Member Info for marik

Do you believe the professional use market in the US is zero?

"marik - your twitter just repeats the posts you made last night and does not address the evidence as to why the gov will not have to pay"

DM me. We can discuss.

Application for FDA approval is not a dead duck. Yes we have a test, we are awaiting approvals. With US professional use approval it opens a huge market.

@TWatcher. Thank you for your concerns. As far as I am aware we are ALL allowed an opinion on this bulletin board and there is no prequalification based on the length of how long someone has posted here before or the composition of their portfolio.

GLA

"We may secure EU HUA , who knows ?"
"What happens if we don’t get clearance ?"

Conversely what happens if we do? It is important that ODX are trying to expand, it is a growth company after all.

@TWatcher, what does my investment history have to do with you?

For questions about the contracts @CaptainSwag contact me here https://twitter.com/marik_investor

Best

"the leak was good journalism "

I've already provided reasons for it not being positive:

OmegaDX is a growth company and unfortunately the term fund raise or placing has been used as a dirty word (not by yourself) . This is not the case for private companies where fund raise for a growth company signifies successful movement for product to market and higher profitability.

There could be a number of reasons for a fund raise especially with new contracts. A new contract would require some liquidity to make the product available to the market. So let's take the FDA EUA as an example:

Mologic has already applied for both ODX and Mologic Emergency Use Authorisation to the FDA . If the FDA EUA application is successful and ODX are able to sell to a Billion dollar US market, then they will need to scale up fast with liquidity. At that point the fund raise is very important.

@Okehurst1

"what is the reason for a raise ?"

OmegaDX is a growth company and unfortunately the term fund raise or placing has been used as a dirty word (not by yourself) . This is not the case for private companies where fund raise for a growth company signifies successful movement for product to market and higher profitability.

There could be a number of reasons for a fund raise especially with new contracts. A new contract would require some liquidity to make the product available to the market. So let's take the FDA EUA as an example:

Mologic has already applied for both ODX and Mologic Emergency Use Authorisation to the FDA . If the FDA EUA application is successful and ODX are able to sell to a Billion dollar US market, then they will need to scale up fast with liquidity. At that point the fund raise is very important.

What is overlooked about OmegaDX is that they are more than just a COVID-19 testing company from the half-year report:

"Omega has substantial growth opportunities in the areas of Food Sensitivity, CD4 testing for the management of people living with HIV, and COVID-19 antibody and antigen testing and provides high quality in-vitro diagnostics products for use in hospitals, clinics, laboratories and healthcare practices in over 75 countries."

Even within COVID-19 testing, Omega has already received initial purchase orders for the sale and promotion of Omega's professional test throughout over 100 clinics in the UK and Europe.

@Woodstock1970 The signed copy of the contract is in the public domain and I commented on it here:

If you refer to my post here: https://twitter.com/marik_investor/status/1488663422438985729

The Government will not be getting any money back.

OmegaDX are undervalued in my opinion. We forget that the market is bigger than the UK/DHSC. Mologic has submitted the "has filed its submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requesting Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for its rapid point-of-care COVID-19 antigen test, for use under both the Omega's VISITECT brand and Global Access Diagnostics (GAD) brand".

Not only that, Mologic continue to progress their submission and are carrying out a feasibility study for the application process.

ODX have a test produced and manufactured in the UK and have already submitted for FDA EUA approval but are valued less than c. £20m. Astounding as the US is currently still short of tests and the Biden administration has approved funding to the tune of billions.

The news for the FDA EUA approval is on the horizon (and it would have been good if rumours hadn't wrecked the recent fund raise).

GLA

It would be good if you add the leaked insider information to the FCA complaint.

@PIface made a very good point regarding the recent leak. This isn't journalism. Leaked insider information was the cause of the current uncertainty and volatility and drop in the share price. Not only were these rumours shared widely, they were then promoted as something positive.

The bigger picture indicates that these kind of actions are short sighted and do more harm than good. Take the recent example with scenarios:

A. ODX + discussions with new Institutional Investors - Rumours = stable share price
stable share price as bargaining chip + conversation with Institutional Investors = potentially a good raise in finances

B. ODX + discussions with new Institutional Investors + Rumours = unstable/ falling share price + ruining company reputation
unstable share price (No bargaining chip) + conversation with Institutional Investors = No raising of finances

Scenario A is better for long term holders with less dilution. One of the purposes of stock exchange listings is to raise funding especially on the AIM.

GLA

Unless you are shorting or day trading, what benefit do shareholders get from this drama? Share price goes down because of the rumours and now the possibility of an immediate raise has practically vanished. It damages the company and the prospects for long term holders.

"if i am honest i would not be surprised if we get an RNS within the next week or so saying that a placing had been done."

Very unlikely after these antics. If they had an early chance of raising a decent amount, then their bargaining chips vanished because of the rumours.

"could the gov argue that if there is no production"
No they can't.

"from your quote odx state they have used pre production to upgrade their manufacturing facilities - was that an allowable spend under the terms of pre production?"
Yes it was

"in my only experience of commercial courts the judge was excellent - very logical and fair. so i think if there are any grey areas then odx might get the benefit of the decision due to the circumstances."
I would doubt it **very much** that the Gov would go to court.

"i was more focussed on the placing scoop"
Those who were insiders would have signed an NDA. Making it available to the rest of the market without context and through an RNS doesn't make it a "scoop".

People are entitled to make their own judgements, but the reason I asked you for the article is that you are clearly very positive about it despite it costing investors money.

These rumours/insider info have cost ODX the potential to raise money at a higher share price at this point in time. Thankfully ODX have a runway before they needed to raise the cash otherwise the LTH would be in seriously underwater. If you are shorting the stock or day trading, then yes I am sure you love the article and marmite. However, if you are a long term holder, the view will not be positive.

They have spent the money on pre production and the Government as per their own admission agreed that the contract expired ("Omega has received confirmation from the DHSC that they acknowledge that the contract expired"). We therefore know that the definitions all fall within section 13.5 and within that clause the terms are clear.

If they have spent the money for pre-production, then ODX don't payback. As ODX state: "...we used these pre-production payments, along with our own funds, to upgrade our manufacturing facilities to be able to integrate the Government-furnished equipment and bringing on the additional staff required...".

What does your TW article say?

It’s a difficult document to read if you are not used to such terms and agreements. But translated to layman terms, The Agreement does not require ODX to pay back the money if it has been spent by the Supplier as at the End Date [1] which according to the RNS was on 1 October 2021 [2]. ODX have spent the money [3] and as per the Government request have responded in writing [3]. To receive such a request in the first place was the Gov being cheeky. If you combine the RNS with the agreement, it clarifies that ODX won't be paying back a penny.

--------------------------

1. With the Government defined as the "Authority" and ODX as the "Supplier", read Section 13.5.7 relating to what happens "if the Contract ends or expires":

"The Preproduction Payment remaining payable by the Authority in accordance with Schedule 3 shall be paid by the Authority provided that they have been spent by the Supplier as at the End Date. Where the Preproduction Payment has been paid by the Authority but not spent by the Supplier as at the End Date, it shall be repaid by the Supplier to the Authority within 30 days of the End Date."

2. RNS (10/12/21):
"Omega has received confirmation from the DHSC that they acknowledge that the contract expired on 1 October 2021 and a request that Omega submit a proposal for the repayment of the pre-production payment of £2.5m (net of VAT). "

"The Board of Omega, having taken initial legal advice, do not believe that the Company is required to repay the pre-production payment and will respond in writing as requested. The Board will continue to take further legal advice on this matter and hopes to reach a resolution swiftly."

3. Explanatory comment from RNS (10/12/21)
"...we used these pre-production payments, along with our own funds, to upgrade our manufacturing facilities to be able to integrate the Government-furnished equipment and bringing on the additional staff required...".

They don't owe the government anything. Have you read their legal agreement?

In case anyone needs the RNS translating from legal to inv. speak, theyve announced:

a) that they have received waivers or in process of obtaining waivers for other loans
b) that they aim to reschedule Regal litig. payout

Both provide extensive liquidity and could pave way to some substantial runway for generating revenue with reduced costs. Smart move in my books and exceptional if it works.

GL