Member Info for Muck165

And a number of news outlets have picked it up. Here’s one example with lovely words like “groundbreaking” and “transformative”!

https://bioengineer.org/researchers-develop-game-changing-blood-test-for-stroke-detection/

Upfront just posted about their results

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/upfrontdiagnostics_exciting-news-alert-after-3-years-activity-7198219266465136640-hgsQ?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

For anybody unaware, Boots is owned by Walgreen Boots Alliance Inc, which ranks #18 of the largest US companies by revenue and has over 9,000 stores across all 50 US states as well as internationally. So if Salistick were to get FDA approval then I think there’s a fair chance it will find its way into those stores, particularly given Boots are now selling it under its own brand.

May be wishful thinking I know!

And finally, just a real world story published by the BBC last week showing the real difference early diagnosis of LVO stroke can have to people, and the NHS.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kllj7knyxo

Just some things to remember on this;

- Strokes will cost the NHS £43bn next year, largely through ongoing care needs. Stroke is an NHS priority.

- The whole purpose of IDAP is to fast track transformative diagnostics into widespread NHS use.

- Upfront have been developing LVOne with heavy NHS collaboration for years, to make sure the product matches the customer.

-Upfront are expecting UKCA in H2 2024, ie by the end of June.

- we are the CDMO partner, and have made all batches so far. Very reasonable to think we will carry on doing so, particularly given that we currently have a lot of currently mothballed automated manufacturing capacity in Doncaster ready to go. If I recall, capacity is “millions of tests per month”.

- in recent funding pitches, Upfront have said they could price each test at £600 and it still remain cost effective to the customer. Reality is it will likely be £200 per test.

- there is global potential for this test subject to regulatory approvals (and of course we have now significantly bolstered our regulatory resource with IVDeology.). I do wonder if that acquisition was driven by the fact that we are likely to have a lot more developers reaching the regulatory stage of the whole CDMO process now.

A great and potentially highly lucrative customer for us.

LVOne US trial results were published in an official journal of the American Stroke Association on Friday.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/SVIN.123.001304

Upfront posted a news article about it on their site yesterday

https://upfrontdiagnostics.com/us-clinical-trial-results-published-in-american-stroke-association-journal/

“ These outstanding results confirm previous findings from a clinical study performed in the UK by Upfront diagnostics in collaboration with Newcastle University and open the door for identification of LVO patients in the pre-hospital setting. Deployment of the blood biomarkers in the field could allow fast-tracking of patients to treatment with thrombectomy, halving the risk of disability and the healthcare/societal costs of stroke. Also, with these results, Upfront positions GFAP and D-dimer as the strongest candidates for identification of LVO patients in the pre-hospital setting.

Several doctors from different American departments of neurology and neurosurgery were involved in the study: Harvard Medical School, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Duke University School of Medicine, University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Brigham and Women’s, St. Michael’s University of Toronto, UCLA Stroke Center and State University of New York at Buffalo’s Jacobs School.”

Add all this in to LVOne being 1 of just 8 devices on the IDAP scheme and you have to think we have a great customer here.

£8-9m on a rolling 12 month basis was what Yates said would be breakeven.

We did £2.4m in H1 so we’d need at least £5.6m in H2 to get there, which would be a 93% increase against our £2.9m in H2 last year. I certainly think that’s possible but in truth for me anything north of £4.75m would still be a cracking result.

I’d just add that Stuart chose to sell to us, and for 100% paper. So he must regard us and our prospects pretty highly too.

Just for info but Stuart Angell, the founder of IVDeology (recently acquired by us) is the BIVDA Regulatory Affairs Programme Manager, as well as being Chair of its Regulatory Affairs working party and a member of its Executive Board.

He is also Chairing a session on the European Medical Devices Market, and presenting a session about placing IVD's on the UK market, at the Medtech summit this weekend in Brussels, an event billed as "The Flagship Regulatory Event of the Year". Yates and our head of sales and distribution are accompanying him.

The point I suppose is that by acquiring IVDeology we have secured the services of someone who appears to be a very highly regarded, influential and experienced regulatory expert. And lets face it, if you are a developer wanting regulatory advice about commercialising an IVD in the UK then BIVDA (and ergo Stuart) would be the first place to start looking.

Citywatcher kindly posted it below Ant.

The question isn't why they want to invest - making a strategic investment is a perfectly plausible explanation even from the mouth of wormtongue.

The question is why they would ever do it at a much higher price than they need to. If they happen to do so, then I am sure they wont be doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, particularly given the pickle they must know Vast are in.

Why is nobody questioning why on earth the Swiss would come in at 0.6+. What is in it for them to do so? I’m not saying they won’t, but it just seems utterly daft unless there’s a kicker somewhere.

Just for info, a post from Boots about the launch

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7196609485098942466-wLPK?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Well I'm just holding with what I have. Seen too many of AP's interviews to believe much of what he says but needless to say I hope it comes good for those that take the plunge.

In terms of the Swiss funder, would it not seem stupid for them to buy in at above 0.6 given the current SP? Why would they do it?

Its worth looking at the comment to Yates post from Andy Breakell.

"I remember when the lateral flow tetanus test arrived in our Emergency Department ….about 2005/6 ……I thought ….”wow……this is a bit special……what else could this do for Emergency Medicine”!!! I can see further advances in accuracy and multiplexing which are essential for Emergency Medicine and undifferentiated acute cases. I hope the industry sticks to simplicity , disease focused results, ease of use and low costs as the more expensive and technical the tests become, the more difficult it will be to adopt with health budgets under massive strain."

If you were to check his history you will find he was a lead ED doctor for years and now runs a company called Cerneretec which is developing a test to quickly diagnose paracetamol overdose in the ED.

He must follow Yates to have responded so quickly and so again I think we may possibly be involved. Fundamentally, it is just another example of how diverse the application of LFT's is.

Yates posted this today, to demonstrate the rise in scientific publications referencing lateral flow over the years.

We're not in a bad space here. The important thing, as Yates has often pointed out, is that the mix is changing. New developers across a wide variety of applications are replacing Covid developers.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7196812382952669184-4Ecw?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Just to clarify, but my reading is that it’s not the Swiss Investment Company that may be providing finance, but rather the individual that owns that company.

It’s worth remembering the exact phrase used in the 14/2 RNS, being that this individual had “ indicated a firm interest in providing major restructuring finance to the Company, partly through debt and partly through equity to be issued at a higher price than the CURRENT share price.”

At that time the share price was 0.07, so imo any new issue above THAT price would still be in line with that RNS statement. We cannot issue at below 0.1 nominal.

So I have a niggling concern.

My understanding is that shareholders gave authority to issue up to 8.4bn shares at the GM. So if the “individual” were, for example, to provide first tranche finance of $1.5m in exchange for equity issued at 0.1 then by my reckoning that would be something like 1.18bn shares, or nearly 50% of the new enlarged issued stock. If they were to repeat that with the second tranche then their stake only increases. And of course, they could already own stock (who is David Ian Jones again..).

Ultimately my concern is that this “white knight” might be positioning themselves to take a majority controlling interest in Vast at the expense of existing holders.

Am I talking nonsense or is this a real concern?

Couldn’t agree more LWHL.

PART 3

Vanquis Bank is represented by Edward Levey KC of Fountain Court Chambers, instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.

TMS Legal is represented by Kingsley Napley LLP. Full counsel information was unavailable on Tuesday.

The case is Vanquis Banking Group PLC v. TMS Legal Ltd., case number KB-2024-000744, in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.

PART 2

More than 1,000 claims from TMS were withdrawn after they were submitted, Vanquis alleges. Only 8.8% of the more than 10,000 claims that Vanquis has considered so far were partially or fully upheld, and the rest were rejected.

TMS operates on a "no win, no fee" basis, but charges a commission of 45% of the total compensation received if a claim is successful, Vanquis said. This is why the claim manager submitted complaints "without any proper regard" for their merit or lack of merit, the bank added.

A questionnaire was provided by TMS to its clients before bringing a claim, the lender alleged. But it did not provide the claim manager with a proper basis for making an allegation of irresponsible lending, because it only asked minimal and basic information on their financial position, Vanquis says.

TMS did not make any reasonable inquiries to find out the nature of Vanquis' affordability checks and whether these were "fair, reasonable and proportionate," the bank said. TMS knew, or ought to have known, that the questionnaire did not provide enough information to make an allegation, it added

Complaints submitted to the FOS are time-barred from six years after the event, under the sourcebook on dispute resolution of the Financial Conduct Authority or three years from the date the complainant became aware they had cause to claim, according to the filing.

TMS provided its customers with a "limitation confirmation" to state the complainant had "only recently understood" they had cause to complain. Vanquis alleged this did not mean complaints were necessarily brought in time and that TMS needed to carry out further enquiries to determine they were.

Vanquis declined to comment on Tuesday. TMS did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.