Abingdon Health Share Discussion Threads

[pomp circumstance] 11/10/2021 14:33

How much credibility and how much money will fighting court cases BADLY will this cost the very wiffy company?

hxxps://goodlawproject.org/update/abingdon-law-firm-accuses-lying

[pomp circumstance] 11/10/2021 12:12

WIffffffffy!!! Poo!

[grosstonnage] 11/10/2021 12:04

Up it goes.

[smelly_special_the_shoe_cleaner] 11/10/2021 10:15

Nothing left in this share price 😢

[grosstonnage] 08/10/2021 18:30

Lots of activity at Sand Hutton it seems.

[danessex] 08/10/2021 12:38

People selling now is like selling all your flowers half price between Valentine's Day

[glasswala] 08/10/2021 11:13

Well back down again. This really can not get above 60p so many attempts in the laat few sessions but keeps being pushed downwards

[grosstonnage] 08/10/2021 09:32

Anyone going past Sand Hutton?

[rajraj b] 08/10/2021 09:25

They must be ramping up production big time. No more dodgy Chinese LFT please.

[danessex] 08/10/2021 09:03

PCR test out before half term and LFT in. One way this is going

[rajraj b] 07/10/2021 13:37

Looks like it's going to move up soon.

[danessex] 07/10/2021 11:45

We go again

[bamboo2] 06/10/2021 18:03

So what is it that GLP hope to achieve from the JR?

My reading is that they simply want to see an admission from Govt that Govt process was not seen as robust, and therefore needs to be changed in the future.

[monte1] 06/10/2021 16:24

I am not sure that it is. That document is a transcript of the appeal judgement that overturns a previous judgement between GLP and DHSC on certain matters. The case is around alleged unfairness and lack of impartiality in the Contract Awards. ABDX are only there as an interested party and not part of the judgement per se. ABDX assert that they acted in good faith and supplied the contracted output, for which they have been provided no reason for non-payment . Their rebuttal provides all the performance data of their test and comparisons to other tests that were available at the time.

[pwhite73] 06/10/2021 16:08

This is the all important document you need to read.

[monte1] 06/10/2021 15:32

As detailed a rebuttal as you will ever see imco;



We shall await the outcome of proceedings, but let’s be clear the GLP is alleging favouritism, inappropriate contact and lack of impartiality by decision makers here.

[pwhite73] 06/10/2021 15:16

After hearing submissions from the GLP and DHSC it was the High Court that questioned the validity of Abingdon's ABC-19 test. Please see Abingdons response dated 04/05/2021 via their solicitors Bristows.

Abingdon Health and its expertise

1. Throughout the proceedings to date, the GLP has made multiple disparaging statements about Abingdon’s expertise and its ability to develop a COVID-19 antibody test. Such statements have led the Court to conclude that “the extent to which Abingdon Health itself had any expertise is open to serious doubt”.2"

(2) Judgment of Mr Justice Waksman dated 29 March 2021(“Judgment”) at [16].

[timbo003] 06/10/2021 14:05

>>>PWhite, you state....

The ABDX dispute with the DHSC was that the DHSC are claiming their previous test the ABC-19 did not work so they won't pay them.

I don't think that is the case, if so, why are DHSC using the tests? See RNS released on 27th April:

As at 27 April 2021, Abingdon has outstanding invoices with the DHSC totalling £6.7m (including VAT) with monies being overdue by between 79 and 135 days. This includes £5.15m (including VAT) for the 1 million AbC-19™ rapid tests which were delivered by early January 2021 and are currently being used by the DHSC within the UK Biobank study. So far as the Board is aware there is no contractual basis for the DHSC to withhold payment on products they have accepted and are using.

[monte1] 06/10/2021 14:03

To correct a few inaccuracies;

1. Agreed no need for an RNS because although an agreement exists between Vatican/abdx, this would only become material when meaningful manufactured volume has been ordered under the contract.
2. The test has been approved currently for professional use only. A variation of the test is under development for home use which, if approved, will cater to a much increased market place.
3. The DHSC have never stated that the test kits supplied in 2020 do not work. They took delivery and have been using the tests. Their supply has been caught up in allegations of ‘preferential treatment’ granted to abdx by the purchasers which abdx have disputed in detail. This will form part of the GLP instigated judicial review. The DHSC contract provided the right to cancel by 25/12/20 if the tests were not by that time approved for home use. They weren’t and as a result only 1m of a potential 10m order was called off and delivered under the contract which, in any event, expired in Feb 21.

[pwhite73] 06/10/2021 13:34

There is no RNS because the contract does not yet exist. The Vatic test has to be approved by the DHSC/UKHSA. The ABDX dispute with the DHSC was that the DHSC are claiming their previous test the ABC-19 did not work so they won't pay them.

[rajraj b] 06/10/2021 13:03

Haven't -typo

[rajraj b] 06/10/2021 13:03

Not sure if already posted. Report on ABDX and Vatic https://youtu.be/DhnGOaQnbI8Still not sure why they have released an RNS given that they've put this out