The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
21ATS, it's in the RNS last year. If the dispute was about how the contract was awarded, why make a £20m replacement warranty in the accounts.
__________________________________________________________________________
Good accounting practice, making an allowance in the correct tax year for one of the possible outcomes.
Your assumption is the DHSC are actually in charge of the timelines and decisions, I don't think they are I feel a "Higher force" has put everything on hold temporarily. I think we'll find out more mid summer. I'd be surprised if anything with the DHSC dispute is settled or even discussed before that.
I hope I'm wrong.
21ATS, it's in the RNS last year. If the dispute was about how the contract was awarded, why make a £20m replacement warranty in the accounts.
Neil, the product in dispute was Exsig. The products they use today is PROmate. A very good sign that the relationship between us and DHSC is still intact. Just wish they'd make their minds up about how to resolve. Surely if you're not making progress then arbitration needs to be employed. What's taking so long. Has a change of CEO held up the process I wonder. It would be nice to have something solid before it's anniversary.
The GLP damaged the UK diagnostics sector. It’s a party politics game only. If Jo Maugham was worried about all contracts, he would have taken the government to court over the FDA banned Innova products but he’s pro China/America so not in his interest.
I think thats right, if there is any truth in the PE blurb, and it's a big if, that the reliabilty of the machines was fudged and the trials were conducted by NCYT staff instead of hospital staff to make the processing time appear quicker, then I would say that slightly sways in favour of the DHSC
The current consensus I believe is that the dispute is due to inefficient products and processes. The GLP is all about the unfair awarding of contracts.
____________________
I hope this is the reason given that the DHSC continue to use our products and equipment.
The current consensus I believe is that the dispute is due to inefficient products and processes. The GLP is all about the unfair awarding of contracts.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Where do we get this information?
My understanding is we've really been told nothing of detail other than there's a dispute.
The current consensus I believe is that the dispute is due to inefficient products and processes. The GLP is all about the unfair awarding of contracts.
The bod put £20m provision on the BS in FY20 as a result of a potential warranty claim. A warranty claim based on replacement of products. That to me suggests this has nothing to do with the GLP. Hence why the GLP has never mentioned us despite us having one of the largest contract wins.
A judicial review would likely trump arbitration or negotiation of arbitration.
Being the govenrment they can use "public interest" to postpone arbitration as the outcome of a JR would be relevant to the arbitration.
Legal action then could be halted on the grounds that that outcome of the JR it pertinent to the dispute.
It really is the only thing that seems to make any sense, otherwise why no Legal action?
The only other possibility is an off the record sugeestion that no framework approvals would be forthcoming if any legal action was started.
Anyone else have a better explanation?
B2, it takes experience to suggest that having multiple accounts may be hard work? Do you have to experience everything before casting an opinion.
Porky still frequents this board so it makes no sense to me why he would do that whilst keeping the 2nd user. I don't ramp this board to boost the SP. Lol, jeez firstly I'm not daft enough to think anything I say will have any effect in the SP. Secondly, I'd be the worst ramper ever as it's lost 90% this year and yet I'm still here. Averaging down all the way. I see the positives in ncyt so share my opinions and other research on here for discussion. Period.
This doesn't seem to say they agree not to take action in the courts either:
40.13 Subject to Clause 21 (Dispute Resolution) of this Schedule 2, the Parties irrevocably agree that the courts of
England and Wales shall have non-exclusive jurisdiction to settle any Dispute or claim that arises out of or in
connection with this Contract or its subject matter.
cont.. Clause 21.5 to 21.7 end of dispute resolution section
21.5 The mediation shall commence within twenty eight (28) days of the confirmation of the mediator in accordance
with Clause 21.4 of this Schedule 2 or at such other time as may be agreed by the Parties in writing. Neither
Party will terminate such mediation process until each Party has made its opening presentation and the mediator
has met each Party separately for at least one hour or one Party has failed to participate in the mediation
process. After this time, either Party may terminate the mediation process by notification to the other Party (such
notification may be verbal provided that it is followed up by written confirmation). The Authority and the Supplier
will cooperate with any person appointed as mediator providing them with such information and other assistance
as they shall require and will pay their costs, as they shall determine, or in the absence of such determination
such costs will be shared equally.
21.6 Nothing in this Contract shall prevent:
21.6.1 the Authority taking action in any court in relation to any death or personal injury arising or allegedly
arising in connection with supply of the Goods or Services; or 51
21.6.2 either Party seeking from any court any interim or provisional relief that may be necessary to protect the
rights or property of that Party or that relates to the safety of patients or the security of Confidential
Information, pending resolution of the relevant Dispute in accordance with the Dispute Resolution
Procedure.
21.7 Clause 21 of this Schedule 2 shall survive the expiry of or earlier termination of this Contract for any reason.
FYI
This an extract from the DHSC contract dated 28 Sept 20 (available through Bidstack) on dispute resolution - see Clause 21 (Dispute Resolution) of Schedule 2
21.1 - 21.5 copied below Clause 21.5 - 21.7 to follow.
When I read it, I thought it was actionable if arbitration failed, perhaps there is agreement somewhere else that prevents legal action. I haven't found it yet. Where would it be or is it naive to look? it doesn't seem like they have even called in the arbitrators!
21. Dispute resolution
21.1 During any Dispute, including a Dispute as to the validity of this Contract, it is agreed that the Supplier shall
continue its performance of the provisions of the Contract (unless the Authority requests in writing that the
Supplier does not do so).
21.2 In the case of a Dispute arising out of or in connection with this Contract the Supplier and the Authority shall
make every reasonable effort to communicate and cooperate with each other with a view to resolving the Dispute
and follow the procedure set out in Clause 21.3 of this Schedule 2 as the first stage in the Dispute Resolution
Procedure.
21.3 If any Dispute arises out of the Contract either Party may serve a notice on the other Party to commence formal
resolution of the Dispute. The Parties shall first seek to resolve the Dispute by escalation in accordance with the
management levels (if applicable) as set out in the Order Form. Respective representatives at each level, as set
out in the Order Form shall have five (5) Business Days at each level during which they will use their reasonable
endeavours to resolve the Dispute before escalating the matter to the next level until all levels have been
exhausted. Level 1 will commence on the date of service of the Dispute Notice. The final level of the escalation
process shall be deemed exhausted on the expiry of five (5) Business Days following escalation to that level
unless otherwise agreed by the Parties in writing.
21.4 If the procedure set out in Clause 21.3 of this Schedule 2 above has been exhausted and fails to resolve such
Dispute, as part of the Dispute Resolution Procedure, the Parties will attempt to settle it by mediation. The
Parties shall, acting reasonably, attempt to agree upon a mediator. In the event that the Parties fail to agree a
mediator within five (5) Business Days following the exhaustion of all levels of the escalation procedure at Clause
21.3 of this Schedule 2, the mediator shall be nominated and confirmed by the Centre for Effective Dispute
Resolution, London.
Dhsc raised query we invent!! PROmate to rectify, dhsc carries on with dispute, then later places further order for PROmate end of. That's for all the idiots who haven't a flipping clue about our company.
Other than that morning all.
"I'd love to know what Porky was getting out of having a 2nd user and using both to be pro ncyt.
Sounds like a lot of work tbh."
Your speaking from experience then.
Having screwed up here to the extent that Porky9 is busy elsewhere now.
Inappropriate is your opinion but given the situation I would hardly call shooting down any positivity with a wave of negativity as appropriate
Mine was an option of what may or could be happening. You seem quite assured on what you're saying is gospel almost as if you're in the discussions.
Just to bring your feet back down to earth B2, yours is just opinion as well.
As for the constant Porky jibe, well that's just childish.
The dispute happened on GM's watch, - of course he was not keen to give an inch.
The new boy's come along and you think his attitude will be different. - He will say and do things likely to make DHSC believe there is a change of attitude at NCYT. - Well perhaps.
But the other board members need no reminding of the thwarted plans, the stress, the pain of seeing the Mid-Cap status goal disappear when the second tranche of the September contract was not agreed. They may still have their colours nailed to the mast. There's a lot to lose here if we BoD start having second thoughts.
David has been told to adopt the GM status Quo of not divulging news. There's no reason why the second commandment is not 'thou shalt battle the DHSC with all thy strength and resolve'.
Who knows Porky, - anything might happen, but because there has been no resolution, and because we can receive no update on attempts at resolution, your attempts to dumb down the fracas are inappropriate.
The belief wouldn't have changed but I can't help but think GM was unwilling to give anything to get this settled early. Pride maybe, afterall it was his deal, his sell. You have 2 bulls locking horns and things will get messy. A new guy enters the fray with a different perspective and things can start to move.
Are you saying it isn't feasible. Are you also expecting DA to come out and tell us anything different if it is only early stages in his discussions. Keep your cards close to your chest. You may not believe it's feasible but it is.
The fact you still think I'm Porky says a lot for your sixth sense.
I'd love to know what Porky was getting out of having a 2nd user and using both to be pro ncyt. Sounds like a lot of work tbh.
If that is your attempt to dumb down the dispute and put another face on it, - from yesterdays RNS:
"At this time, the Company continues to engage with the DHSC to resolve the dispute and continues to believe it has strong grounds to assert its contractual rights."
++++
No change there then.
Lets ask Porky 9 for a comment, - oh, - your his spokesman. oh well.
It is feasible that DA looks to wrap up the dispute asap by willing to drop GM's demands. Offer a carrot so to speak. We've already effectively written off 70-80% of it so even a 50-50 split would result in a relatively rapid SP jump. That's not even the big effect. The weight of the dispute has been unbearable in FY21 so just to release the shackles regardless of the deal would be a major boost. Who knows what could come out of the dispute with the DHSC. We have a new face now. Did the relationship between GM and our biggest customer DHSC become irreparable. I think it may have. Well now we have a new captain, he can throw GM under the bus and look to close off the dispute with a forward looking contract where both parties come out on top. Based on how little we know, it's feasible.
There will likely be an anti-litigation clause within the dispute framework.
Do you not find it strange the number of companies drawn into this dispute without a single hint of legal proceedings?
I now have no doubt that the entire dispute (for all companies) is being bundled up and stalled awaiting the results of the GLP judicial Review due in May if it's not delayed again.
IMO no news due on the dispute until June 22 at the earliest.
I obviously don't know, but I have a feeling something else is going on with the DHSC by the way DA talks, it's almost like they are setting up some kind of testing/monitoring system for the future perhaps and the monies owed will be worked into this, is it a possibility #feelinghopeful
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but if you're 45% down you would need to see the share price nearly double, an 82% rise, to get back up to baseline. I am at -48%. Some people here are 80% down, meaning if they ever get back up to break even there is likely to be some French traders seeing 5 bags at the same time. Such is life, such is the market. Not fair, never claimed to be. Admittedly I didn't see this share commit seppuku as being the reason for the loss, but for some reason they have decided to never talk to the market except in the most stilted manner once every 4 months. 100 days with no comms and DA doesn't appear to have much of a plan out of COVID. We shall have to see.
Can someone please shed some light, as to why so little have been said about the dispute. I understand the NDA ****e, but all I would like to know where are we with it..i.e are we going to court over it? How long will it take for our hearing to be heard, things likes these shouldn't have any thing to do with NDA. I am 45% down and fecking fed up. Even 50% rise would only break even for me.