Member Info for 21ATS

Text from the Abingdon prelim results as follows:-

DHSC Dispute and Judicial Review Process



The Good Law Project ("GLP") is currently engaged in judicial review proceedings brought against the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, which is due to be heard in May 2022. The DHSC is resisting the claims by the GLP. It is noted that the Group is an interested party, not a defendant in this case. The Group set out on its website on 9 August 2021 its detailed Grounds of Resistance as well as publishing the letter issued to the GLP via their solicitors, which corrected factual inaccuracies the GLP had continued to publish as part of its case. The Group continues to engage in this process to ensure that its reputation and good standing are not impugned and to ensure accurate information is made available to the judicial review.



As at the signing of these accounts the Group is owed £8.9m by DHSC for a combination of tests delivered (£5.2m), components bought on behalf of DHSC (£3.3m), plus a further commitment of (£0.4m) for goods not yet delivered to which DHSC retain legal title (this is further broken down in note 5). The Group believes that there are no legal grounds as to why these monies are not being paid in full and as such is following the Dispute Resolution Process as outlined in the contracts with DHSC. There have been two separate meetings with DHSC in an effort to find a resolution through mediation to this issue. During the second mediation both parties reached a non-binding agreement in principle which would, if concluded, lead to the outstanding monies being substantially collected and resolve all outstanding disputes with DHSC. The delay in these monies being paid has had a material impact on the Group, as previously announced to the market and has led the Board to conclude that there is a material uncertainty in relation to the going concern of the Group in the near term, linked to the non-recovery of these funds in line with the contractual obligations. We look forward to the conclusion of the dispute resolution process in due course so we can focus our efforts on building our business, creating jobs in the Northern Powerhouse region and supporting our customers' innovation and growth plans.

I have a feeling (and this is based on nothing other than that), that the DHSC are waiting for the outcome of the Judicial Review (JR) requested by the Good Law Project.

Despite the fact NCYT are not directly involved with the JR itself it wouldn’t surprise me in the least that the DHSC, via mediation, are suggesting that the outcome of the JR is either public interest or national interest and that it would be inappropriate to settle any current disputes before the outcome is known. It’s just the sort of political stalling tactic that would be used in this situation, it would also very likely be made clear that any attempt at litigation before this event would immediately be quashed pending the outcome of the JR. All this on top of an NDA. Hence the radio silence from all parties involved or not involved.

My understanding is the JR is mid December, so not long to go now. I’m not expecting to hear anything before that at least.

Again, I have nothing factual to base this on, it just seems a logical situation in my mind given the circumstances.

In the back of my mind there is a worry that this entire episode is going to turn into some multi year $h1t show.

I've said before that I feel NCYT is being caught up in the Judicial Review situation (dispite not being directly part of it) and it also stands a reasonable chance of being dragged into this Randox crap now also.

Think of it as collateral damage, NCYT being involved simply by association - in so much as it was supplying the DHSC/Gov in a time of need and now we need to review how it was handled with all companies.

I just hope this doesn't drag on and on with all sorts of reviews and public enquiries that postpone settlement of the outstanding case with the DHSC.

What NCYT needs more than anything is the spectre of the DHSC dispute removed, it now almost doesn't matter what the outcome is, it just needs to be gone so the company can move forward and trade with certainty.

It has been brought up in Parliament (and also mentions in press), each time it is the "Judicial Review" situation is used to defend it's position. In so much as there is a JR in December the results of which will determine the Gov's actions and they will abide etc etc.

The fact that this doesn't directly effect NCYT (or some of the other companies in dispute) doesn't seem to matter, I get the feeling (and it is only a feeling) that we are more linked to that JR than we have any reason to be.

The almost complete lack of commentary on the entire situation (media wide) smacks of suspression as though there's some form of D notice been issued on the subject until the JR is complete.

What this space, my theory (and it is only a theroy and opinion) is that we hear nothing until the JR is done and dusted.

Take your tin foil hat off for the weekend and take a break, you're making yourself mentally ill, your posts are now way beyond obsessive.

"We've identified between 25 to 30 of brands of these tests {LFTs) which work really well... yeah all Chinese made (laughing)... there's one very good UK supplier , who's just completing MHRA approval for self test use; that will be very useful, but we're also on-shoring some of these so that the manufacturing is gonna occur in the UK, and when that happens we're really going to have security of supply."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0011bfk

1h 35mins in Sir John Bell discusses LFT's and PCR's

MonkeyFish said:-

He will be getting up to speed, looking at this year’s rev and profit, seeing if he can also be as bullish as JM about the £100m ex DHSC rev for 2021, understanding the DHSC issue in more detail, the sales pipeline, the new product innovations being developed, assessing the people, meeting customers and then starting to think about whether he agrees with the current strategy and post Covid activity and what needs to be changed. This first period for any CEO/leader is to listen, learn, understand (whilst making sure the short term targets are hit) and then act.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

How simple would it be for DA to introduce himself - Hi I'm Dave and I'm pleased to be taking the helm at NCYT, Then cut and paste the above.....basically I need to get settled in but nice to see you all and we look forward to taking NCYT to the next stage in it's journey.

That's all that's required right now, they've not even managed that.

Going back to the original question, is the DHSC dispute linked to the GLP review? I think there may be something to this.

Not a link to the original dispute, but along the way settlement of the dispute with NCYT as been put on "Hold" until the outcome of the JR.

You have to remember that the DHSC (the gov effectively) are not a business, they dont think like a business and by default they are not bound by the same restraints as a business. It could be quite logical to a civil servant that the outcome of the JR is material with respect to the NCYT dispute (even if it's not) and being the government they can simply state that mediation or negotiations are on hold until the JR is completed.

All speculation and conjecture of course, but I wouldn't put it past them to think in this manner.

Of course if we actually knew exactly what was being disputed, we'd have a better grasp of what#s happeing and even a likely outcome, but we don't.

You're going to make yourself ill the amount you're obsessing over this share. Yes you're down, yes we're all down, but what is fretting about it going to help?

Nothing we can do will change the outcome, you either wait it out or cut your losses now and retain your sanity.

We have a change at the top imminently, nothing is going to happen before that event (probably) and even when he gets in it's going to take at least a short amount of time to find his feet and figure out who else in the company needs replacing.

Year end accounts is pretty much all we have to look forward to unless there is a dramatic change in MO in the next few months.

neilrich3 said:-

plenty going on behind the scenes which we no nothing about.
___________________________________________________________

There's the fundamental problem in a nutshell.

Poidster hits the nail on the head.

I've said this before, NCYT bears all the hallmarks of a company that has a very sound base and business that's grown so fast that the BOD's are now out of their depth/comfort zone/area of skill and knowledge.

We're hoping the change at the top set them back in the direction they should be going, in a manner more in keeping with a company seeking to become mid cap.

We've been over this II investment scenario a number of times already.

They are never going to be interested with the DHSC dispute in play. They'll be taking one look, saying it looks interesting but let me know when you've sorted the problem out thanks.

II's want certainty. They are not in the business of taking a punt and hoping the right outcome materialises.

What I find interesting about today is how little this has affected the share price.

Seemingly we're dredging the bottom already and there seems little in the way of ambivalent or dull news that has a material effect.

Well that was just as expected. Despite what appear to be healthy numbers the DHSC dispute still controls this share.

That fact will remain until the dispute is settled.

The SP will remin depressed at the time, but the fundamentals are strong. How well the company performs in the next 6 months is the single biggest factor now. Lets hope we get some real PR and trading updates otherwise the next material move in SP will only occur on DHSC settlement or the next set of annual results being positive.

Hold, stick them in the bottom drawer, come back in 6 months time.

Porky reminds me a poster on the MTRO board. Same MO with his own twitter account he kept linking to.

Same story about top ups of a magnitued that meant he'd likely be owning his own Caribbean island.

Cut and pasting the same huge volume of information of small amounts of fact intermingled with opinion presented in a way that is was a sure thing.

Seen it all before, just take it with a pich of salt, don't base you investing decisions on this kind of info.

I'm here simply becuase the fundamentals look completely out of whack, all being helped a long by a BOD that really seem to struggle with meaningful communication.

NCYT simply looks like a company that has grown at such a rate that it's now being run by people that are completely out of their knowledge and comfort zone (when it comes to multi million/billion pound company operation). Effectively they need someone to steer it in the right direction and bring the right people in where required. Lets hope the new CEO is a step in this direction. The SP should follow accordingly.

I understood it to be the 25th Sept. But to be safe go with the 24th.

No vote from me also.

We're not moving from this SP position with a yes or a no vote, this is more about trying to stop people getting inappropriate bonuses.

Come back in a years time and stop sweating the SP on a daily basis.

EDIT - 9 days before the cut off for the voting before the AGM.

This has been RNS'd today 9 days before the AGM as there's clearly no hint of a settlement before the AGM. No doubt the BOD's were hoping to have this wrapped up. This at least heads off a lot of questions about the dispute.

Reality, I don't see this being sorted soon. I think we have to assume (like the market currently is) that the entire DHSC debacle is a write off in full and we're not going to see a settlement in NCYT favour. The company now needs to carry on and sell to people who are actually going to pay for products they've ordered and get a good diversified business with a sound customer base.

Then if by some miracle the DHSC happens to be settled in some sort of favour to the company it will be a bonus.

Are NCYT now a takeover target? Probably not whilst the DHSC thing drags on. Also the dual listing makes potential takeovers a nuisance as any potential suitor would have to comply with two sets of regulations in differnet languages.

It doesn't exactly look attractive from that respect.

Tuck the shares away and come back in the new year to the next set of annual accounts. Stop looking at the SP it will only make you feel sick.