The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen 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.
Tks to Kilkenny ted
https://twitter.com/KilkennyTed/status/1790784600559542657
Seems such a long time ago since I saw one in the "flesh" at NEC, ultimate in soft launch.
Just to emphasise what I've already said before.
Promate & CoPrep were developed to eliminate user error.
Pipetting samples as small as 1ųL manually, is incredibly difficult.
It's hard enough to do this in a research lab, let alone a busy diagnostics lab.
The test itself (exsig) hasn't changed,
The preparation steps did.
Struggling to see, again, how DHSC can claim it doesn't/didn't work when the only thing that was changed was the preparation, not the test itself.
Just a bit of a disclaimer here, I think that DHSC doesn't have a valid case, far from it in my opinion.
However, I still don't have much faith in our legal system, so nothing would surprise me anymore.
Based on my information its a whole crock of Sh1 t
Just buyer beware, I know what should happen but its not guaranteed
I stand by everything I've posted.
PS, have posts started to disappear again?
Also, if/when Nova win, especially if I see any of my info being used, you will all owe me 1% commission on all your profits 😉 😜 😆
Poidster , what's your opinion of what the potential SP could be after DHSC case is won completely by Novacyt ?
@WB
Honestly have no clue, sorry
More than it is now is as close as I could guess.
This is my first and LAST foray into the AIM market, normal investing rules don't apply here.
All I would say is, that if nova win this case and continue with acquisitions of other profitable companies in this arena then it could be a slow burner.
I've said in the past that Novacyt had a bright future ahead of them.
But after this court case 🙄 who knows.
I'm holding onto my shares, financially, I've written it off as a 5 figure loss 📉 😎
Normal investing rules don't apply on AIM.
Your posts are very comforting Poidster and what a lot of us here need as we are so heavily invested.
For me the only puzzling thing is the fact that we're this close to a court case without the DHSC backing down. Do they actually think they have a case to be made here or is this just a bluff right to the eleventh hour where they then will likely back down and settle out of court? I sure hope its ncyt that aren't backing down right now behind closed doors and that's the only reason there's still a court case booked in.
As someone who understands the AIM market as much as one can (and it's an ever changing beast!) there is no doubt that the risk averse market is pricing Novacyt to lose here, they are siding with the Goliath (government) vs David (small cap diagnostics company) in as much as weighting the odds towards a loss. This has to be priced wrong...
So if the result is anything but neutral the share price goes a bit crazy, at least in the short term. And there's a good few of us here that have doubled down in recent times to give ourselves a chance to make our money back and some so the outcome here is a very big deal.
Interesting weeks and months ahead!
The other Davids won, so no reason Nova wont! imo
Just a delay in pay tactic imo
Thank you Poidster . I have always said that it will be the cash that Novacyt have that will save them and develop the company . The money from DHSC of £81.5 m + interest ( ~ £10M ) would allow 2-3 further acquisitions of similar type to Yourgene . If each acquisition can yield profits of £50M - £20M annually , this will allow Novacyt to grow into a mid cap company .
@HC
That's kind of the million dollar question, all the evidence I've seen points to the tests being OK.
From a variety of different sources, so I'm still confused at DHSC case.
They must have 'something' what that is I can't figure out. For it to get this far their case must be based on facts.
Nova have a very strong case IMO.
Time will tell I guess.
Have you read the summary judgement rejection below? What are your thoughts? It's very different when totally stripped from context and couched entirely in legalese to conclude anything other than it's a bit of a coin flip but a full trial will bring far more evidence to light.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2024/1071.html
Hi poidster hope you well ...maybe ....exsig performance was poor ...variants and mutations would effect ...hence the rapid... in -house... development and... validation... studies by company .....COVID evolved to hide from exsig ...no one is to blame ....complete waste of public funds to recover public funds from a UK diagnostic company trying to keep the UK public safe ...
First case monkeypox since 2022 Johannesburg......detected with
The defendants say not only that that is a factual inference that cannot properly be drawn but that Figure 2 does not support it. For example, it can be seen that one site at Portsmouth had no invalid test results, which itself suggests that there was nothing wrong with the kits and that invalid test results were or might have been the product of human error.
"COVID evolved to hide from exsig"
Not sure I agree with that statement Gizmo.
The company still sell it as part of their Covid test portfolio.
It was approved in July 2022 under the UK Health Security Agency's Medical Devices (Coronavirus Test Device Approvals). A full 2 years and more after the dispute was announced. Must have passed some robust sampling to have passed that.
WHO & FDA both included it on their lists of approved products.
hi kilkenny of co**** they do ..covid no1 ...is still present and relevent ...covid 2 is not exsig friendly otherwise..... why the need to develop new tests ....how many have they sold ? a portfolio
Are you saying that the exsig direct product wouldn't detect the covid strains in the autumn of 2020? The company also supplied Winter Plex as part of the contract. Is it the same for that?
KilkennyTed/Poidster is that exsig test identical? And if not how different to the 'Version 1 exsig IFU' that was sold as part of the second DHSC contract?
If it's the same that then got approved 15 months later by the CTDA that's case closed, slam dunk, surely?
Hi Kilkenny ....primerdesign ltd monkeypox.... found first case last week in south Africa since 2022...clade 1....will the same test pick up clade 2. ...evolution... clade 3 no ......you still need clade 1 test to help treatment path ....there is a big difference between monkeypox 1 and 2 ...COVID was the same a diagnostic test helps prioritise the correct treatment ...the government and public panicked at the word mutation ..Exsig is still relevent as long as COVID is ....
Gizmo, the test comprised the Exsig Direct RNA extraction kit and the genesig COVID test . One year on from the the period you are talking about the COVID tests was still detecting all known variants according to the weekly surveillance report.
Here is IFU 1 the original IFU as part of the initial deal
https://www.diagnocine.com/Content/Upload/Product/datasheets/Path-exsig-COVID-19%20Direct-CE-IFU%20Issue%201.0.pdf
here is IFU 8 which is part of the CTDA approval
https://www.genesig.com/assets/files/path_covid_19_ce_sted_ifu_issue_8_00_3.pdf
There are lots of differences. workflows read better, repeated references to preventing contamination and proper handling.
if you wanted to use that product you'd have a better chance of success using IFU 8 than IFU 1 (or be in the Portsmouth lab). Is this the basis for a dispute over the products usability or robustness? I suspect there has to be other reasons which haven't as of yet been released or made available in the public domain. time will tell
V1:
During preparation of samples, compliance with good laboratory techniques is essential
to minimise the risk of cross-contamination between samples and the inadvertent
introduction of nucleases into samples during and after the sample preparation
procedure. Good aseptic technique should always be used when working with nucleic
acids.
Work surfaces, pipettes and centrifuges should be cleaned and decontaminated regularly
with cleaning products (e.g.10% bleach, ethanol, DNA/RNA remover) to minimise risk of
nucleic acid contamination.
v8:
Good laboratory practice is required to ensure the performance of the kit, with care required to
prevent contamination of the kit components. Components should be monitored for
contamination and any components thought to have become contaminated should be discarded
as standard laboratory waste in a sealed pouch or zip-lock plastic bag.
Hi exmex ..hope your well .....no problems then ...
"I suspect there has to be other reasons which haven't as of yet been released or made available in the public domain. time will tell"
______________________
Far from it... what we were reading today was the summary judgement applied for by the DHSC, what they think was their strongest argument. I think that's the best they have.
No. This is from the RNS about the pre-trial
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NCYT/dhsc-claim-update-8211-pre-trial-review-6ko95jblh9bkz06.html
"The court will also hear an application by the DHSC for summary judgment in relation to one aspect of its claim, as part of which the DHSC is seeking judgment to be entered for the full value of its claim"
That's the summary judgement for one aspect. not all of it. the report which is often referred to also (obviously) hasn't been released.
i suspect the filing may have something to do with this
"Accordingly, I refuse the application for summary judgment; I allow the defendants'
application in relation to Dr. Owens' report, to be served by 3rd May; and I provide
for Dr. Huggett to serve a further report in response by 17th May. "
Interesting read with a bit of ebb and flo, really pleased Dr Owens report allowed and last day for claimants expert submissions tomorrow, clock well and truly ticking now.
Trading update pse.
'Trading update pse."
Full year audited results (with post period highlights) will be released before the end of May, so within two weeks.