Member Info for marik

@Latino. Yes, this is certainly a game changer.

That's a volume of 10 million already and we have only had just over 30 minutes of trading. The last time the volume was at those levels, the share price was close to 30p.

The chartists will no doubt be looking at this with intrigue. The engulfing volume is putting this back to highs of 10th of Dec 2021. There is a lot more fuel in the rocket yet.

Within their own capacity using £3 per test they could be on revenue of c. £100m per annum. I believe that is an exceptional frugal calculation and will no doubt put ODX in a very different light. Other LFT manufacturers are talking margins of £2-3 per test not sales. In the US it was even bigger.

Let's see how a £14m mcap company changes after this news. That news was certainly not factored into the value of the company and most of the market had written ODX off.

Fantastic news for LTH.

GLA

Have the shorts been stitched up with the rumours over the last number of weeks?

Omega announces it has successfully CE marked its VISITECT® COVID-19 antigen test for self-test use.

That has just opened up the entire European market and other territories that recognise the CE mark via B2B partners and distributors. Conditional upon submission of additional data and follow-up reports by 31 March 2022.

Well that means a £14m market cap company is about to sell a large volume of tests in the near future. ODX have a maximum personal capacity of 2.67million tests a month. Even at £3 per test, the revenue generated will be hitting 7x the current market cap. Phenomenal situation.

GLA

The FT article puts my comments from early mid and late December in perspective. I would be very surprised if Cineworld pay much to Cineplex.

At the most C$75M

https://www.ft.com/content/949af51b-7807-41c6-a895-223519dfa221

Cineplex will not come out of this positively unless they strike a deal. I made this statement a long time back on this BB, I had a look at the legal positions and it was obvious that the two parties would have come to a mutual agreement and there was no way that Cineworld would be paying out such a large sum. The current entity that is being sued via Canadian judiciary is a shell company with no assets. Once Cineplex enters the UK system to try and enforce a Canadian ruling, they will be in for a shock. Best they settle for a significantly smaller amount now and save themselves some headache or risk receiving nothing.

@gmcc yes he does have a lot of experience. Good sign.

"But ODX put the worst possible slant on every thing when they talk to the market, it’s like oh look what the big bad DHSC are doing to us know

The Company is ran by idiots"

My experience with Government is that they end up employing too many people and duplicating tasks and wasting money. If ODX have already been supplying invoices or the Gov have already received them, I wouldn't put it past them to keep asking for them again. If you want to see how incompetent the UK Gov can be, have a look at the severe issues they caused for PPE. ODX were correct to RNS this information in case there were future issues.

"I don't think we are disagreeing..."

@Computer909, you are correct there, no private conversation either, but @CaptainSwag was asking a questions from last night which hinged on definitions. But I think the nuance is very important otherwise, the accusations against ODX will continue.

So for future reference and clarity, the definition of pre-production is given below [A], what is relevant is section 2.3.2 [see B below], which states cash is provided to be "used by the Supplier for agreed pre-production activities". It continues, that copy of invoices are required [C]. Schedule then further elucidates what activities are required which I have summarised [D]. All of which (I have marked) are DONE. As per my previous post, the Agreement does not require ODX to pay back the money if it has been spent by them at the End Date (section 13.5.7), which according to the RNS was on 1 October 2021. ODX have spent the money and as per the Government request have responded in writing.

As I've summarised before, ODX won't be paying back anything - and I very much doubt the Gov will be proceed any further beyond receiving invoices.

----

A. Definition of pre-production:
“the aggregate amounts paid to the Supplier by way of cash payments (other than for the Charges for the Goods) and the value of all raw materials provided to the Supplier by the Authority without charge as set out in clause 2.3”

B. 2.3.2 “by way of a cash deposit to be used by the Supplier for agreed pre-production activities brief details of which are set out in Schedule 8 (Implementation Plan)”

C. “The Supplier shall provide copy invoices to the Authority on request providing evidence of the payments made by the Supplier to at least the value of the payment.”

D. Schedule 8 section 4
Completion of ongoing facilities work (DONE)
Incremental installation and readiness of the Machinery (DONE)
Support management of supply chain requirements for LFT manufacturing (DONE)
Support recruitment and training of staff (DONE)
Support technical transfer (DONE)

Any takers? I have a little time available (although I have stopped pro bono offering a small few minutes window)

"I have already said what definitions I think it will come down to."

It's okay I want to hear them again. From the contract could you name which ones and provide the definitions.

Best

"...and certain definitions"

@CaptainSwag, yesterdays conversation started off with you stating that definitions were important. From the contract could you name which ones and provide the definitions?

@CaptainSwag, if you don't mind, I'll circle back to your questions - I offered you to DM me directly. Which you didn't take up. So if you don't mind I'm having a discussion with @Computer909

Thanks

@Computer909 go to section 13.5.7 what does it say when the Authority has already paid the preproduction to the Supplier at the End Date?

@CaptainSwag, I'll circle back to you. Thanks

That's a quote from the summary does not prove that ODX owe money to the Gov. Dig into the contract and prove how ODX owe money to the Gov.

You claim is that money IS owed - what you have provided is not proof.

"The contract doesn't say that at all"

Prove it