall the word 'interview' being used in relation to the appointment of David, apart from by certain members on this board.
The term 'poached' was used by certain media after an 'extensive search by the Board' given that Graham had decided to leave. The endless speculation seems pointless now IMO and if the dispute is settled fairly soon with a new man in place, some theories will have been proved correct but Graham can hold his head high in any future positions as a man of very high integrity and principle (not always desirable in some aspects of business).
Good points actually poidster. Up until about 1pmish in France there was around 120k of shares traded then it began relentless trades huge trades 50k shares at a time (150k euros) in France. We had two auctions where the market had to be paused intraday. By close 2m shares in France had been traded. 10x average daily volume. Twitter was alive a little but not with the traders et al. Most of the U.K. buying 1.3m…over 5x daily U.K. volume all in the afternoon again. This was not normal PI money imo or technical movements. This imo was a significant leak. When we had leaks of new r & d rns or that we would see around double or triple daily volume and. 5%….so let’s see what the next few weeks brings something imo is a foot and rightly so as the current share price is massively distorted from reality.
Cracked a fresh crisp Mersault this evening! Just on this afternoons, improvement!
Hoping for more improvement on Monday! & coming weeks…
for someone with 300k shares & price rising why would you state that… Dr My backside :)
Thats not as crazy a theory as you might think!
As CEO gets access to all intel, as sales & marketing can assess potential?
Big bonus if he calls it right! & hopefully for all LTH’s
For once looking forward to Monday, :)
@Sir Digby, hes only 54 and is already looking for other positions via LinkedIn, so he's clearly not retiring. The tone of the AGM/EGM was all a bit odd, as was DA none appearance, it doesn't feel like an amicable departure. I thought Kaeren made a good observation earlier that was overlooked, none of the existing BOD seemed to know anything about DA, so who the hell interviewed him for the position ?
In my opinion, which is just that and based on no inside info, changes are afoot. The unexplained 10%+ rise today. something's hsppening
Some interesting conspiracy theories being mentioned this past week about DA's arrival. Could Amryt have sent him in to prep Nova for a TO. Guess we'll find out before Xmas.
He either genuinely wanted to retire or was pushed by the BOD. There's no institutional holders and of course no debt holders with the clout to oust him. My personal opinion has been that institutions simply refused to invest unless there were changes at the top. I agree that the BOD came across as less than enthusiastic about D A at the AGM, more changes to come within the management structure perhaps.
Just adds more amunition that GM was pushed out by either other BOD or external organisations that were unhappy with his performance. No CEO would want to leave a company wanting to build into a mid cap organisation. Did GM mess up the contract with DHSC to make it 100 % full payment in Novacyt favour and he therefore pushed out ?
Maybe DHSC resolution contingent on GM departure if he was unbending. Who knows, good luck to him although he did lack sparkle. Too many bungles from DHSC contract to stupid errors in tweets etc. Re-organising the group under one umbrella took far too long. IT-IS was the master stroke.
Yea I agree it's likely GM has fallen on his sword over the dispute. Something still doesn't feel quite right though, because surely then the chairman of the board would know a little more about the new CEO.
Enjoy the wine Brent, I'm gonna have a stout!
My personal take on this at the moment is that GM and NP have been pushed/fallen on their swords over the inventory and the DHSC dispute issues.
Not surprising perhaps given the impact it has had on the sp and the sentiment towards the company.
However, the company and it's fundamentals have not changed as they are bigger than any one or two individuals and my belief is that all the bad news and dirty laundry have now been exposed. I am hopeful of much better days ahead and I'm decanting a fine Bordeaux for later to toast the new CEO GLA
Agree CT. Kitze I don't think its anything to do with aspirations re midcap.
This imo is purely to do with the DHSC dispute. Not the fact it occurred , but how G.M has interacted with them since the dispute and perhaps in the eyes of many board members has hindered negotiations. Purely speculative , but you sense the utter disbelief in the Rns whereby it stated they ordered 40.million in the first quarter. I suspect the board believes negotiations could be productive but GM was an obstacle to that as he took 100 % hard line. This board too will be divided.
Well let's hope Novacyt have a solid restrictive covenant in place in case GM does start to help out other companies. Let's hope they're not in the diagnostics filed.
The standard types of restrictions which can be used by employers are:
• non-competition covenants - restrictions on the former employee working in similar employment for a competitor;
• non-solicitation covenants – which prevent poaching of clients/customers/suppliers of the former employer;
• non-dealing covenants – which prevent a former employee from dealing with former clients/customers/suppliers, regardless of which party approached the other;
• non-poaching covenants – which prevent an employee poaching former colleagues.
For a restrictive covenant to be enforced it must not be drafted too widely. It will be for the employer, in the event of a clause being challenged, to show that the clause is justified and sufficiently narrow. To meet these criteria an employer must be mindful of certain factors:
• The breadth of the geographical area of any restriction and the length of time of the post termination restriction must be justified. It is unlikely that a wide geographical area will be justified and, as a general rule, a restriction for more than 6-12 months will be difficult to justify.
• The breadth of the activities that the employer is trying to restrict.
• The type of interest being protected, for instance, information such as trade secrets may be granted wider protection than customer information, given that its potential use across markets is wider.
An employer may also be required to evidence any connection between the employee and any information that is being protected.
The extent of clauses, therefore, must be relative to the employee's position within the business. As more senior employees will be in contact with more sensitive information, restrictions placed upon them may be justified as being more onerous. Overall, a one-size fits-all policy on restrictive covenant clauses risks the clause becoming unenforceable.
Restrictive covenants may also require periodic review in order to maintain their enforceability as the reasonableness of the covenant is judged at the time it was entered into.
for DA not to be at the AGM means that he's part of the next plan for the board and most certainly was never part of GM's future motives or aspirations......
While CEOs do run the company, they are (at least theoretically) responsible and accountable to the board of directors and its chairman. So IMO, GM and the rest of the board were conflicted with the next direction of the company. GM always wanted to take it midcap and eventually sell, like he did in previous roles. So, what have the board got in mind that's opposite to that....I wonder?
Hi K, Technically It's GMs responsibility to appoint his successor but it's JWs to approve it on behalf of shareholders.
It looked to me like JW didnt know him from Adam and GM didn't have a lot to say about him either. Very Peculiar.