Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video 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.
All round, this is panning out to be one of the best ever days for AVCT. Bring it on !
https://twitter.com/downunderfutbol/status/1390687925248172034?s=20
"For me its because its been updated with todays date and full contract given with "services commenced" ;) "the contract award date reported in the Awarded Information Section refers to the day before services commenced as opposed to the date on which the contract was signed.""
I was thinking all those black redactions could equally be hiding the name Mologic.
But then I thought, why would that be redacted? It’s not exactly sensitive information for Mologic to be revealed as the supplier working with the manufacturer THEY set up.
Avacta on the other hand, being a listed company and all, would be considered very sensitive...
Mologic, surescreen, novacyt, imo those names are too large to fit in the redacted field for there to be equal distance text size between each word.
Avacta fits. As does Innova.
https://twitter.com/EggySoldier/status/1390688916819386368?s=20
@Pennyfortheguy: "Oh, so it can’t be Mologic, as Mologic is explicitly mentioned as a third party!"
3.1.10 redaction is interesting.
Innova aren't listed and they're plastered all over the place so no need to censor them.... as mentioned earlier, listed company IMO
Will this be the usual rise on Friday and dump on Monday ?
Surely the cat cannot jump into another bag this time :)
The numbers required by the government
Avacta are the only company that can guarantee reagent supply .
Affimers are the Holy Grail with No competition.
Livedataaccount-re 16.37 post, I thought the government would have PD CV for affimers under non disclosure but this redaction will cover them ahead of AVCT gaining ISO 13485 and using our Spanish CV
Doze, yes via mologic hopefully!
Page 40 of the doc seems like Mologic..? what's going on !
Is the lack of redaction for Mologic in 3.1.10 a mistake?
Mologic are redacted on page 40. Given the alphabetical order, it’s pretty pointless :-D
Mologic named again in 3.7, they must already be in a published contract.
@PL well by that logic, unfortunately, Avacta aren't in the alphabetical order list anywhere
Good work Detective JRDC - lol! But seriously it cannot possibly be Innova though given their awful performance and dire press coverage. Ignoring our best in class, home-grown pedigree the Govt wouldn’t dare . . . would they?
Correct. Bit weird though eh? Mologic are named, yet not named but have entered in to a contract with 'someone' to access their IP, perhaps 'someone' aren't listed on Page 40 as they're a third party and have a separate contract with Mologic.
Just catching up here and wow, this confirms it must be Avacta. Nothing else makes sense and add everything else into the equation (timelines, delay, holy grail from summer) then just wow.
I find it absolutely nuts that at this stage we are still looking at tealeaves to try and understand what is going on. I've not got the need for the total blackout level secrecy all the way through. By rights Avacta's IP will be integral to this initiative, but blimey, I wish there was just a bit of transparency.
Looks like the ducks are running around again
The protection of IP absolutely screams affimers. I think it's us, it could be us. Wonder if it's us?
You may call them ducks, I call them golden geese...
So when you look at 3.1.10 (regardless of if Mologic should/shouldnt have been redacted)
**If so required by the Test Developer procure that xxxxx enters into a contract on terms required by the Authority for the Test Developer to grant a licence to Mologic of the Licensed IPR and Licensed Know How to enable it to carry out
its obligations as legal manufacturer of the Goods and such other terms as the Authority may require; and**
So 3.1.10 suggests someone may be required to license IP to Mologic, but GAD won't have the IP. So could this be Mologic in their capacity of "owning GAD" and this is a legal structure....as that sentence reads to me like Mologic is the manufacturer of the goods.
Mologic wouldn't have to license it's own IP to itself...so for me, this is AVCT or another left field entity who are "test developer"