Member Info for Blue83

A provision has been made against the debt, it hasn't been written off.

The difference is like if someone owed you x but in you don't expect it will be paid but you could take them to court.

DHSC debt of y nets off against a provision for bad & doubtful debt of -y = nil. The provision is not allowed as a deduction against profit for tax purposes until it is reasonably certain the underlying debt will not be paid & is written out of the books.

They are not at that point yet, according to what they say. They are working for a resolution & have a strong case. I took that to mean they hope to be pai,d but who knows, with the passage of time, no arbitration process nor courts, perhaps they have used weasel words to cover a worse case up.

Perhaps there is be more price sensitive information that we should have been made aware, like entering an informal side deal to swap out exsig, which went wrong.

Buying in is better than not buying in, it shows they buy in (literally) to what they have told the market.

Can't see how Grant Thornton can be at fault. They have wording available that allows them to sign off at any point in time required of them, the directors do not want that so they have not done it. It is up to directors to complete the work they consider required & then the way will be clear for Grant Thornton to respond with the wording the time afforded to them allows.

Branch situations are notorious for risk. There has been a failure of internal controls over something with wide reach and poor review. How it can take so long to resolve is another question. They & any external help (such as from Grant Thornton) should have thrown all hands to the pump to avoid the appearance of shambles but too late. When we find more out, I'll be interested in whether the previous auditors missed something they took for granted, which I think is more likely.

Anyway, good luck to all.

& if the company put out a projection going forward from January in just 29 days time it would make a world of difference to current position of them not being able to comment

Thanks, sounds less concerning.

I have just finished a course on clinical trails. I was surprised at their approach to losses and changes in protocol. In my previous experience (in finance) we have always been able to extend a sample & not think about comparative tests or attributing losses in a comparative situation.

Matterhorn & Matml74 - have a point posted at 12.38 above - copied below.

What happens in a test if the comparator is pulled out? A trail has to have a control group, is the comparator the control rather than a placebo in ACTIV3? Start ACTIV3 again? hope not!

"following on from your comment. I guess it’s too early to say as we can’t yet definitively say omicron will outdo delta. But, should that be the case then it would have significant implications for ACTIV-2 phase III. If Regeneron’s mAbs are ineffective it would not make sense using it as an active comparator. And, if SAB’s mAbs are also ineffective, which is possible, then why still trial them in phase III. That leaves SNG all be itself."

I don't know, I hope they don't but fear their process is biased for US business and against foreign businesses.

If it has only taken this long for Omicron to develop there might well be a significantly different variant by the time vaccines have been tweaked

Seems like an article by motley f came as to support ebbed

hope so, SP weakness seems pushed on absence of news - no news has eventually become bad news when really announcement of trial results has no link with the nature of that result +ve or -ve

https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1463998740340121601
BREAKING—HOTEL CROSS TRANSMISSION OF #B11529—Traveler from South AfricaFlag of South Africa flew to Hong KongFlag of Hong Kong with new variant—but wasn’t discovered until 4th day of quarantine on 2nd PCR. Another guest across hallway cross-infected—only positive on 8th day on 4th PCR! Both Pfizer vaccinated

If a 2nd test on day 4 to spotted one case & 4th PCR on day 8 to spotted the other case , it seems as though Hong Kong does a test EVERY 2 days after arrival if the tweet above is right.

It would have been inadequate to do just one PCR test on day 2. Trusting self isolation to be safe with incidental contacts relying on LFTs would not have worked either.

Public health ought to have an effective process for picking up new variants, Omicrom, or the next ones.

https://twitter.com/hjelle_brian/status/1465020053095477248/photo/1
This to me is the NEXT most disturbing thing about Omicron, other than its seemingly explosive regional growth. It seems to have greatly expanded its ability to quickly diversify. This is weird.

Good move by Gatemore.

I don't see they are in a position to accuse Grant Thornton of missteps without knowing what has gone on. The auditor can't report before the directors give them the financial statements to comment on. That hasn't happened here, it is not the auditor's timetable. They can't do the audit if the management haven't given them the information, or if the management are saying we have everything you need except we need to finish an investigation into x and it is so material the financial position can not be determined with out it. Perhaps it is the auditors who uncovered the issue when obtaining evidence of the reliance they can place on systems and internal control prior to the YE. Perhaps also it is their unwillingness to sign off on the outcome of the company's investigation so far that is driving the work further to avoid a qualified opinion & this may well be in the best interest of shareholders depending on what it is that is up the creek.

Anyway, good news Gatemore are active & possibly good news if their man was on the BoD as as there has been a unmonitored failing somewhere in the existing set up.

It must be close to prerequisite for an II to have guidance on forthcoming revenue. Can you imagine the investment decision meeting without it? "I propose we invest in this one. " "What are their projections?" "They don't have any guidance beyond next month, but its an amazing business, trust me".

How about this, lol

https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1464054078682673178

NCYT did actually RNS the fact they had a contract to supply Zimbabwe back in April 20. Wouldn't be interesting to know whether they have a source for information on this variant?

Just heard Javid talking about need for PCR tests!

Savid, mate, don't go on about having a PCR test!

Mate, no cases have been identified here & without PCR testing there wouldn't be any mate!

You are the MINISITER FOR HEALTH mate.

You did the best move a couple of months ago, undermining expensive PCR tests, putting an extra hurdle of approval in their way and blocked it with inadequate administration to prevent use of the majority of tests & put a cloud of uncertainty over those that can't be denied by having them on short term approval.

If you give out free enough tests that can not identify variants perhaps no cases will ever be identified here!

I'd bet that the Chinese government backed Xiamen who make the LFTs that Innova have sold to the UK government.

So the UK government may have supported the local diagnostics industry in China instead of doing the one in the UK.

If so, it would show that the CCP had a sense of national loyalty that this government found expedient to piggy back on.

Thinking about it a bit more, new auditors would probably ask to do some work prior to the post year end fieldwork on internal controls to determine the reliance that could be placed on internal controls. The accounting systems in place for those new parts of the business that had never been previously audited would be on the radar particularly. Their would findings would be reported to management so had management not discovered whatever the issues were they would have had a second view prior YE & be entitled to frame this as they have done.

It would make sense that the question related to accounting for operational transactions. This is a delivery business after all. It would make sense for details of the job and its fulfilment to link to the accounting entry for debt collection or subcontract payment. It would be interesting to know whether the same system is used throughout the business, or same system but deployed in local instances & the interaction between branch systems. Risk in running branches is classic & throws the spotlight on what metrics have been used for monthly reporting, manage performance & incentivise staff.

I still get the feeling that it must be something with wide reach or big importance, like the Freight results, otherwise the auditors & management would have pursued the other option open to the auditor , to issue a qualified report.

Just as background for those not best familiar with this - an auditor now issues quite a long statement on their work. If there is a matter shown in the financial statements that does not show a view that is unfair they can qualify their opinion. Their qualification could be for uncertainty (insufficiency of evidence) or disagreement (evidence to contrary of what is shown). Qualification in both those grounds is graded in terms of seriousness so 4 sets of words are used :

1) A fundamental issue of uncertainty = we are unable to form an opinion on the truth & fairness of the view shown
2) A fundamental issue of disagreement = the financial statements do not show a true & fair view
3) A material issue of uncertainty = subject to the matter of x, the financial statements show a true & fair view
4) A material issue of disagreement = except for y, statements show a true & fair view

Examples of x might be an outcome of changes in regulations or valuation of some rare kind of stock or software & y might be that management are certain the legal dispute will be won but the auditors disagree.

The decision not to live with a qualification suggests that the issue if far reaching & would have been 1) or 2).

I agree that holding shares when during suspension would be frustrating. I'm trying to weigh all the positives this business has against the corroborating evidence we have to support the impression made public.

Y, he probably would have known in July.

I'm not invested here but have managed statutory audits of businesses like this for firms like the one involved here.

This isn't a deramp or ramp.

The directors appoint auditors to report to shareholders on a timetable agreed with the auditors to book in presentation of figures, audit filed work & completion.

DX have been clear in updating the markets on results as they go along just as they have in announcing the expansion of their network. Results have been strong esp on Freight.

Lets guess in a normal year end that final figures would be ready for audit 6 weeks after 3 July = 14 August. The final figures would be presented in packs for each subsidiary which add up into the consolidation for the group. With only 2 trading subs last year, 2 intermediary holding companies (not much work), 9 dormant cos (paper exercise), and the top co. KPMG charged 140k for audit plus 90k for subs. Contributors on here mention Grant Thornton so fee might be less but work would be same plus work on expansions. I'm too far out of date to know charge out rates but lets say this involves a team of 10 doing field work over 3 weeks, 2 weeks finalising, input from tax and then sign off or NOT! Audit issues (uncertainty or disagreements requiring further work ) would be known & communicated 30 Sept. They have all of October to resolve any disagreements releasing information today is doable with comfort.

HOWEVER,
the RNS says "The Company's Audit & Risk Committee has recently raised a corporate governance inquiry relating to an internal investigation commenced during the financial year ended 3 July 2021. The inquiry has yet to be concluded" so the management will have known about whatever it is when setting the audit up back in May/June. There has been ample time for extra resources to be deployed (for example from the audit firm) & the audit firm will have been up to speed on the matter throughout as a key issue. So it is something systemic that needs to be unravelled like an fundamental problem in accounting with failure of internal controls or unknowable except by passage of time. (eg I once did an audit of a shipping company where currency conversion (of every transaction) was incorrect and no month end reconciliations not done - the whole year had to be reworked). Perhaps they have a glitch in a pricing scheme or miscalculated volume rebates

I'll sit on the fence because their bullish ness a but I think

6th Oct RNS is latest I believe from comments here about absence of comms - so wait is for resubmission

"Polarean will work to address the issues identified by the FDA with a view to resubmitting the NDA and securing FDA approval as quickly as possible. Following resubmission of the NDA, it is expected that the FDA review period will take 2-6 months.



Whilst the Company believes that the issues to address in the CRL are attainable, Polarean is disappointed by this unexpected response. The Company will seek additional discussions with the FDA as a matter of urgency and further update the market when material information is received. In the meantime, the Company will continue to collaborate with their current and future research investigators in continued exploration of potential clinical applications of this technology, as they have done to date"

The contract specifies the timescale for dealing with a dispute raised on an Order Form as 5 days and presentation of a case to the mediator is required by 28 days of their appointment should the dispute not be resolved. The last payment was on 29 Nov last year. The timeframes in public information have thoroughly misled investors.

exsig was required & supplied under the contract. Poidster and others have talked about PROmate swapping out exsig which would have to be done under a variation of the contract or a side agreement or an informal agreement. I'd guess that Promate was promised on an understanding that there would be an extension or Phase 2 or something else so that neither party now wants to go through the process they indicated to us to expect.

It seems to me that we just don't have the information on the swapping ex sig for PROmate bit that ought to have been made public , if it happened, because it was done informally and subsequently reneged on by some other part of the DHSC - hence leaving GM humiliated for trusting his long term relationships to the point of retiring to be a consultant.