We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pci-pal Plc | LSE:PCIP | London | Ordinary Share | GB0009737155 | ORD 1P |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 61.00 | 0.00 | 01:00:00 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60.00 | 62.00 | ||||
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Business Services, Nec | 14.95M | -4.89M | -0.0747 | -8.17 | 39.94M |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | O | 0 | 61.00 | GBX |
| Date | Time | Source | Headline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17/4/2024 | 17:45 | UK RNS | PCI-PAL PLC Holding(s) in Company |
| 08/4/2024 | 10:28 | UK RNS | PCI-PAL PLC Issue of Equity & TVR |
| 05/4/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | PCI-PAL PLC Issue of Options & Director Share Purchases |
| 04/4/2024 | 10:24 | UK RNS | PCI-PAL PLC Issue of Equity & TVR |
| 28/3/2024 | 18:15 | UK RNS | PCI-PAL PLC Holding(s) in Company |
| 27/3/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | PCI-PAL PLC Exercise of Options, Director/PCA Dealings & TVR |
| 26/3/2024 | 10:57 | UK RNS | PCI-PAL PLC PDMR Issue of Options |
| 12/3/2024 | 17:41 | ALNC |  EARNINGS AND TRADING: Ariana strikes gold; Union Jack adds royalties |
| 12/3/2024 | 12:55 | UK RNS | PCI-PAL PLC Result of Oversubscribed Placing & TVR |
| 12/3/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | PCI-PAL PLC Proposed Placing to raise up to £3.5m |
Pci-pal (PCIP) Share Charts1 Year Pci-pal Chart |
|
1 Month Pci-pal Chart |
Intraday Pci-pal Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17/4/2024 | 11:13 | PCI-PAL PLC New name, new direction (yet again) | 1,012 |
| 19/12/2019 | 09:40 | PCI-PAL - Secure & Compliant Payment Solutions for Contact Centres | 251 |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 09/5/2024 09:20 by Pci-pal Daily Update Pci-pal Plc is listed in the Business Services, Nec sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker PCIP. The last closing price for Pci-pal was 61p.Pci-pal currently has 65,472,589 shares in issue. The market capitalisation of Pci-pal is £39,938,279. Pci-pal has a price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) of -8.17. This morning PCIP shares opened at 61p |
Posted at 12/3/2024 18:48 by adamb1978 HI AndreAgreed, and raising capital to capitalise on strong growth is a great thing to see. One side benefit is that its possible that this could make the patent nonsense go away. We know that Sycurio appear to have done this in order to drive down PCIP share price and then make an offer when the share price was rock bottom...and in doing so acquire a cloud-first solution to replace their old-school legacy rubbish. Well, we all now know that PCIP is profitable, growing fast and now has plenty of cash. So now that PCIP arent going to be ruined by the legal costs, the question for Sycurio is whether they throw more good money after bad. It wouldnt surprise me if they tried to save face with some sort of negotiated settlement in the US and save themselves another pile of legal costs over the next year. US lawyers are far from cheap! Adam |
Posted at 12/3/2024 18:26 by andre The current share price is suppressed by the party interested in keeping PCIP back. So the current price is not reflective of the value of the business. Once the appeal is out of the way and the US case is thrown out (if there is any justice in the world) then it is back to reality. Raising money at the current price is a really good sign. And they won't be back for more because they'll be cashflow positive and off this one will go to a more reasonable valuation for a tech growth stock. I fail to see anything negative here. |
Posted at 01/3/2024 15:37 by adamb1978 re the Sycurio offer, it all seems a little too convenient:- company knows that its tech is dated and sees a competitor with modern product and growing fast - same company knows that claiming patent infringement will trash that other companies share price, irrespective of the validity of those claims - company begins legal action >>> share price gets hammered >> launches offer - conclusion of legal action shows that its spurious and with little basis A cynic would say that it seems a little too convenient to not be pre-planned... Adam |
Posted at 06/2/2024 21:47 by adamb1978 Not sure about that at all Nickelmer. PCIP's price never got to crazy levels for a SaaS business and today is still at c.2x ARR.Given PCIP's churn is so low (3%) then all the ARR wins are incremental to the top-line and with mainly re-selling via partners they dont need to scale sales & marketing costs like crazy. They just need to get the court stuff out of the way - there's enough investors which won't look at PCIP because of that, and therefore the price risks drifting. Look what happened after the UK win - the share price shot up...only to come off again once the appeal was announced |
Posted at 06/2/2024 19:04 by nickelmer I think the problem for PCIPAL is now the same as it was some time ago for its competitor Eckoh, ECK's share price rose to ridiculous levels based on its future profit potential, and once it started announcing actual profits the market could see the potential had not been realised at that stage and the price fell substantially. PCIPAL are at the future profit potential stage and as soon as they reveal actual profits, if they are not what was expected, the price will fall to a true value, hence I suspect in part the market's reaction to today's announcement |
Posted at 30/1/2024 12:21 by adamb1978 Annoying that the share price has come off. We had a year or two of the shares just drifting - effectively being suspended - whilst the court process moved though. Lots of investors not looking at it because of the case, and volumes being very low.Now we get them appealing and feels like we are heading back there too. Upside is that it didnt seem to have the slightest impact on the business before, with PCIP constantly knocking it out of the park and strong growth continuing. So that and the initial court win saying both that Sycurio's patents should be invalidated and that even if they didnt, PCIP didnt infringe, should both mean that the share price doesnt drift as much as before the court hearing. However it feels like getting to cashflow positive (H1 to Dec-23) and profitability (this half, to Jun-23) might not be properly reflected in the price til we get through the appeal. Bit frustrating... |
Posted at 27/1/2024 14:49 by adamb1978 Yes, a few rationales for their action:- upside vs downside: maybe they think that incremental costs are say £500k given lots of the work will already have been done, but if they win they'll get off paying PCIP's £1m costs, get their costs refunded (£2m?), damages awarded (few million?)...so even if was a 5%-10% chance of winning, you can probably justify it on a probability weight basis - impact on PCIP business as usual: maybe trying to trash PCIP and stop them competing as effectively? Drain PCIP's cash resources and further delay their move into Cont EUrope? - share price: we know that they launched the initial stuff which hammered PCIP's share price...and then Sycurio approached PCIP with an offer. You dont have to be massively cynical to believe that the legal action could have been with the intention of then trying to acquire PCIP. Perhaps they're trying to same trick again? Hard for it to work this time given people will be less believing that PCIP will lose... I'm not massively concerned about this appeal given that for it to hit PCIP they have to: 1) convince the court that their patents should not be invalidated 2) prove that PCIP infringed. So its a double hurdle to overcome...and each hurdle a previous judge founded against them. Is each a 10%-20% chance? Perhaps...so to get over both, its a 1%-4% chance. And even if the 1%-4% chance occurs, PCIP have a workaround. Really is noise IMO |
Posted at 02/11/2023 17:47 by simon gordon October was a dreadful month on the chart, probably the 2nd worse down candle in the history of the company.The share looks like it will be becalmed in the 40p zone for quite a while. Even if the court cases clear in 2024 I don't think this will markedly re-rate it. It needs to start beating expectations. Meeting expectations will not move the dial. If it misses expectations again it could go to 30p. With that in mind, I hope the CFO doesn't overcook the 2025 forecast in the coming weeks. 2024 is probably a dead zone for the share price. It could be the start of 2025 before the share price starts firing again, 14 months away. For now, the only thing that is going to truly move the dial is a takeover offer. It's cheap as a multi-year SaaS growth play but the London market is dying on its feet and quality small caps are getting taken out left, right and centre. PCIP could join that list as UK shareholders are too diffuse and not deeply interested in creating wealth and building companies. Nearly all of the time, if the price is right they'll take the money. With the market valuing it at 40p, someone could come in and offer 75p+, most would take it. That's the market. So, a depressing time for PCIP shareholders, until animal spirits return. free stock charts from uk.advfn.com |
Posted at 12/8/2023 18:18 by simon gordon Just chewing the fat on a part of a Lucretius post from the LSE in early July:...What was Livingbridge’s strategy? The best answer is probably PCIP’s long-held theory as set out in its RNS of 23rd May 2023: “It has long been the opinion of the Board that Sycurio brought its opportunistic patent infringement claim to try to disrupt PCI Pal’s growth and momentum.” (Legally Sycurio had to be the named claimant in the case as it is the patent holder; for “Sycurio” Roughly translated, PCIP was saying that Livingbridge was aiming for a diversion of PCIP senior management resources from running the business to fighting the litigation, a diversion of cash earmarked for expansion to lawyers’ pockets, a hit to PCIP’s reputation with customers in the contact-centre market, and a hit to its reputation in the financial markets. If these were Livingbridge’s aims, they were largely unsuccessful. PCIP’s share did fall by 30% in the two weeks following the announcement of the infringement proceedings as investor took fright, but otherwise Livingbridge may have been taken aback by the robustness of PCIP’s immediate response, and later in 2021. Within a day, PCIP said the claims were “unfoundedR If Livingbridge thought these were just empty words, rather than a setback to its strategy, subsequent events have shown just how wrong they were. PCIP’s sales for 2021, 2022 and 2023 have or will significantly exceed management’s guidance given to its brokers at the time of the April 2021 fund raise. And PCIP will hit cashflow breakeven in accordance with the revised timetable it gave in April 2021. It will also have the cash to fund both infringement cases through to completion, if need be. It looks like Livingbridge underestimated the professionalism and resilience of PCIP’s executive board, the extent of PCIP’s close-knit relationships with its long-standing advisers, the support of the non-executive directors for the executive directors, and the overall bench strength of the management team. In short, it completely misread the overall strength of the business. If the infringement proceedings have caused disruptions to the business, they have barely been visible to outsiders. Livingbridge’s miscalculation of PCIP’s strength perhaps led it to believe that PCIP would roll over, but not too soon, and agree to a settlement on Livingbridge’s terms, perhaps because it wouldn’t really have the stomach or funds to take the case to trial. But to believe this was to believe that pragmaticism would triumph over principle and that PCIP would yield to legal threats. We know from the US court papers that settlement talks took place in January 2022, which led nowhere, presumably because any settlement terms offered by Livingbridge were not acceptable to PCIP, or PCIP’s demands were too much of a climbdown for Livingbridge. And after March 2022, PCIP repeatedly said it would seek “to find the outcome that we believe will best benefit the business and shareholders” and that it is “well-funded, which will allow us to see out the process to its fullest extent.” In view of a recent development, a cynic might argue there was an added angle to the litigation for Livingbridge, and that it did not want a settlement before detailed disclosure of PCIP’s defence. It is worth repeating the key parts of PCIP’s RNS of 7th June (Breach of Confidentiality Agreement). As part of its defence, PCIP “was obliged to prepare an explanation of how its patented technology had been implemented across its customer base and provide explanations as to how the systems are configured”. “As is required, the information was shared with Sycurio under strict Confidentiality Agreements”. PCIP also revealed that “Sycurio’ It is clear from PCIP’s RNS releases that settlement discussions with Livingbridge continued in 2023 as the UK trial date drew nearer but Livingbridge refused to offer settlement terms acceptable to PCIP. For instance, on 23rd May PCIP said: “The Company confirms that there have been discussions with Sycurio regarding the case. To date these discussions have not produced any sensible settlement options…… With its bluff called and the trial date looming, Livingbridge chose to double down again, continue to trial, and risk a court adjudicating on the validity of its patent, with one patent from the same family already having been revoked in May by the European Patent Office. As became apparent during the trial, Sycurio pivoted the foundation of its infringement case late in the day to a very narrow construction and reading of its patent. Unethical scumbags? Of course, in the interests of fairness, alternative interpretations of events to the one outlined above are possible. For instance, Sycurio has a “strong case” according to its statement to various media outlets on 8th June in response to PCIP’s RNS of 7th June 2023 (Breach of Confidentiality). Perhaps so. Sycurio’s statement also claimed that PCIP’s RNS of 7th June, which would have been approved by its board (the composition of which we can be certain about!) and vetted by its NOMAD and its lawyers, contained “material inaccuracies”. So: following the logic of Sycurio’s claims of unspecified “material inaccuracies”, PCIP and its advisers connived to mislead the market by providing untrue information, presumably knowingly, about a supposed breach of confidentiality agreements by Sycurio and Livingbridge personnel. In other words, the meaning of Sycurio’s media statement, taken as a whole and presumably issued with Livingbridge’s blessing, is that PCIP, which has had the same Chairman for nearly 4 years, the same CEO for nearly 5 years , the same CFO for over 6 years, the same CISO for nearly 24 years, the same NOMAD for 5 years, the same lawyers for 10 years, and a staff retention rate of 95% in the year to 30th June 2022, are a bunch of unethical scumbags, who have ruthlessly hijacked a competitor’s patented technology and are economical with the actualité, to boot. Make up your mind Spot the “inverted pyramid of piffle”, to borrow a phrase from Britain’s Mendax Maximus of his generation and a great one for doubling down when in a tight spot. |
Posted at 26/6/2023 07:45 by simon gordon Here are the four posts of Lucretius in one post - it's easier to re-read:Lucretius on the LSE - 25/6/23: More unplayable deliveries? While the case in the High Court in front of the formidable Mrs Justice Bacon was in motion, PCIP and Eckoh aimed more in-swinging yorkers at the middle stump of the European patent portfolio of Sycurio, the seemingly incontinent data security providers who apparently can’t resist a leak when it suits them (or will the belatedly self-confessed breach of confidentiality by Sycurio be attributed to an “isolation&rdq PCIP and Eckoh have filed yet another opposition, the third so far, to yet another of Sycurio’s European patents ( Just to recap on what the indefatigable VictorValue has previously posted: the first yorkers, to which Sycurio shouldered arms, hit middle stump: Sycurio’s European patent number EP 3402177 was revoked on 10th May ( The second yorkers were delivered on 29th March 2023 (see Sycurio has to reveal by 29th July how, if at all, it will attempt to play them. As with the first two, the third yorkers were teasingly close to being no-balls; the challenges were delivered on the last day possible, 14th June. Nice timing, yet again. Sycurio has to reveal by 14th October how, if at all, it will attempt to play them. Another echo? On the same day, Eckoh published its full-year results and Annual Report & Accounts, which reveal other interesting information, if the dots are joined, about its patent war with Sycurio. Taking a step back, the judge in the Sycurio v. PCIP case in the US signed an Order on Motion to Compel on 9th May compelling Sycurio to produce documents relating to an “ongoing&rdquo The US judge said that the arbitration case involved “one or more of the asserted patents” in the US Sycurio v. PCIP case. According to records at Companies House there is only one licensee of the one of the four asserted patents in the US case (ie, the four US patents which Sycurio has alleged that PCIP has infringed). The licensee of Sycurio’s US patent number 8.750.471 is Eckoh (see page 34 of Charge Code 06963868009, obtained by searching for Sycurio on Eckoh was granted a licence for this patent on 18th March 2015 (as well as on Sycurio’s UK patent, the subject of the current case) as part of the settlement reached with Sycurio after the 2015 UK patent infringement case brought by Sycurio was settled at the end of the first day of the trial. As well as the licence agreements entered into between Sycurio and Eckoh in March 2015, a confidential settlement agreement was signed, which the US judge has ordered Sycurio to disclose to PCIP’s lawyers on a HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY basis. It is not unreasonable to assume that under the settlement agreement the parties agreed to refer any further disputes about the 2015 licence agreements or infringement to arbitration. Joining the dots, the “non-party entity” in the arbitration proceedings therefore is very likely to be Eckoh. In Eckoh’s Annual Report and Accounts for the year to 31st March 2023, there are two interesting notes (9 & 28) to the accounts: 9. Exceptional legal fees and settlement agreements In the financial year ended 31 March 2023 legal fees and settlement agreements of £0.2 million (settlement income of £950k received has been netted off against legal fee expenses), have been incurred regarding commercially sensitive matters which are required to be kept confidential by agreements with third parties or ongoing legal negotiations.” 28. Events after the statement of financial position date Prior to the 31 March 2023, the Group were in settlement discussions with a third party. An agreement was reached post year end with the third party and a settlement agreement entered into in favour of the Group. The income and costs are included in exceptional items in Note 9. Taken together the two notes look like a clear reference to the arbitration proceedings, which were “ongoing&rdquo Without any doubt, the settlement was in favour of Eckoh and the related settlement income, received after 31st March, was included in its accounts for the year to 31st March 2023. Whether the amount received by Eckoh from the arbitration was as much as £950,000 is open to question as Note 9, perhaps artfully, pluralises “settlement&rd What seems likely from the nature of the documents that the judge compelled Sycurio to produce is that the arbitration related to a dispute about the US patent number 8,750,471 licensed to Eckoh, or to alleged infringement by Eckoh of one (or more) of the three other US patents that Sycurio alleges that PCIP has infringed. And in the arbitration Sycurio appears to have caved in, or lost. That Eckoh was the “non-party entity” in the arbitration proceedings also might help explain the animus for Eckoh’s joining PCIP in challenging the validity of Sycurio’s European patents. What is that smell? Quite what led to the recent revelation on Sycurio’s part that it “may” have breached confidentiality agreements, which in turn triggered PCIP’s RNS on 7th June (Breach of Confidentiality Agreement by Sycurio Ltd), is a matter for speculation. Sycurio’s response on 8th June, as reported in several media outlets, asserted that there were “material inaccuracies” in PCIP’s statement but the response amounted to a non-denial denial as it was silent on the specifics of the “material inaccuracies”. Surprisingly, in view of the seriousness of the import of the information in PCIP’s RNS, there is no rebuttal press release on the “Media Centre” section of Sycurio’s website. But let’s not hesitate to speculate as to the events that led to the release of PCIP’s RNS on 7th June. It is clear from the US Motion to Compel Order dated 9 May 2023 that the US case has been at the discovery phase for some time. It therefore looks likely that someone from Sycurio had made some reference to the Sycurio board meeting referred by PCIP in its RNS on 7th June during which the breach of confidentiality “may” have occurred and that this reference was found by Sycurio’s US lawyers in the process of preparing discovery. In such circumstances, Sycurio’s US lawyers would then have been ethically obliged to disclose the breach to PCIP. PCIP’s board has been quite forthright in stating that: “The action was brought against PCI Pal shortly after Sycurio was acquired by the investment firm Livingbridge. It is our belief that the claims have been made in an attempt to disrupt our momentum and gain a commercial advantage given PCI Pal is the fastest growing provider in the space, with the most extensive partner eco-system, and the most mature public cloud offering.” The recent revelation about the breach of confidentiality raises a question about a further possible motive that a cynic might impute to Sycurio’s bringing infringement proceedings against PCIP. As part of its defence against the alleged infringement of Sycurio’s UK & US patents, PCIP has had to produce and disclose to Sycurio a “Process and Product Description” (PPD) in the UK case (and an equivalent in the US case) that details at a granular level how its patented technology and its “Agent Assist” product work. It looks like what was meant to be kept within a very restricted circle, for obvious reasons, on Sycurio’s side may have been made more widely available. The smell is not a pleasant one. In light of PCIP’s RNS on 7th June, it was very noticeable during the proceedings in the High Court that the Sycurio side was keen to avoid any possible breach of confidentiality. All witness evidence concerning PCIP’s alleged infringement of Sycurio’s patent and discussion of the PCIP’s PPD were held in camera. Attendees at the court included observers from, or on behalf of, Eckoh, who were therefore not made privy to this commercially sensitive information. To her credit, Mrs Justice Bacon did her utmost to keep in-camera sessions to the minimum amount possible. Obvious or not, and will “added matter” matter? While aspects of the court case over the last two weeks were complicated, or more to the point were made to appear to be very complicated, one of PCIP’s invalidity arguments (subsidiary to its main argument of invalidity on the grounds of obviousness) was made very clear during PCIP’s summing up on the last day. Presenting Sycurio’s case, the silver-tongued Michael Silverleaf KC, a person skilled in the art of semantics (and semiotics), had claimed that the inventive concept in Sycurio’s patent was that sensitive payment data (ie, credit/debit card numbers, expiry dates, CVVs) were isolated from contact centres and instead sent to verification/authori One of PCIP’s arguments on invalidity was that the inventive concept was in fact the product of a patent attorney’s pen, inserted during the prosecution phase of the UK patent after the UK Patent Office had said that it could not distinguish the Sycurio patent application as originally filed from the prior art. This “added matter”, PCIP argued, rendered the granted patent invalid as the original documents filed with WIPO did not presage the inventive concept, as they should have done for the patent to be valid, according to PCIP. Of course, all that now matters is Mrs Justice Bacon’s judgment, which she said on the first day of the trial that she wanted to deliver by the “end of this term”, which means by 31st July. Anyone who witnessed her in court over the last two weeks would not doubt her word on that. Fiat jus |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
