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.
There was partnership cases studys before, but they've been updated i think.
B2 - Hadn't notice before but maybe one of the other poster may be able to comment if they have picked it up previously?
Looks more like preparing for a recorded interview with the CEO, putting David in the hot seat. That's if it is Novacyt of course.
Ad, - I read that for the first time this afternoon.
I was on holiday when the new website went live.
So has that been their all the time, or is it new this week please?
Good post thanks
Meant to say, thanks Ad
Thanks And, guessing they are only small companies. Never heard of Company A, Company B or Company C. They sound like they are part of the same group. ;-)
Partnership case studies
Company A specialises in the development of high precision liquid handling robotics and software for life science research. Novacyt has partnered with them to define, develop, and deliver novel automation solutions for molecular IVDs. The partnership resulted in an accelerated product development pathway and both companies are benefitting as Novacyt leverages its global commercial reach to deliver a platform technology delivering new decentralised workflow solutions to the market.
Company B has partnered with Novacyt in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the companies collaborating on products, sold under the Novacyt brand. Novacyt has supported Company B in demonstrating product quality and performance in clinical evaluations and helped them access global markets utilising Novacyt’s expertise in registration and approval of IVD products. Novacyt continues to support Company B in product development and optimisation.
Company C has developed a novel sensor and portable reader for the detection of small organic molecules. Novacyt has partnered with the company to re-purpose the technology as a novel biosensor that can be utilised as an IVD platform. Partnering with Novacyt has helped them develop products and access the global IVD market.
Also tonight's Tweet
https://twitter.com/NovacytGroup/status/1547250508850774018/photo/1
Dr - looking at some of the other dhsc contracts I suspect there were penalties if they could not provide enough product but no responsibility for ensuring enough stock was held.
Ncyt prob thought they would sell anything they got and were not worried...not expecting dhsc to play silly baggers.
It is a pity they didn't / couldn't sell it elsewhere
Ncyt aren't claiming for any damages, just what they're owed from stock provided. I was disappointed to learn that we had not included the stock write off of £30m given that the DHSC requested we implement the build up of stock. Maybe that was GM's fault for not getting a formal commitment from them that could be legally enforced.
They aren't countersuing for less !!
They already hold monies , they can't sue for what they already have ! They are countersuing for what is still owed.
Actually I think yr right. It always felt like ncyt were the ones taking action against them since they announced it on 9th April. It's weird ncyt are countersuing for less as that never happens.
And the contract not being fit for purpose?
just think how much of the chinese cr4p that was not fit for purpose and then all the ppe...
Id say Nova products are way above reproach imo ? #timewasting until payment imo
I wouldn't think for one moment that the insurance will cover any losses if we lose our case due to product not being fit for purpose.
Depp instigated the case against AH correct. He said she was a liar and the onus was on Depp to prove he wasn't a domestic abuser and thereby AH was indeed a liar.
In our case, DHSC have taken us to court and so they have to prove we have done something wrong. We will then just simply defend that accusation. Do they have sufficient evidence for something. I'm not sure.
but depp was right? whats to say Nova are not right... Im sure the contract was #virustight!
as GM would have wanted to ensure his bonus? and hence the confidence to sue?????
Haha, think you have that wrong. DHSC instigated the dispute and instigated the court process, not ncyt.
As per ncyt rnses, the dhsc were happy with the first batch of tests so hastily signed another contract and reordered. In fact they did that with multiple UK based testing companies not just ncyt. The problem with ncyt is that they jumped the gun and were not patient and stupidly did a lawsuit against the DHSC. That clearly p1$$ed them off and we knew they would counter sue for more.
Drb83, you forget the fact novacyt instigated the case and not the dhsc. This is significant and not the amounts involved. As you saw in Depp Vs Heard case, Depp instigated a court case against his ex for $50m and then she subsequently sued for $100m. As we all know we know who won.
Hi kaeren maybe wrong path.. But leads too sensible descions... Another few corners to peep round yet...
As all classified as red from 113 to 115 ?
I did a couple dummy trades, to see what price offered...
Lots of games still being played....
Why they cannot in this day and age of IT monitoring ability, offer a true sell or buy price beats ,me... #dispicable imo
Aren't we all forgetting that this whole legal shenanigans has left the door wide open for "friends" of our apology for a government to clean up, and move to suitable tax havens. They won't be in any hurry to settle until the trough is empty!
FWIW, - From full year results -
7. General and administrative expenses
Insurance Premiums
Year ended 31 December 2021 = £1,453,000 Year ended31 December2020 = £574,000