Member Info for notaflipper

Noted. My understanding is that these accounting provisions are within the financial forecasts which allows for Break Even still to be achieved by March 2018.

This �2.1m funding should be seen alongside the �2,410,869 unutilised �5,386,326 provision set aside for further legal costs from the 31 March 2016 RNS (from December 2017 RNS legal costs of �2,975,457 had been incurred against this provision). This is also in addition to the �1,591,538 budgeted in September 2017 for Illumina�s third patent infringement claim against the Company (this is commonly referred to as the �321 claim). It is however expected that if a settlement comes in the next few days this would indemnify Premaitha from this �321 and further claims in the UK etc. This gives Premaitha a total legal war chest of �6,102,407 for settlement or legal costs to go to appeal etc. The ROM for a legal appeal costs were estimated to be far less that �1.5m though in the December RNS. So enough money to settle and demonstrates a big stick over the next few days to get a serious an longstanding settlement. Sensibly the company has not issued warrants at such a reduced SP which would have meant a massive issuing of potential shares to TMO. The secured financing has cynical benefits to TMO. I take comfort that the loan facility was not excessive as it suggests more news to come

Ariosa, Illumina Spar Over Patent Timing In DNA Test Trial By Cara Bayles Law360, San Francisco (January 9, 2018, 10:11 PM EST) -- An attorney for Ariosa pressed a former Illumina scientist on whether an article describing Ariosa’s prenatal testing method predated his patent protecting similar technology, in a bid to knock out infringement claims during the first day of testimony Tuesday in a California federal jury trial.

As mentioned previously in the 31 March 2016 RNS there was a provision of �5,386,326 for expected litigation costs in respect of the claims ruled in November. As per the December 2017 RNS legal costs of �2,975,457 have been incurred against this provision. This leaves �2,410,869 set aside for further legal costs. It is noted in September 2017, Illumina filed a third patent infringement claim against the Company (this is commonly referred to as the �321 claim within) for which, by the 30 September, 2017 a �1,591,538 was set aside. It is however expected that if a settlement comes in the next few days this would indemnify Premaitha from this �321 and further claims in the UK etc. The company within the December RNS has stated that it expects that �any costs of the main appeal are expected to be lower than this 321 provision, possibly significantly lower.� This suggests that any appeal costs could be within the existing �2,410,869 set aside. Also that any settlement costs (compensation plus licensing fees) would be within the existing legal budget provisions. As it is difficult to respond to short, one liner, fearful texts ultimately it is a judgement call for all investors. For my part I believe that the BoD will arrange a settlement but that will be as close to appearing before the judge as possible to allow for the best negotiated position and the necessary due diligence. However I suspect if there was a deal in principal it would be agreed or dismissed by now. I take comfort that no Institutional Investors have reduced their stake nor NHS hospitals suspending the IONA tests subject to the appeal. My continued investment decision is based on the assumption that a settlement is more than less likely and that a sale would be required within the next 2 quarters following. Interesting days however. Let�s hope for some good news this week. All the best to all LTHs (whether VIY or NIPT)

One thing I would also try to correct is the scale of the legal costs implication. In the 31 March 2016 RNS there was a provision of �5,386,326 for expected litigation costs in respect of the claims ruled in November. As per the December 2017 RNS legal costs of � 2,975,457 have been incurred against this provision. In September 2017, Illumina filed a third patent infringement claim against the Company (the "321 claim and a further provision of �1,245,000 has been made to cover the expected costs of a full defence against this claim. The �321 provision was extended as 30 September 2017 for �1,591,538. It is expected that any settlement would indemnify Premaitha from this �321 and further claims in the UK etc. It is also expected that any �he costs of the main appeal are expected to be lower than this 321 provision, possibly significantly lower�. So within the existing legal provisions which the company has allowed for the funding is there for legal extension and for settlement hence the suggestion via TW that as long as the Illumina settlement costs were iro �2m then these could be paid for within existing legal provisions. It should be noted that settlement would also work from the opposite end in increasing sales from companies worried about investing in sequencing technology for a test with legal baggage. Let�s hope for some good news this week. All the best to all LTHs (whether VIY or NIPT)

The global NIPT market is forecast to exceed $1 billion by 2021. I have previously ranked how Premaitha�s market share compares to other NIPT providers so for example Natera�s Panorama had 84,000 Panorama tests in the third quarter of 2016. So I have estimated approximately 60,000 to 70,000 test volumes based on recent RNS. I choose Natera because they are a market leader with formidable earnings growth this year. This would roughly translate to Premaitha�s IONA test having a circa 1/5th of their market share. The DNA library sequencing process within Premaitha�s IONA test is run on TMO�s Ion Torrent Proton, Ion Torrent Chef and S5 sequencing instruments which, unlike some of the reagents, cannot be substituted readily by instruments from an alternative manufacturer. It uses a massively parallel sequencing (MPS) of whole DNA using ionosphere to amplify >100k times and so has a different technical approach to that of Illumina�s, Natera�s and Ariosa Diagnostics. These alternative brands already have their own NIPT test Illumina has Verifi, Natera has Panorama, Sequenom (now part of LabCorp) has Maternit21 and Ariosa/Roche has Harmony. As such it is not so easy for either company to pick alternative bed fellows though Premaitha would have some interest from other companies like Perkin Elmer or Roche. So my rough feel is that by FY End Premaitha should be closing in on approximately close to 10% of the market share and should by 2018 FY end be comfortably over 5%. As mentioned the sequencer market is the prize and is a multiple of the NIPT market value and these NIPT sales should translate to greater TMO sequencer sales. Despite the constant BoD disappointments and hubris and legal headwinds this is an achievement. Given that Agilient acquired Multiplicom for 68m euros I am surprised that we value this achievement less than this. There is a growing consolidation within the NIPT market and to suggest that Premaitha will be allowed to grow organically at its own pace is unlikely. Ariosa Diagnostics was acquired by Roche), LifeCodexx was bought by GATC Biotech), Verinata Health, acquired by Illumina, Sequenom was acquired by LabCorp and finally Clarifgo acquired by Agilent Technologies. Premaitha although reliant on TMO distribution network support and financing is still one of the few nominally independent NIPT providers and once the legal issues are over this will gain increasing notice.

Hi Brain, Of course that's happened in the past and will in the future. It's not the ideal way to do business, but it's a way. I have not been in the inner circle to have felt let down by 'educated guesses' but as many investors on the BB I have seen my investment wrong footed by false confidences whether TW, Hardman or Twitter/BB posters. My investment here is now simple: Given the verdict I cannot believe that the BoD are under any impression that an appeal would be successful. Although fighting through a full appeal has been discussed doing so I am sure will have implications for the reduced sp, cash position and on-going marketing efforts. This is appreciated by the fact that the BoD were reluctant to provide any forecasts in the January Hardman report as they didn't want to create alarm whilst a settlement was agreed in the interim. I believe Roche/Ariosa Diagnostics will fight on however this will work to our favour in getting a settlement as Illumina will press the Judge to force Roche/Ariosa accept the same deal. Unfortunately as in many negotiations people are waiting till the last possible moment to make a deal. This breeds nervousness as evidenced last week. However I believe a deal will happen and have bet on it 'massively'. I also believe that a sale will be required in short order at multiples of the current share price and I suspect over 24p. A sale would be required by Q2 despite any interim funding with TMO or Asian third parties. Best of luck to you and other LTHs (whether VIY or NIPT)

I�m confused with some of the core concerns that some posters have here�. TMO is a multi-billion dollar company whose sequencers the IONA test runs on. That the BoD work closely with them is an open record and they have appeared on the Thermo Fisher world-wide roadshow. Should the BoD have settled before the High-Court hearing in July? Of course, we all said this. But the BoD now with hindsight were falsely confident in their defence. If we were to suppose that TMO were involved then the importance for shareholders is what this means for the future: Did TMO set Premaitha up for a fall to buy us on the cheap? Was there a background agreement that TMO would help in a rescue plan should they fail in defending against Illumina as their proxy? What will be the impact on sales and cash on a settlement and is one possible? Unfortunately in a vacuum one an project one�s worst fears. The key points for me is that all 55+ UK hospitals/clinics are still supplying the IONA test, there have been no Director Sales nor Institutional sales. St George is still the centre of excellence for NIPT in the UK supplying the IONA test. TMO has not publicly distanced itself at the JP Morgan Healthcare show from the IONA test. Sales are still increasing and contracts are still forthcoming in Europe. Available sources of funding are still possible both via TMO or the Far East. The disappointments to date are numerous and there are much frustrations with the BoD over their hubris and bravado. It is silly that we have a Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Officer Sure etc. but these were positions that had to be given to get YourGene to come on board and anyone whose worked on these deals understands this. Ultimately the game plan from here is still the same despite the frustrations. The BoD have to settle, there will be a period of time to pump up the sp before there will need to be a further tranche of warrants to TMO or full sale. Ultimately the company now needs to be sold in the short term. Further issuing of warrants ultimately is just selling the company on the cheap. If Sequenom, Multiplicom and Affymetrix could not make it on their own it�s doubtful that Premaitha can.

It looks like Brainspark has had his door blocked from further educated guesses. The disappointments are true and one could add the lack of a forward trading figures in Hardman's January sales, sales not matching forecasts in Interims despite the 87% growth. In addition to the issues we know such as Hardman, loosing the initiative of being the sole CE-IVD NIPT test [now you have Clarigo (Multiplicom), Prenatal BACs-on-BeadsTM (PerkinElmer), PraenaTest/PrenaTest (LifeCodexx, a subsidiary of GATC Biotech), Prendia (Genesupport, FASTERIS, Swiss Institute for Bioinformatics), SerenityTM test (Genesis GeneticsTM)]. However all those frustrations aired the investment game plan has not changed. A settlement is expected to be made (this would exclude Ariosa Diagnostics as Roche will just continue the fight against Illumina worldwide); then a sale in short order or an interim funding agreement with TMO and sale by end of Q1. One of the things that TMO would value is the number of sales (circa 60k volume per year) which has an impact on sequencer sales. They are closing in on 10% of a global multi-billion dollar company from 3 years of trading. Another thing that TMO would care about is the number of Premaitha partnerships. Premaitha Health has made 19 agreements in the last 3 years of trading. How does this number of partnerships compare in the market. For example Sequenom ~ now part of Labcorp (24 agreements), Natera (20 agreements), BGI (18 agreements), Ariosa Diagnostics (14 agreements) and Illumina (13 agreements). These agreements focus on distribution/marketing of NIPTs to expand their access and coverage in different geographies (54%), we came across a number of product development/commercialization agreements (15%), merger/acquisition agreements (9%) and product/technology licensing agreements (8%). For all their disappointments the BoD have created a global business with growing revenues close to achieving break-even. This has residual value above the current market capitalisation. The game plan is clear. Hold your nerve as there's no point to sell on the last hand.

If they did they would walk away from their investment to date plus Premaitha�s contribution of sales volumes of circa 60k per year. Trades seem to me like private PIs getting nervous rather than institutional investors.

I would have to agree with Twix. Although there has been a lot of failed past confidences we just have to think clearly through the various scenarios. As mentioned even if a commercial settlement was achieved there is limited scope for the BoD to issue warrants to TMO before it is selling the company on the cheap. So I believe as per Sequenom there would be a sale within the sort-term. Illumina are obviously taking this to the wire to get the best deal possible however I don't think a deal will be done on the steps of the High Court and would have to be announced earlier - so sometime next week. In order to sweeten the deal to Illumina there are several levers available such as cash settlement, switching platforms for specific regions. Illumina would also be limited to the amount of damages as this would be limited to the areas under the jurisdiction of the High Court and for sales which have benefitted Premaitha. Also Illumina are not the exclusive licensee of the patents so these damages would have to be lodged by the original patent holders (e.g. Sequenom now part of LabCorp). So if a settlement is not possible then a distressed sale would have to arranged with TMO however I suspect as per Twix that a settlement would be achieved.

The Form of Order hearing has already been now to be "by the end of January" so that has already been communicated via RNS. I don't think the BoD are looking for any apeals despite whatever the backroom blusture or bravado. Simply put it would too expensive with little grounds of much turnaround given the judgement. That said I do expect that Roche and Ariaso Diagnotics will continue. So we have one more week to wait. I think these legal and commercial discussions are also preventing Director purchases. The game plan is still the same. The BoD would have to seek a sale even if commercial agreement is achieved within the short term.

I am also impatient now for news and resolution. Although the Form of Order Hearing was suggested when announced to be by end of January though I was hopeful of news sooner. That said I cannot imagine that Ariosa and Illumina though would have locked horns in California just a few days before an announcement of a settlement was to be announced in Europe.

One thing is being missed in some of the speculations, some more fearful and monosyllabic than others, is the role of Ariosa Diagnostics and TDL which were co-defendants in the hearing in July ‘17. They also lost however with the backing from Roche will inevitably be fighting on. They too will be appearing later this month at the High Court to determine whether a commercial settlement is possible.   I note that yesterday on the 8th January that a California federal jury trial over two DNA testing patents kicked off between them “with genomics company Illumina arguing that Ariosa Diagnostics’ prenatal testing technology infringed its patents, while Ariosa countered that the patents are invalid and that Illumina owes it $17.5 million for breaching a licensing agreement.” [see Law360 for source]. So it will be interesting to see if this has any dynamic back on UK shores.

Sorry at work so apologies for brevity of response. I have only tried to provide some informed balance against some unbalanced and fearful posts which now seems the norm: Scenario 1: Third-party makes offer As TMO's support has been instrumental in sales then they would be important to any potential buyer to keep on board. TMO would therefore ask for their floor of their warrants to be covered or would be unhappy to provide further support to a potential third-party buyer Scenario 2: TMO walk way My understanding (please correct if wrong) TMO have as per earlier post they have been issued warrants representing a total of 83m shares (26% of share capital) at an excercisable between 10.7p to 24.6p. Jul 2017: £5:0m Mar 2017: £2.0m Sep 2016: £4.0m Dec 2015: £5.0m In total £16m. So if they walk away, do not supply further funding if needed, or the share price NEVER reaches above 10.7p in next 8 years then these warrants are not exercisable though loans will still have to be repaid. Scenario 3: TMO give a low-ball offer As a % of the 321m shares, these 83,271,338 shares represents 26%. If they give get to 11.825p they achieve 62,946,134 of their shares under warrants or 19% of the shares. So let's say this could be a low-ball floor. Then to buy the remaining 81% of shares it would cost £31m if valued at 11.9p but they would have to write-off their warrants at 24.6p which cost them £5m, so let's say £36m. If however the offer cleared 24.6p (and all the 26% warrants were excercisable) the remaining shares would cost £57m. If a potential take-out offer went to an all-time share price high of 36p then it would cost £86m. This last scenario is subject to perspective, what level TMO value the 66,000 test volumes, the current relationship and their role in the narrative to date. Best is to take your own counsel on this scenario and whether TMO would be issued further warrants, and to what level, to reduce their average. Have to switch off now whather happens to the sp.

Hope so as a lot of work. Switching off till next one lol. All the best to ALL LTHs (VIY and NIPT)

As per the RNS in H1 over 22,000 test volumes with over 80% outside UK. Arguably there will be close to 60k test volumes for full year on known contracts. TFO would be walking away from this plus the warrants to date. My understanding of the TMO Warrants is that the following have been issued. Date No of shares Executable Price Dec-17 20,325,204 24.6 Sep-16 17,094,018 11.7 Mar-17 16,913,319 11.825 Jul-17 28,938,797 10.725 TMO would want any potential third party to cove their highest executable price of 24.6. Some of these Warrants expire within 8 years. As a % of the 321m shares, these 83,271,338 shares represents 26% I suggest they may want these to vest hence suggesting the 24.6p floor. So lets play the scenarios with 83,271,338 shares this has an average of 14.54p. At the next TMO funding (again referenced in RNS as a sound possibility) there could be a issue of further warrants. So a further 10m shares in warrants gives TMO 93,271,338 with an average of 13.62p. A further 20m shares in warrants gives them 103,271,338 with an average of 12.88p. So this is why I suggest there is a ceiling of how much shares can be issued in warrants where it just becomes just more sensible to sell the whole company. What the tipping point is who is knows?

Sequenom lost in the US Federal Appeals courts against Ariosa Diagnostics in June 2016. This led directly to their acquisition by LabCorp in July 2016 for 2,40 USD per share of 302m. The sale being completed by September 2016. There were some Sequenom LTHs @ 4 USD who got caught out hence my post. Some posters here know big Sequenom PI investors who lost out. I know as I monitored their chat rooms. Will TFO obviously await till clarity with Illumina settlement of course and so wold Premaitha to secure a better deal. However we have reached an inflection point with TFO funding where it is now appealing as selling the company on the cheap. That Sequenom was forced to undergo a distressed sale in short order and Premaitha will somehow be able to grow organically for "a while yet" and release new product ranges with the associated marketing costs seems optimistic. My reading that there has been NO Director resignations despite the verdict is that there's no point as the end game is now clear. At the next hearing in January It will have to announced whether a commercial settlement is possible. Wrt to Genoma the court in Rome in condemning the Swiss company ordered them to do the following hence suggesting there's limited value to restore the company from bankruptcy as it is a tainted brand: (a) Withdraw any test and / or product bearing the brand "GENOMA Swiss Biotechnology" with no marketing of such products; (b) The sale of internet domains www.genoma.it and www.genoma.com to the Italian company GENOMA MOLECULAR GENETICS LABORATORY; (c) Publishing a sentence extract on two national newspapers, on a specialist magazine and on www.cryo-save.com, for compensation and restorer for appropriate medical information Does Genoma funds matter I would suggest not as £785,317 has been already provided in accounts for bad debts provision.

As per the RNS Thermo Fisher provided an additional $5.0m in loan facilities to Premaitha in July 2017, in return for $5.0m of warrants, of which $1.0m remain unissued as the relevant loan drawdown milestone has not yet been triggered. So this funding is still available in addition to the £1.6m cash at the end of the period (31 March 2017: £1.3m) with £0.6m R&D tax credits anticipated in H2. Hence why I suggest that the BoD are awaiting the January meeting with Justice Carr to determine whether a settlement is possible and the costs to then make a more informed judgement of the funding needs. I would agree with Twix who has suggested that any further funding will try to be as minimal as possible as the warrants of 83,271,338 shares issued to date represent 26% of the 321m shares with an average price roughly calculate to be 14p. A potential further 10% of warrants issued at 6p+ TMO will be closing at 40% of the share capital reducing their average further. Hence I suggest that the BoD could be minded that any further funding is just selling the company on the cheap and might as well negotiate a full sell

My investment rationale now is simply because I believe a sale is now inevitable in the near term hence massively averaging down. LTHs should be minded that Sequenom’s legal loss to Ariosa Diagnostics led to a distressed sale only a month after their patent case loss. There is a limited timeframe available to the BoD. It could be an idea to hold one’s nerve and average down in advance of a sale which would need to clear the high watermark (24.6p) . The sp vs sales also shows that the current sp is undervalued even if there needs to be a provision of a cash settlement with Illumina or so impact on sales growth in the UK/EU area in the medium term. ATB to all LTHs