Member Info for Stuartrm

I purchased shares in this company when they were over 6 times the current price, following a Simon Thompson recommendation. While I hope he is correct this time, I have learned the hard way to treat his views with circumspection.

Fundamentally, from day to day during each price oscillations, the only thing that is changing significantly (if not the only thing that is changing

at all during such a short period) is market sentiment. If the fund constituents are any good, eventually the inherent value of the assets will be realised. If not, we have been sold a pig in a poke. In short, don’t worry about short term gains and losses if you have faith in the underlying assets. If you don’t have faith, then the answer is pretty obvious. For now I am holding.

"Renalytix believes this proprietary technology significantly expands the Renaltyix services offering to Pharma for Proteomics Biomarker Research and Development and has substantial services revenue value from supporting current and next generation pharmaceutical drug development and commercial programmes in Cardiovascular, Renal and Metabolic Diseases (CVRM)."

Very good, but what about giving investors an idea of what "substantial" means in dollars and cents and saying when those dollars and cents might be forthcoming?

While I would not do it, especially if making a cup of premium tea, I can see that a microwave oven might be used to make a single cup of tea. When making two or more cups, however, a kettle would still be simpler and quicker so the use of a microwave oven would not necessarily mean that the end is nigh for the humble kettle.

Oogleflugel and SilverBlade.

Thank you for your thoughts and the summaries of the RNS that you provided. While I do not take issue with anything that you write, the wording of the RNS contains what might be termed "warm words" rather than anything concrete in terms of Lsd (or $c, if you prefer). While it is clear that increasing the pool of potential clients, and thereby advertising more widely the benefits of the tests, is a welcome step one would have hoped, as an investor, that the RNS would have given some sort of indication of the financial benefits that would result directly from the agreement. For example, to what degree does this contribute the the (hopefully) increasing number of sales relative to the company targets? What effect is this likely to have on the break even date? I fully appreciate that hard and fast numbers cannot be provided for the benefits that will accrue (albeit they ought to have budgetary figures that they might not wish to make public) but it should be known by management, in broad terms, whether the deal merely assists targets to be reached or whether or not sales are now ahead of target.

MVP are a not for profit organisation. Does that mean that Renalytix have given them an advantageous price in the hope of increasing exposure? A few financial details would have been useful.

LemonsToRiches. I fully grasp the way share consolidation works, thank you. The consolidation, per se, is not the issue. The issue is the way that my c £4k holding collapsed to a, currently, meagre 24p. As you say, that is history and I am clearly on the wrong side of it. I wish you, and any others who think like you, well with your investment.

LemonsToRiches. I hope you do better then I did. I used to have over 500,000 shares in VAL but as a result of the various share consolidations over the years that holding has been reduced to a mere 40 shares. It would be nice to see the company finally turn the corner but the shares would need to reach nearly £100 per share for me to recoup my losses. If they do, you will be well and truly laughing. Good luck!

"A bit mangy".........Like the one in the Wizard of Oz, perhaps?

I admire your optimism. I would not be surprised if it were buried somewhere in the pending basket and has yet t see the light of day. What is the expression they use in Latin America? Oh yes, mañana mañana, sempre mañana.

Re Laura's "Management will provide a strategic update with the full year results in September, reflecting on recent developments and outlining the Company's forward priorities. This will include an assessment of the current portfolio, which contains a range of investments at different stages, including several larger matters that have the potential to positively impact future financial performance in a meaningful way."

Courts are fickle at the best of times and Court Judgements are very difficult to predict - that is speaking from many years' experience as an "expert witness". As such, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to value the ongoing cases. All we can hope is that the people who provided the funding for each case managed to identify all the pros and cons that are associated with each action (no case is a slam dunk as, if it were, an out of court settlement would always have been reached before, or even during, any Court action) and that their assessment of the likely outcome coincides with the decision of the Judge. We must also hope that the lawyers working on each case can see when things are going in the wrong direction and that they know when to pull the plug to minimise costs. In short, LCM will always have losses but there will always be wins. Good judgement, a cool head, a healthy dose of scepticism and a good pinch of luck are needed to lead to the wins exceeding the losses. Hopefully the team at LCM are blessed with all four.

CONTINUATION

"Apple has previously commented on the claim: "Apple believes in providing our customers with choices. Our users are not required to use iCloud, and many rely on a wide range of third-party alternatives for data storage. In addition, we work hard to make data transfer as easy as possible—whether it is to iCloud or another service. We reject any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anti-competitive and will vigorously defend against any legal claim otherwise.”

LCM was contacted for comment."

"The litigation funder behind a closely watched £3 billion legal claim against Apple has seen its shares slide, after reporting a series of “adverse case outcomes”.

AIM-listed Litigation Capital Management (LCM), which is headquartered in Sydney, is funding consumer company Which? on the £3 billion claim, with Willkie Farr & Gallagher providing legal representation.

In the last week, LCM’s shares have fallen by 37.4%, dropping from 46GBX to 28.8. As of Monday 09.30 am, the value stands at 26.3. This follows an annual high of 101.5 in January.

Earlier this week, LCM announced to the London Stock Exchange that an unspecified judgment from London’s High Court “found against LCM's funded party”, and that the company had decided to “temporarily pause active marketing” of one of its funds. LCM said the investment was co-funded alongside Fund I, and that LCM itself had contributed £3.4 million of its own capital with a further £8.2 million from Fund I.

The matter speaks to the often precarious nature of litigation funding, with LCM stating that, the second half of the financial year, "the number of realisations has been modest with two successful investments and two unsuccessful investments in the period".

LCM added that it anticipated resuming marketing of the fund “in late 2025 or early 2026”.

Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM commented: "This has been a challenging period for LCM, marked by a small number of adverse case outcomes. While the recent trial losses are clearly disappointing, we are actively applying the lessons learned to further strengthen our investment and risk processes.”

In May, LCM put out a statement in which it noted “recent online speculation regarding a potential investigation against the Company by a Dubai legal authority”. The company denied that it had been “contacted by any legal authority, either historically or recently, in relation to the allegation”.

Earlier this month, the Which? claim against Apple was given a hearing date of November 19-21 later this year for its application on whether the claim will proceed to a full trial at the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

The consumer choice company alleges that Apple effectively locked millions of its customers into the iCloud service at “rip-off prices”.

Around 40 million Apple users in the U.K. could be entitled to a payout, with individuals owed an average of over £70 depending on how long they have been paying for the service.

Willkie has been acting for Which?, with a team led by partners Boris Bronfentrinker and Elaine Whiteford. Leading competition law barristers Philip Woolfe KC and Jack Williams at Monckton Chambers have been instructed.

TO BE CONTINUED

I fear that unless LCM get a few decent wins, without any significant losses, and the reported Dubai criminal investigation is laid to rest, this could drop even more.

Simon Thompson rates Bango as a “hold” in this week’s IC.

The Chairman’s statement is positive. While I can see why there has not been a re rating of the shares based on these results, the company remains on track and the situation has not changed fundamentally. As such, the 8.56% dip in share price at the time of writing seems to be rather harsh. Hopefully in a year or so the company will become profitable and a re rating will occur then.

Access to 2000 patients is “pretty small beer”, although this number will presumably repeat with (the unstated) patient turnover. One must hope that if the new user is as prominent as the RNS suggests in NY, others will learn of the use and become new clients.

Given that information seems to leak as from a sieve in most companies, the downward drift in the share price is hardly encouraging. Does this suggest that progress is being made but at a slower pace than one might hope?

Steph posted this link on the GROW page, but it also refers to AUGM so I am pasting it here with thanks to her.

https://www.theaic.co.uk/aic/news/industry-news/killiks-gilligan-the-market-is-being-myopic-on-growth-capital-trusts

The only reliable source of information would, presumably, be the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in Dubai. I am not sure that even Litigation Capital Management would get a straight answer from his office to whether or not an inquiry is ongoing, should they wish to ask that question, as the authorities might wish to keep their powder dry. This leaves us all in limbo until any statute of limitations date that might exist is reached, or until a public statement is made by the DPP.