Member Info for CaptainSwag

Pebble - in my experience of commercial court - the judges seem a lot more common sense ..certainly more than in criminal court

..and tbh ours seems ok..from everything i have read

har chris - i agree with you on april contract

Complete tosh

there maybe only 100k at the moment on L2 ......if it is true which is highly doubtful - but then as soon as that is sold..more will become available as if by magic!..lol

however with the rampy nonsense and lies you write - I would not believe it in the first place

people critical of the company - like me - are not stake building or working on behalf of someone to buy the company out

another one of your lies. put some evidence - you won't as you don't have anything

just another low level pump and dump so that you can make some coin out of someone elses misfortune

we are just PI who got burnt by rampers on here and don't want to see others fall foul of yours

newbies need to see both sides of the story

how odx/cnsl turned my £150k into a few quid as well as your dreams of 6p

Harchris

I am not sure how this relates to our case?

The gov are saying that the tests had a flaw in the reagant kit and were not of good quality..we are the ones saying it was user error

Wilson . As I have said previously they are going to have to define what they mean by "misconception that it was a viscous liquid"

As far as I am aware all liquids have viscocity except helium.so this is a meaningless statement.

Surely what they mean was a it a high or low level of viscocity? Which again will have to be defined.

In addition would the temperature that the product is stored or used in affect this viscocity?

I agree with ex ..gov must have some evidence of due diligence before purchasing tests in the first place ...in terms of does it meet the requirements eg specificity and sensitivity .

Good post poidster..robustness is a hugget expression. They have defined it in the case by

"that is that they failed to produce valid results at an acceptable rate"

"With the exception of Portsmouth, all laboratories had a more than 10% failure rate, with four laboratories experiencing greater than 25% invalid runs which would indicate, the experts said, that the Exsig COVID-19 test was not sufficiently robust."

This bit worries me because it suggests both experts agreed?

In which case our expert has done an own goal...as she has admitted an issue with test.

Do we know if the tests in the different labs were from same batches? Was the quality control where the tests were made ..robust?

Some good points b2

Robustness is a term that hugger uses regularly..i suspect they have taken it from him

Fwiw..i think para 8 could be the key too...but for a different reason

I

Ravenox..good post..and echoes my thoughts too.

I think our expert did an own goal...and might have to be undone.

I think ncyt have got some good arguments..cdta..and one lab with good results.

Looking at some vids from hugget.

There is another big potential loophole that I can see.

I hope twiggers has researched the man..and some of his comments in interviews .

Cos he will be playing for the gov...even if there are some possible loopholes. He won't volunteer them

Fakey...the 4p ceiling coincides with the gazillion placing shares at 4p.

Nobody in their right mind is buying at 4p..or should be

Fair enough when it was lower if you expected a spike...

For a trade.

When the EBITDA is released and the profit ( if at all) is a lot lower than the gross profit before expenses that you guys are quoting...what do you think will happen to the SP?

Ventura..

I suspect the court will have to digest the arguments on both sides.

It is going to be technical..so the judge will need time to learn what the hell they are talking about in addition to all the legal contractual stuff.

Val...in my opinion the fact that they have given a timeline and said the decision will prob not be made by the end date...suggests there will be no news in AGM

I think this will be quite a serious and drawn out case ..and would not be surprised if one of those sort of cases that will be quoted in the future. So the judge will want to get it 100% right in her mind.

Tbh ..I am not sure what ncyt could say..without tempting fate.

I disagree with your opinion of a pre court date settlement. The gov prob feel that have a strong case too especially with the amount of common grounds the opposing experts had.

This is a much more binary probability than I originally thought. Yes the tests passed ctda but...I am not sure what damage our expert has done in agreeing with the gov expert ..which clearly she overstepped the mark.

The court will get her report and then hear from the gov expert ..and then it will be up to twiggers to argue back.

I only hope he hasn't blotted his book by not giving the report in when due

Fakey...these transactions are not big...and as you know the reporting system is based on approximates relative to the mid position price..

It is impossible to tell if buys or sells.

The fact that the SP has flatlined suggests the boys and sells are cancelling each other out.

Fakey.

Your 10p is about as truthful as your post on me which you ignored.

Have you forgot about the gazillion 4p placing shares waiting to be dumped

Fakey...another one of your lies.

Find these posts that I made. If there are thousands then it should be easy?

"Can feel this one building now after daily chunky buys keep landing. Back in favor after re-structuring the business and posting record profits."

and still the sp is flatlined since results up

dont forget gross profit announced was before expenses e bod wages.

the eebitda is "expected " to be positive - so still no guarantee of a profit mad

Mik...abdx has some very useful tests and in a big chain ie boots .

I could see a case for abdx improving from here quite easily.

Cnsl have one contentious product line that is not respected by the scientific community..which is why they keep failing at their target markets and having to get the map and darts out

". He also submitted that if Dr. Owens' report had been served, it would have meant that the defendants went first, and then, assuming the court gave permission for a further report, Dr. Huggett would have responded already knowing what Dr. Owens was going to say."

Just managed to re read just now..this is the bit that had stuck in my mind last night.

Seems twiggrrs took a gamble on putting hugger on the back foot by not putting a report in ..however there is the danger that you p#$$ off the judge

I suppose the alternative is our geek needs more time having given ground in agreement with hugget...which it seems she should not have done. Lets hope she has not scuppered the case.

I think she will have a tough time against hugget anyway

Pebble..would have to read again...but it seemed to me at the time I read that they didn't want to give their argument away to the gov...

The more they give away before the trial..the more opportunity for gov to counter.

Thing is do they know what info she disclosed to hugget?

It seemed that they might have got carried away..talking tech stuff..and forgot the legalities.

Tbh I wish we had hugget on our side..he is very impressive ..I bet he persuaded her on the common ground

Val...i am sure they do feel that they have a strong case. Unfortunately they will not be the judge of that..the judge will

Actually I think spending their cash on acquisitions was a good move...if the worst come to the worst then they maybe able to pay gov back slowly? Over years rather than sitting with the cash there good to go? And have spent the cash investing in the future

Been researching the gov expert and very impressed . He seems to be not s fan of qpcr..and I hope they are doing their research on him as I have found an interesting possible chink in the consistency of lab results argument .

I wonder if our expert is not a weak link though? Her agreement in the joint statement does seem to have been an own goal

"If the case were so good, why did dhsc bring the summary judgement many months after the court case dates were finalised?"

It seems to me that is was as a result of the opposing experts Issuing a joint statement on 15th Feb...where they agreed on quite a lot...except one area.

Very interesting read.

I had a niggling doubt with something when the RNS from ncyt came after the PTR..and this transcript has confirmed something my spidey senses were telling me.

I have read a couple of times..and need to redo..but current Takeaways

1) the judge seems Uber fair and sensible..as per my previous experience of commercial court

2) the gov believed that they had such a strong case they would win at PTR...i thought this was more of a "chancer" approach but actually this was not the case..it seems to be based on the opposing experts actually agreeing on all but one area . Something which ncyt were unhappy about.and basically said they went beyond their paygrade

3) the case is certainly not as cut and dried as I thought.

4) the case could come down to the contract and the definition of terminology eg limited warranty..viscocity..robustness etc etc

I am not a lab rat..but the process seems very complex and there is wonder that the dhsc didnt want to use it...I suspect easier stuff to use came along. I would be surprised if there were not a lot of human error.

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

Any thoughts?