Member Info for Blue83

ENA, Evraz North America plc, is incorporated in the UK & is a wholly owned subsidiary of Evraz Group SA which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Evraz plc. Evraz Group SA is incorporated in Luxembourg & Luxembourg has pledged support for the EU sanction package against Russia.

So IMO it doesn’t look as though proceeds of a sale of ENA would be able to go into a company incorporated beyond sanctions (like in Russia).

Only other direct subsidiaries of Evraz plc financial statements YE Dec 20 I can see (on page 233-238) are:
Evraz Nizhny Tagil Metalurgical Plant is a directly owned subsidiary incorporated in Russia
Rapadskaya is a directly owned subsidiary incorporated in Russia

I wonder whether these could be engineered out of Evraz plc control somehow by hook or by crook.

Is this drop related to commercial energy price increases? Are electricty suppliers allowed to make significantly higher increases for commercial customers to subsidise price caps on residential customers?

I think it is correct that shareholders, other than RA, can transaction between each other & the aim is to prevent EVR actions with UK capital markets. Normally the corporate registrar makes trading available via the market listing using CREST to interface with brkers & investors. That is all suspended but the share register still needs to be maintained.

& what would happen if a SH died? Their holding would have to be able to transfer title & there would be no benefit to EVR.

I have been surprised that SHs have not started an informal market between each other so the brave & bold could take on holdings of those wishing to encash though would obviously in piecemeal private deals as unlisted companies do with a solicitor involved & the registration service at EVR.

I have opted for paper certs as my broker, HL will not be able to issue certs until a new registrar intermediary takes over the role Computershare had and CREST is restarted (if it is).

andypa - thanks for your view & expertise.

FWIW my view was that the utility study was the best they can do with so few tests done to date.

They said they blinded the name of a test and asked 6,104 physicians whether what it could identify would be useful to them. (How many of them would have heard of KI had it been named with only 3,500 tests done to date!) 98% positive responses from 401 of the 670 that opened their email invitation seems quite useful. The specifically mention the South & Chicago so let's hope it leverages partnerships in those areas.

I would prefer to keep my holding with HL in my ISA but the chance of sanctions being lifted seem low for a long time.

HL will not be able to issue Certificates without connection to CREST so there would be an obvious bottleneck if HL undertook to obtain paper certificates for their holders.

In the meantime, UK government controls go against the interests of the shareholders who control EVR. I appreciate the legal implications for the holding company in the UK & the strength of government resolve, but can we think it will hold authority over business in Russia under control of Russians for a protracted period of military conflict?

I have decided to apply for paper certificate while the option is available.

GLA

RNS - section on CREST that changed my choice:
It is anticipated that after the Termination Date CREST members will not be able to transfer the Company’s shares electronically due to the fact that EVRAZ, as holder of the register, will not have access to the CREST clearing system and all transactions will need to go through the Company with a stock transfer form and can be subject to a stamp duty. To secure title to the Company’s shares shareholders may wish to convert their electronic shares into physical paper shares. To receive share certificates shareholders are advised to consult their stockbroker and ensure that proper instructions are given to Computershare prior to the Termination Date.

The company was "temporarily suspended" from listing rather than de-listed.

ISA regulations require investments to fulfil various conditions amoung which is being listed. I wonder whether the situation ought to be a "temporary suspension" from the ISA wrapper until the suspension is lifted or whether the company has gone on to the next step of actually de-listing. If they have de-listed (which they did not mention in the call & perhaps the suspension of their ability to take actions in the UK like paying interest on bonds) why? They would presumably have to go through a re-listing or move elsewhere.

I think they must just be frozen & Fidelity is being precise about the contents of its ISAs. It is crazy, transferring out of ISA would have to be done at some attributed price into the taxable account & then, what? traded at that transfer price or just switched back when sanctions are lifted?

I am assuming that if sanctions lifted the "temporary" suspension of listing on LSE would lift too & in the meantime that the freeze placed by the government over corporate activities will prevent

* the (UK) company we hold shares in listing elsewhere
* or the group restructuring itself in some way to hive assets & ownership across to a company established elsewhere outside UK jurisdiction that would be entitled to list elsewhere.

So, the benefit in PIs holding paper certificates is limited as sanctions block possibility of trading on MOEX or elsewhere. Is this in this naive?

The last available financial statements disclosed that Evraz plc was jointly controlled by a group of 3 shareholders: Greenleas International Holdings (BVI), Abiglaze Limited (Cyprus) and Crosland Global Imited (Cyprus) on 31 December 2020 presumably with Abramovich having his 29% interest through one of these entities.

The last thing the government wants is for shareholders to receive dividends but what is the way out for the controlling interests?

Isn’t the real difference if EVR listed on another stock exchange first or never re-list on the London Stock Exchange? If this happened, it must be possible to obtain the certificates though not with the same convenience. Is that right?

I have my shares in an ISA with HL. HL seem happy to hold them so as I will keep mine as is as I hope EVR relists in London & ISA wrapper is reestablished.

Many thanks & GLA

SB - agree, what a useful tool! & they ought to realise & explain the scale of IT build or perhaps be stuck with a herd of inexplicable elephants as they seem to have.

Does that also explain the difficulty the FDA would face in approving such a tool? Authorities must need mountains of evidence to sanction AI driven testing, wouldn’t you think?

Not surprised we are down a few percent today.

SB - I agree with your characterisation of staggering disconnection between BoD view and figures reported. As I said, I guess that tests are being ordered by the inner circle of kidney specialists without any real volume coming from the wider network of general practicioners. They are signing up centers, going through the approval processes to provide functionality that will eventually prompt GPs on so many fronts few will yield cash flow soon enough to avoid massive dilution & imbalanced "partnership".

Perhaps this is has been about Mt Sinai getting a system provided for itself funded by the stock market before it taking it over.

AndyP - agree, no "selling", more like support to fulfil eligibility criteria particularly in VA. The 10 year contract announced from 15 April 2021 turns out to hold hope of only being eligible to start testing in 8/171 centres after 20 months. They just don’t have the cash to get over the hump but I guess they had to "cross rivers" at Mt Sinai first.

I read piece copied below on wiki about their record system & hoped it might mean a very different & more straighforward accessibility scenario for IT provision from that at Mt Sinai, when they eventually are cleared for it.

"VHA is especially praised for its efforts in developing a low cost open source electronic medical records system VistA[49] which can be accessed remotely (with secure passwords) by health care providers. With this system, patients and nurses are given bar-coded wristbands, and all medications are bar-coded as well. Nurses are given wands, which they use to scan themselves, the patient, and the medication bottle before dispensing drugs. This helps prevent four of the most common dispensing errors: wrong med, wrong dose, wrong time, and wrong patient. The system, which has been adopted by all veterans' hospitals and clinics and continuously improved by users, has cut the number of dispensing errors in half at some facilities and saved thousands of lives.[50]

At some VHA medical facilities, doctors use wireless laptops, putting in information and getting electronic signatures for procedures. Doctors can call up patient records, order prescriptions, view X-rays or graph a chart of risk factors and medications to decide treatments. Patients have a home page that have boxes for allergies and medications, records every visit, call and note, and issues prompts reminding doctors to make routine checks. This technology has helped the VHA achieve cost controls and care quality that the majority of private providers cannot achieve.[40] The Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development's research into developing better-functioning prosthetic limbs, and treatment of PTSD are also heralded. The VHA has devoted many years of research into the health effects of the herbicide Agent Orange used by military forces in Vietnam."

I wonder about the cash burn and the difference between Mills 29/6/22 "24 months" estimate and the Q3 presentation figures the next day (and what someone in the room described as their " cavalier" attitude to the burn).

Employment cost of $5.7 H1 21 vs $11.3 H1 22 so $5.6m increase.
Professional fees $3.2m H1 21 vs $6.4 H1 22 so $3.2m increase.
Contractors $1.4m H1 21 vs $3.3 H1 22 so $1.9m increase.

How much do the extra 14 sales staff cost? If they were all on $200pa that would be $2m in a Qtr so recruitment might make the difference with a one off 3-4 $millions? & perhaps also there is a big lump of one off that Mills & BoD do not expect to repeat in professional or external fees and contractors.

I wonder whether the spend has had a double whammy effect somehow blocking tests. McCullough mentioned "crossing rivers" in IT build at Mt Sinai. Perhaps the relationship with clinician leaders has forced RENX to provide connectivity with frontline healthcare practicioners throughout the Mt Sinai system, or in components of the system, to order tests.

Perhaps this has been more of a feat than expected if Mt Sinai has been cobbelled together without an IT system rolled out from the center providing functionality for ordering tests while in the meantime RENX can not access tests from those far flung ordinary doctors. Perhaps its test numbers show it has only been getting orders from the, already converted/true believer expert base in the top end hospitals. i.e. mass conversion has been blocked.

In further depression I noted that the Q3 presentation said test scores were 3,253 & 310 at Mt Sinai & Wake F "as at 26 June" i.e. Q4 update will show as disappointing a rate of testing when it comes.

However Mills & the cavaliers see RENX is a going concern by virtue of being able to fund even its possibly exceptional burn rate of $60m pa by virtue of holding $59m Q3. The task to demonstrate it holds sufficient funds for a forthcoming year becomes more difficult each quarter. The auditors will test at 30 June and at their sign off date (at a maximum of 6 months of YE) so presumably there has to be a post balance sheet event to resolve the issue before that.

Plus, to get achieve production they need to raise capital & at this SP it would be a heck of a dilution. The attraction for holding at dilution rather than subcribing in it is flawed.

Disappointed that Monique has moved on. Her presentation of annual results with Richard Evans on 12th May was reassuring particularly in re-jiging the delivery model to cover 50 states without accreditation hurdles in each. She was appointed on 15 July 2020 according to Companies House which lends weight to the explanation of her departure in the RNS.

Perhaps their presentation was delivered more ease because they knew they were to be off soon.

Monique Fayad is standing down as CEO and from the Board of Trellus Health with immediate effect, and will continue to offer consultancy services to the Company for a six-month handover period.

-- Richard Evans, who has served as interim CFO since January 2022, has completed his contract and his duties have transitioned back to Salim Hamir, Company Secretary and formerly CFO, who is supported by the Company's financial controller. The Board is reviewing the needs of the business in terms of the finance function and expects to make a further appointment in due course

Julian Baines, Non-executive Chairman of Trellus Health, said: "We are very grateful to Monique for her stewardship of Trellus Health through our Admission to AIM and the recent delivery of key milestones during very challenging market conditions and the evolution of our strategy. We wish her the best in her next venture. We also thank Richard for his support in reviewing key aspects of the delivery model and our Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) capability, and wish him well as he resumes his retirement.

All to play for in H1 2023 & profitablity expected Q4 2023 according to them. I had hopes pinned on them to deliver but guess now that prediction was made knowing they were both off shortly.

ABDX announced Friday the DHSC paid debts to them in full to settle their claim.

ABDX made the claim a year ago & pursued it with more energy & conviction than NCYT but it was held up by judicial review sought by the (inappropriately named in this case) Good Law Project.

It should show holders here that where there is a will there is a way. Holding on for an amicable settlement has just been a waste of time & opportunity if the BoD had been interested in that.

ABDX RNS on 28 June about agreement then agreed, now paid at last
The Company confirms that it has reached a settlement agreement with the Department for Health and Social Care ("DHSC") on the outstanding invoices payable by DHSC for lateral flow tests and component stock.



The Company notes that the settlement agreement only technically completes as and when the cash payment referred to below is received.



The settlement agreement is in full and final settlement of the outstanding debt of £8.9m (excluding interest) and comprises:
i) A contractually required cash payment of £6.3m from DHSC to Abingdon, which is required to be paid to the Company on or before 22 July 2022; £1.5m of this cash payment will be held under charge until the outcome of the judicial review is known; and
ii) transfer to the Company of ownership of the outstanding component stock that it had procured on behalf of DHSC in 2020/1; and
iii) joint-ownership, alongside DHSC, of the intellectual property of the AbC-19™ COVID-19 antibody test; and
iv) a lower royalty payable to DHSC on sales of the AbC-19™ COVID-19 antibody test, with this royalty time limited to one year from the date of the settlement agreement.
The monies received from DHSC, once received, will provide additional working capital and be deployed to help fund the Company's various growth initiatives underway.

Don’t be silly, Wakefield didn’t use ALL his lunch money, just some of it. He’s on a diet

had andy been at the AGM, he might of come away in awe of Sir Stephen’s expertise in this field & still oblivious to the situation Sprinter, in all its complexity, went ahead with SOC that someone ought to have twigged might impede the effectivess of inteferon. Non experts were caught when it did having thought the business knew fully what they were doing.

Still, no harm done, expertise still in employment, SNG’s aims & direction still up in the air.

andy has a good point, their credibility & wherewithal is worth questioning

did they do the home based testing 2 years ago because they knew then changes in hospital SOC would nullify effectivness of their treatment? Something doesn’t stack up between the magnitude of their expertise, the proven effectiveness of INF, how the trials were handled & the two year interlude. Why aren’t they focusing more clearly on situations that Covid SOC drugs can not be used & SNG has its real niche.

GLA

Tommy - on When asking the question why didn’t they think about the impact of SOC I think you also need to ask what you expect them to have done about it?

If the metabolic pathway suggested that interferon would fail the trial under SOC, I would have expected them not to go ahead with it and establish a fail but to rethink the trial & perhaps say that developments in SOC have undermined the effectiveness of interferon. Instead, we wasted all that time waiting for a dud when perhaps experts in the field had an inling/could guess/knew what was coming. What was the advantage in going ahead? We know they are enthusiastic about long Covid, COPD & other uses, what is the benefit of that sophisicated a trial nullified by a clash that may have been anticipated in its metabolic biochemistry?

It will twist arms but it does not mean that activity will go forward in the current group structure with PIs not cut lose.

I am not familiar with the group structure and how staff are employed but as not all the companies are in administration so it will depend on which company staff are employed by.

That does not help us but perhaps it is a consideration for pharma partners in restructuring support going forward.

Thanks for the summary, it is positive as usual.

What I do not understand is how they did not anticipate the effect that new SOC would have on Sprinter. We are not experts on the metabolic processes in the lungs but SNG should be. We can accept this view:

"Professor Sir Stephen Holgate is clearly a master in his field. His answers were extremely detailed, passionate and he speaks with a certain eloquence and gravitas, which I’m sure is a great asset to Synairgen. "

I wonder what Sir Stephen & his team did not expect about how interferon would function in tandem with SOC or was he unsurprised by results? There was a balls up or silly risk taken or they all had a good idea SOC would meet public health requirements better than SNG (presumably on price) & we carried the can for checking for an unexpected outcome.