We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
It feels more than conservative though once you throw in significant additional revenue from the LFTs. Shouldn't it be £114m at least? 54m plus 60m (10 x 6). Great update and makes sp look silly but this figure baffles me
Because you still have to go through all the steps of a dispute i.e statements of case, disclosure (exchange of docs), witness evidence, expert evidence, pre trial prep and prep plus whatever interim applications along the way. Some of the procedures are streamlined for arbitration but plenty of scope for a party to delay if that was their goal. Not sure where the 120 days is from but probably not important if simply a date by when the parties can bring a claim after ADR period as I can't see why either party would want that to happen here
Possibly faster but not really and little difference in costs. Main difference is privacy but in this case I assume the company would have to update on the dispute (someone may know the regulatory position) so not entirely private.
Hi K,
I was a disputes lawyer for 10 years . ADR includes direct negotiations and through a third party mediator. The contract with DHSC prescribes the use of a mediator before proceedings are initiated. The mediator can't make a decision but aids discussions by setting out worse case scenario of proceedings. We are still in the ADR process now. I haven't looked at the contract for ages but I think that if either party were to issue proceedings it would be by way of arbitration instead of through the courts. The processes are almost identical except arbitration is private. Decisions are binding (subject to appeal). Process is long and costly and as per Porky's post the other day, in neither party's interests.
Temuchin, you have changed your tune since 22 June:
"To simplify - the WORST case assuming management forecast of £100M (sounds conservative) plays out and DHSC win the refund claim - at x10 EBITDA the SP should be around £5 at minimum (that's that's worst case!!)
Historical revenue and monies owed Q4 2020 / Q1 2021 can be ignored - sounds like the dispute from a DHSC ia already closed off... as in they're holding back £79M, and paid £48M. This is why if you read May 21st RNS it suggests ball is now in NCYT Court and it's NCYT that is trying to negotiate or win case for the replacement approach vs full refund. Basically revenue is expected to be £100M and any further sales to DHSC will be a bonus and then reflected in SP over £5..."
Today and Friday there was no obvious manipulation on either exchange either during hours or before or after the bell. It looks like those who wanted to play have moved on and now the sp just needs a catalyst.
is making the headlines and is featured in the annual report. What I find most interesting is that infectious diseases have now become topical and it looks set to remain that way.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/norovirus-makes-an-unwelcome-return-and-cases-are-heaving-cj0ngq9z7
I'm not a technical trader but follow it because others are. We've now moved above the 50 DMA and we've gone from a 100% sell to a 72% sell in a few days on the barchart website https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/ALNOV.FP/opinion. Trend is your friend.
Ye just a minor nagging doubt that if we were in bed with more expensive providers then our tests would be less in demand. Not sure anyone would pay extra for in clinic but maybe they would? Still, the overall point must be that demand will far outweigh supply meaning Nova to the moon (as my wife keeps saying).
Hi Wilson (&co.) - thanks for the link - any idea why Wren are the most expensive provider? I guess it doesn't matter as capacity will be over-stretched but not sure why anyone would pick a more expensive test as they just want something that gets them through? Also, we are one of the only providers offering in-clinic, is this an advantage (sorry if stupid qu)?