Member Info for ak_gabba

Thanks dhub. sounds like it's boom or bust in or around May then. good luck all

"this investor will subscribe £709,200"

how many months does that buy them?

or when is the next required raise? any guesses at what price?

"As shareholders will be aware, the initial patient was infused with HG-CT-1 in February 2024 and, subject to a satisfactory outcome, a second patient will be recruited and treated as quickly as practical"

That sounds like time is ticking a lot slower than people want.

"We are greatly encouraged by the confidence shown by the backing of the institution"

anyway to know who the institution is?

I thought the note being left was a long standing tradition along the lines of no money left or what a state its left n however it was made public for some kind of political gain.

Can you imagine the note being left on 5th of July :O

i have no idea whats going on at the hearing yesterday but obviously hope it's positive. if either party think their chances are poor or have diminished they may seek an out/settlement prior to the trail starting. i'd like to think the report that was submitted presumable on the 14th May was positive for ncyt :)

Hi Gazman,

i'm not 100% on the redacted parts of the contract not being relevant however I understand you have a legal background so appreciate your comment.

I'm not convinced thats the argument DHSC are making. they appear to be indicating the lack of robustness which appears to be agreed on the joint statement is warranty in itself to make this claim and win. the existence of a defect (inability of some labs to perform valid tests) rather than the specifics of the defect (product problem etc). this is obviously not agreed by novacyt/PD hence the consistent expression of "strong grounds to assert its contractual rights" and the further comment from Twigger KC that the governments case as "thoroughly bad" which will now be put to test in the court case.

Hi B2HS2L,

i've kept reading just not posting. always enjoy reading and welcome your posts/thoughts :)

as captainswag indicated it was based on the joint report/statement from the experts. you can see why they went for it but it wasn't enough/fair to be accepted so off to full trial we go unless there is a settlement. i think the hope of that has been delayed somewhat due to each side being allowed to submit their own reports.

there will be more to this case. lots which we just aren't aware of

The labs clearly had problems and that is agreed through the joint report although the defence don't agree completely with the report and have been allowed to submit their own.

dhsc argue that the product they have lacked robustness and were pointing to the joint statement as a way of bringing the summary judgement which has been denied so it will be heard in court. the lack of robustness will be heard in full in court. are they able to prove its a problem with the product and/or able to prove that within the contract they have a right to make their claim. it's not just about if the product is good enough it's also about the wording of the contract and the process into the dispute.

can novacyt prove their product was fit for purpose? can they prove that it wasn't a product problem and more so a user / lab usage / workflow issue? but also they need to make sure it's tight within the wording of the contract. wording no one outside of the closed process has seen due to the redacted parts of the contract.

CaptainSwag - "However how robust was the contract criteria ? Did it leave a window of opportunity to exit or is its case of you buy...sold as seen"

This is the crux. I've not seen information which can fully answer that. i suspect some of those emails and their interpretation will be key to the case

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. "

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

Many thanks maddog8

maybe it will maybe it won't. "investments can go down as well as up" you just need to take responsibility for it.

any input on the IFUs?

PI100,
The last time there was an RNS for CTDA approval the share price rose 9% that was along with some director shareholding buy RNS.

The IFU listed in the CTDA register is issue number 5. I can't find a copy of it. Does anyone have a link for it. Here are the links that I have for the previous winterplex IFUs

https://www.genesig.com/assets/files/Path_SARS_CoV_2_Winterplex_IFU_Issue_100.pdf

https://www.genesig.com/assets/files/lightcycler_winterplex_colour_calibration_ifu_issue_1_02.pdf

https://www.genesig.com/assets/files/Path_SARS_CoV_2_Winterplex_IFU_Issue_102.pdf

https://www.genesig.com/assets/files/genesig_real_time_pcr_sars_cov_2_winterplex_assay_ce_ivd_ifu_issue_3_00.pdf

Looks like they are buying an Italian company and then requested suspension.
Have they been selling ncyt?

court documents have been submitted the link provided gives some details as to what has been submitted.

there will be a schedule to be followed which may lead to the case being heard in court if a settlement between the 2 parties can't be agreed

sorry neilrich3 things have changed.

perhaps their opinion and assessment of their grounds in relation to the legal dispute hasn't changed however it is now clear that should the dispute fall in the favour of the government in full then there is a doubt of the going concern of the company. that wasn't there last year.

I still think there will be a settlement but I have no idea how much novacyt will receive if anything. we won't know until we know and it's this uncertainty that is making novacyt look like a poor investment. too much risk and very little clarity.

PI100,

sorry for the typo

it was typed out as it's a scanned document so you can't copy and paste. I did say earlier on :) here's the link again

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12031776/filing-history

Full accounts made up to 31 December 2021

Yes it's clear. It says so in the signed document. You can throw whatever hypotheticals you want at this some of which may turn out to be true in the future but you can't get away from the fact that the current CFO for novacyt made this statement and signed it.

what does it matter what I think?

The going concern statement does not mention anything about M&A activity nor does it mention "ringfencing" any monies for such activity.

It is also clear that the group would not have sufficient funds to settle.

This is what is stated in the submitted full accounts to companies house and signed.

HarChris,

It doesn't mention M&A activity in the going concern model. M&A activity is not a factor in the statement that is made

its a statement which is true and representative of when it was signed 2/8/22

the previous years account gave a statement signed 8/7/21 that the company was good until July 2022 (i made an error in a previous post saying it was June 2022).

The bit above that statement gives the conditions of the going concern if you want to take a look. I can't copy and paste as it's a scan of the document

sorry I just assumed we were looking at the same document

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12031776/filing-history

Full accounts made up to 31 December 2021