Ann: Atomo and Access Bio renegotiate supply agreements, page-44

I have to disagree with some of your sweeping statements - which are opinions being stated as fact.

Any inter-company agreement doesn't need to disclose $ settlement, as its usually commercial-in-confidence - however much retail investors like us want to know everything. Advising the exact break-fee (against the 2m original qty) would allow a competitor (or future POCT partner) to figure out how to negotiate over/under such per device figures. Quite likely, there are non-disclosure conditions from AccBio on this, since they are a listed biz too and its from their bottom line.

We will see the AccBio fee added into next qtrly + any HIV/other OEM components and we should be able to estimate something from that.

AT1 company has made significant progress over last 6yrs + delivered all the expansion, production, increased brand awareness goals it had outlined in IPO - for which it has spent the IPO funds. All expenditure details have been outlined regularly, so its incorrect to ask where the money has gone + nothing gained in return.

HIV biz does bring in much more than ever before + it has been explained (& can be verified in broader market) that global HIV topic took a backseat in 2020+ early 2021 - due to the intense Covid19 focus (individual country budgets, WHO test approval/tender process was paused, WHO/UnitAid funding was 100% used up, test manufacturing/shipping/base materials were re-directed to Covid19 tests etc).

As other posters has mentioned, AU market for Covid19 RATs was not even an option till 2mths ago, so they couldn't have sold millions (yet). Yes, it is v frustrating that Covid19 entry plans for India/EU/SE Asia markets (Ab or Ag RDTs) have not gone forward or been dropped due to commercial reasons...and the company has not explained/updated the market but simply stopped mentioning these geos...which is frustrating.

Comparing Ellume to AT1 Ag sales is not fair at all. Ellume was already in dev for flu tests (which it pivoted to Covid19) VS AT1 had been focused on HIV expansion, biz expansion and device platform supply. Ellume are not selling to general US market or any other country or even applied for AU/NZ approvals. All of its focus (for now) is on US defence dept purchases (per their $300m+ contract funding). However for AT1 to be a fair comparison, we would have had to spend millions to get a Covdi19 test R&D, trialled and on market (in record time) in 2020 ..for a market that has become v competitive in last 12mths..with no guarantee of significant rev from such spending. Not an appropriate use of IPO funds.

Yes, I do want AT1 to resell any Covid19 tests in AU, NZ, SE Asia, India etc markets that is allowed to (& originally planned to)...not just AU single market focus only for X million tests, which may plateau once majority are vaccinated or better vax versions come out. So far, the RDT partner/supplier bear the R&D, trials and approval costs...and AT1 has to spend funds only on marketing, product outreach etc...for much more significant return. AT1's platform is blood based (for now) so not suitable for Ag saliva tests - so I am happy to see the company trying to enter dev in this area. So far, yes, AT1 has not benefitted greatly (as expected by market) from its 'medium term Covid19 pivot...

Yes, I do want to know why AT1's OEM partnerships don't go further than an initial agreement - not commercial confidential info but biz reasons as to why such unique IP ain't becoming a trendsetter. These are issues we should be frustrated with - not with other parts of the biz that are expanding according to plan.

I do agree, as I said earlier in this thread, that the OEM partner withdrawals + lack of regular Covid19 biz and rev certainty are not as expected - 16mths+ later. The SP story is clear for all to see and we need to focus our attention on questioning relevant biz and info gaps...not just mash together random facts + feelings + opinions and shout for heads to roll.