RE: FT this morning.11 Oct 2022 13:09
Was traveling yesterday, only saw the article last night. Nothing at all suspicious about its timing after the GLP judgement was handed down on Friday, lol.
The companies legal representation will have already seen the DHSCs super secret draft report and the company's stance hasn't change (the company won't be using terms like 'seriously flawed' lightly because they will need to demonstrate it). So we have a test that in DHSC opinion wasn't fit for purpose but is fully accredited as fit for purpose by the same DHSC and free to be sold in the UK to any party.
Imo a judge at some point will look at the submissions from both sides and advise one party or both to get back to the table and find a settlement. The best deals are often when neither party is entirely happy, although after 18 months of this the masochist in me says pursue them for every remaining penny owed on the contract.
There was nothing new in the article, it would have been nice to have seen a response from the company to address some obviously convenient glaring omissions but ultimately what matters is that a judge sees all the evidence not times readers. We won't get paid as a result of winning in the court of public opinion.