Member Info for RegulatorUK

"Oh regulator, smile for once and stop taking everything so serious. You make a lot of good points and bring knowledge to this board but as of late you're acting like your name itself."

I just don't want this BB being shut down because of stupid remarks made by people. Defamatory comments made on another LSE BB caused real problems recently...

"I wish I was the editor of the FT. Endless free instant cash!

"Who will we manipulate today?"

I would suggest posting potentially defamatory comments on a public bulletin board isn't a smart move...

"Wouldn't this just be stock being used up? I'd hope we'd stopped ordering now from innova... in fact I thought someone posted here that the tender had ended or was cancelled?"

Yes. As far as I recall, the current short-term contract for Innova runs out at the end of this month (although it may be mid-February). They were excluded from the recent future procurement as their test didn't meet the sample methodology requirements.

"Can someone tell me how to tell if trades are buys or sells on the www.londonstockexchange.com "

You can't. What is reported are trades. An algorithm decided whether they are 'buys' or 'sells' based on the price paid for that particular trade against a reference price ... but it is basically a guess.

"Latest freight services tender award (https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2021/W04/743768255)

"The supply of these new test kits is currently limited in the face of very high global demand and consequently it was necessary to contract for supply on an ex-works basis for product manufactured in China in order to secure the required quantity of product and prevent gazumping"

As soon as we have the antigen test available, the governments excuse for buying chinese crap goes away, need to get the tech transfer complete on the hurry up, I was expecting it by yesterday, but surely has to be anytime now."

Those are woefully late retrospective notifications of contracts awarded in the latter half of last year.

"Why would the health dept order a huge amount for public use when they already have a warehouse full of tests that although have the correct certification are of little use due to inaccuracy."

The Innova tests are not MHRA certified. They're being used under a time-limited EUA.

The approval process that the AbC19 test was going through was something different.

"Are basically a load of ambulance chasers. I put them on par with the despicable lawyer outfits that are stopping the government from deporting foreign and often immigrant criminals. The dregs of society both !!"

You clearly have no clue what the GLP is about... but your comments give me a clear view of your personality. Another one to add to the green bin.

As posted on the ODX BB:

The statement to which you are referring is a statement made by DHSC, which it then contradicts a few weeks later.

Abingdon (and by extension the other members of the UK-RTC) are now in the very difficult position of having to deal with the fall out of contradictory statements made by a third party. We might want them to be very bullish and to set the record straight in blunt terms... but that would mean biting the hand that feeds them - and we know that this particular government has a vindictive streak. Pointing out the DHSC is dissembling would come back to bite us big time! At the moment, for Abingdon and ODX, this is as much about managing the government as it is about managing the market.

This is a case where investors need to look calmly at the facts and the fundamentals, and then make a decision. I for one am happy that in the long term the UK-RTC and Abingdon/ODX will deliver.

As always, DYOR.

"ps i am in alva tonight so will go on the hunt for boris! :) "

Want to borrow a rifle?

;-)

"Perhaps this would have been avoided if they'd been honest two weeks ago when the MHRA rejection was given this was clearly price sensitive and should have been subject to rns back then."

The application for MHRA has not been rejected. It appears not to have been achieved by a given deadline.

The problems is, the basis on which this has all kicked off is contradictory statements from DHSC - where it first claims that approval has already been achieved and then subsequently claims it hasn't.

"Does anybody know when the various antibody/antigen tenders that we have seen on bidstats are to be awarded?

Many of them have closed but it’s unclear who has been awarded the contract."

Once a tender closes, the bids have to be assessed against the published criteria, a decision reached and the bidders notified. There is then a mandatory stand still period (a minimum of 10 days) for challenges to be raised. It's not until the expiry of the standstill period (and, if any challenges have been raised, these have been dealt with) that final award notices are sent out and the details can be made public.

"In around 2 weeks we should be free of the government NDA.
I suspect we will hear plenty then, if not before the 14th.

Supply & Demand. We have been making the tests and expanding production. The demand is there - if not from our government, then from others which may mean a higher profit margin."

This! Roll on 15 February...

(Although I will be pedantic and point out its not any NDA that's the problem that will be solved on 15 February - it's the 'first call' option expiring that will liberate us).

"Thanks regulator.

Wonder why UK-RTC product hasn’t benefited from the same temporary approval to understand the usability?"

I think because they're different types of approvals for different reasons...

The AbC19 test was developed as a professional POC test. It was intended to be either used by a professional or under the supervision of a professional. It wasn't originally intended to be used for 'self-test at home' purposes (I'll use this term as it is what people tend to think of/use).

The government then asked the UK-RTC to trial it as a 'self-test at home' test, as part of the early thinking (such as it was) around Operation Moonshot. However the test had been CE marked at professional POC and wasn't of a class (under the MDD/MDR) that could be CE marked by the manufacturer for 'self use at home'. It would need formal approval from the relevant competent body - the MHRA. Unlike the MHRA EUA, which is only temporary, MHRA approval in this way would be permanent.

The problem is, there were no TPPs or process in place for this. This meant that MHRA had to scrabble round to create and publish these. In the meantime, the UK-RTC undertook further testing (e.g. at the University of Ulster) in anticipation.

However, at the same time, the asperations for Operation Moonshot were being scaled back as it became clear that the UK didn't have the capacity to deliver it - and the costs would be prohibitive. There was a clear shift of focus from antibody testing to antigen testing and, latterly, there were changes in the vaccination processes as the reality of the shakiness of supply chains began to bite. The need for an MHRA approved 'self-test at home' LFT began to recede.

The government has also come under pressure to clean up its act around procurement. It's moving to a more transparent and (from a procurement perspective) recognisable Dynamic Purchasing System framework. That will work in our favour in the long run and I expect to see new UK-developed tests replacing those that are currently being used in the surveillance programmes over the coming weeks and months.

"received the Ipsos Mori home antibody test, fully expected it to be a post sample back test, but surprisingly it was a home use LFT.

Packaged and labelled as Fortress Diagnostics, ‘covid-19 igG/igM rapid’. Test results uploaded to a website.

How have they been able to send these tests without MHRA approval?"

They're being used under a temporary MHRA EUA.

We still need the 2020 Interim Results for the six months ended 30 June 2020...

Hopefully those will appear before 8.00 a.m. but I wouldn't be surprised if it's not until tomorrow morning.

Imagine the FOMO that would generate, coming up to the weekend.

"now could you just imagine a picture of him at ODX in alva :P"

You wouldn't want him anywhere near the place... he'd probably break something.

We have to remember... what this is really about DHSC trying to cover its arse because it is scared of the GLP case getting in front of a judge. This is all because the government know that the judicial review process is likely to to restrict their flagrant abuse and corrupt application of the Article 32 provisions.

From a JR perspective the UK-RTC is a good case to try, as it covers a broad range of potential Article 32 actions. I think it's also worth bearing in mind that the JR is not about the UK-RTC, the AbC19 test, Abingdon Health or ODX per se... it's about the government.

Whichever way it goes, it has the potential to benefit the UK-RTC, Abingdon and ODX because it will mean greater transparency and a level playing field for what are huge sums of public money, instead of contracts being awarded because of who you know in Westminster rather than what you can actually provide.

"What the legal eagles are saying is that the Government had already formally withdrawn from the contract prior to yesterday's RNS and that this was not explicitly stated to shareholders and so it was factually inaccurate or potentially misleading."

No, that's not what the legal eagles are saying - that's what a load of ill-informed Twitterati are saying.

If you read the letter that was linked to in the GLP tweet, DHSC is saying that the SoS has exercised the right - under the relevant clause of the extant contract - to cancel orders under the contract... not cancel the contract itself.

"Does anyone know why there would be after hours price monitoring?"

It will be linked to the closing auction.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/discover/news-and-insights/what-auction?lang=en

"It looks like they have an agenda against Gov on these Covid contracts and they happened to focus on Abingdon,.

What. all the other suspect companies who got extortionate PPE contractwith Gov through suspect intermediaries"

This isn't the only case the GLP is taking forward - but the JR of the Government decision in respect of Abingdon/the UK-RTC is actually quite a good one from a public law perspective. The nature of the UK-RTC, the basis on which it was formed and its interactions with DHSC will enable the boundaries of what is permissible under Article 32 to be established with some clarity.