Alltracel Pharmaceuticals Share Discussion Threads

[buywell2] 06/3/2008 13:54

I wonder if the results of AP. will now be released ar previously planned ?

I think Synpart should add over 3.25m and AP. itself would have added around 5% plus so 25m top line with around a possible 1m profit would have resulted

Can this now also be engineered ?

[buywell2] 06/3/2008 13:51

At the last AGM Alltracel management made the following statement ....

'' There is a company who Alltracel could sign a CVH deal with tommorrow if they so wished'

Now one has to ask the question

Why did the management of AP. not sign the deal ?

The answer for me is two part

Firstly I believe that Nick Hart who negotiated the HemCon deal on behalf of Alltracel was sounded out at that time of said negotiations regarding a possible buyout.

Secondly if AP. had signed a CVH deal the share price of AP. would have surged which would not have suited the 14p offer price which has subsequently been engineered

[buywell2] 06/3/2008 13:45

One has to ask the question

Why are HemCom trying to buy AP. ?

The answer for me is ......

'The deal that was signed regarding royalties and licensing by HemCon with Alltracel would have resulted in HemCon paying out such sums of money over the coming years that it is cheaper to buy the company than pay the royalties.'

[buywell2] 06/3/2008 13:42

Brandon will get to keep a slice of the new AP. pie ... which means he votes with the board

[wes1] 06/3/2008 08:37

Thanks buywell, I did know that they were schoolfriends and Brandon gave him the job, as he gave all the other board members their jobs.

I would like to think that he didn't know what they were planning until recently - but what I like and what I get seem to be two diferent things. He hasn't replied to my recent emails to him - which speaks volumes.

Clearly Hemcon will reward the immoral cheats with the cosmetics and cholesterol divisions in due course.

Makes a mockery of brandon's blogs about ethics and how to run a business.

[buywell2] 05/3/2008 22:38

nose spot on

buywell2 - 23 Jan'08 - 11:24 - 1597 of 2004 edit


I smell a rat if HemCon are the buyer

Why would they want the WHOLE AP. business ?

Surely the woundcare unit is what they want ... so why all the rest ?

Getting best value for shareholders should be the name of the game

The creation of seperate units was suposed to do this

[buywell2] 05/3/2008 22:35

right again

buywell2 - 21 Jan'08 - 16:25 - 1561 of 2003 edit


I expect existing directors will keep their jobs if the buyout goes ahead

Can we have the numbers on these salaries as well while we are at it

14p would be a gift I think ... even at 16p I say get stuffed

[buywell2] 05/3/2008 22:28

Richardson and Brandon

FWIW and to put Wes wise

1. Gerry Brandon and Tony Richardson were school mates.

2. Tony Richardson used to be an accountant but was offered the job in
Alltracel by guess who ?

[viking1066] 05/3/2008 14:48

valid point

[viking1066] 05/3/2008 11:03

From my reading of the document Super the August 8th is a deadline in the event that it does not go ahead rather than a definitive date of completion. I would assume that it would be in the interest of the buying party to secure the transaction as quickly as possible to prevent any potential "late stage negotiation" to be concluded or any other breakthrough that would have to be announced as the liklihood is that if something occurs the independent directors would be obliged (I think legally) to insist on disclosure.

The funds have already been confirmed as it says that the independent directors are satisfied that this is a genuine offer, so it is more likely to be the time it takes to call an EGM and a Court date.

[supernumerary] 04/3/2008 19:23

tbh - the holy grail of hedge funds is risk-free profit, usually obtained by this sort of arbitrage, so it's perfectly possible. I just wasn't sure it was quite as profitable as Viking calculated.

[the bounty hunter] 04/3/2008 19:03

I talked to Loeb during the Glu acquisition of Superscape. I thought that they may be an ally, but they seemd to be in it for the few % profit in a few weeks.

[supernumerary] 04/3/2008 18:08

viking - where did the 2 months come from? I was thinking more like 5 months to the 8th August?

[viking1066] 04/3/2008 17:25

Alimo here is another reason why they might have bought.

1,325,000 shares bought at 13p = 172,250
1,325,000 shares sold at 14p = 185,500
Gross Profit = 13,250 (
Cost of funds @ even 7% over 2 months = 2,010
Cost of transaction = 50
Nett profit after costs = 13,250 - (2010+50) = 11,190
ROI annualized = 38.9% (which is virtually guaranteed)

Why should they care what management do if they get that type of return?

[wes1] 04/3/2008 15:07

I'm trying to find an email address but so far nothing.

[alimo] 04/3/2008 12:34

Wes1, You come up with gems.
Trouble is, who do we believe. All sorts of tactics can be used to sow suspicion on the one hand, and encouragement for us PI's on the other. From the articles you posted it looks like Loeb seem to have a 'nice' way of getting to the point, and being skilled in financial matters, they know just where managers are vulnerable. It would prove very helpful IF they are on our side, and if they can see that 14p, just isn't even a fair offer. There isn't too much skill attached to waiting till a companies share price has fallen, or been depressed through lack of useful information, to a level where we should all feel grateful for an offer that increases a greatly undervalued share price by 50%.

Our directors and management have now had many weeks during which they could have been giving us updates, showing AS MUCH INFORMATION AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, to inform ALL shareholders in depth of the real value of the science and intellectual property. If it's not worth the value they led us to believe it was, then we should really be asking serious questions of them to justify why they have been spending so much of our money on useless research and development into intellectual property that cannot give true value to shareholders. Either the IP has real value or it doesn't. If it does then get a real value for it in the offer. If all the R&D expenditure (and it runs into tens of £millions) hasn't added anything to the value of Alltracel, then why did they spend it? What about the current expenditure being spent today on honing and improving all our IP? What have Alltracel been spending all our money on, if there isn't any value.

What I'd like to know is, do Loeb have plans to start asking all the awkward questions we should be addressing to AP's Company Secretary, and directors. At this stage, I think we need someone who knows what information we are entitled to have, and then hire someone with the vocabulary, invective, and vernacular, of George Galloway, to skillfully get our message over to our directors and management. Can our directors be challenged, under Irish law? Should we be entitled to know by now, just who the development partners are for the phytopeutics technology; how much we've spent on it and what we've got for our trouble. The initial 6 months period is well and truly over now - and still nothing!!

[4web] 04/3/2008 06:36

Wish they owned about 25%.

[wes1] 04/3/2008 05:21

googling Loeb Partners brings up some very interesting reading

[wes1] 04/3/2008 03:39

Seems like some of the 13p "sells" are actually "buys"

I wonder why Loeb took themselves just over the 1% disclosure rule.
................................

Loeb Partners Corporation

FORM 8.1/8.3

IRISH TAKEOVER PANEL

Lodge with the Stock Exchange (which may publicise) and the Panel. Use separate
form for each class of securities in which dealings have been made.

Date of Disclosure: March 3, 2008

DISCLOSURE UNDER RULE 8.1(a), 8.1(b)(i) and 8.3 OF THE IRISH TAKEOVER PANEL ACT

1997, TAKEOVER RULES, 2007

Date of Dealing: February 29, 2008

Dealing in: Alltracel Pharmaceuticals Plc

(1) Class of securities (e.g. ordinary shares) ordinary shares (via swap)

(2)

Amount bought Amount sold Price per unit

125,000 13 GBP

(3) Resultant total of the same class owned or controlled (and percentage of
class)

1,325,000 1.02%

(4) Party making disclosure

Loeb Holding Corporation

(5) EITHER (a) Name of purchaser/vendor

OR (b) If dealing for discretionary client(s), name of fund

management organisation


Loeb Holding Corporation


(6) Reason for disclosure

(a) (I) offeror or associate of offeror NO

(II) offeree or associate of offeree NO


Specify which category or categories of associate ((a) to (l) page 3/4)


If category (l) explain


(b) Rule 8.3 (i.e. disclosure because of ownership or control of 1% or more

of the class of relevant securities dealt in) YES


Signed, for and on behalf of the party named in (4) above

Shelby Drescher

Telephone and extension number [phone]
......................................................

A bit about Loeb

[supernumerary] 03/3/2008 11:13

Wes - also noticeable that the Nanopeutics/Hemcon agreement was signed on 18/01/07 and less than a month later, on 13/02/07, Helium (Special Situations!) released its first Holdings notice for 4M shares. Prior to that there'd been no reportable purchases for over 12 months. Only coincidence of course.

Looking back through the holdings notices, it seems that Appian have 7.1%, Helium 13%, and Axa 9.2% = 29.3% ie a blocking level. Must be very tempting to get together and demand a few pence more from Hemcon lol.

I presume that since we've had no RNS Synpart declined to exercise its put option on the Westone shares. Lucky for AP - that would have cost 1/2M euros for the first tranche alone.

All very interesting, but given that I no longer have a financial interest, I think I'll have to put it to one side.

'Man's life is a cheat and a disappointment - all things are unreal, unreal or disappointing' lol.

[wes1] 03/3/2008 07:33

Since 23/08/2007, helium have gone from 8.6" to 13%

All the quotes re takeover are as if it is a done deal so I think they have been cooking this up for a lot longer than they are admitting to. They say they started talking a couple of months ago.

Portland Business Journal knows otherwise -

"The two companies started doing business together about one year ago. Acquisition talks started soon after".

[supernumerary] 02/3/2008 22:05

I'm not familiar with Schemes of Arrangement - never come across one before, but trying to understand the motivation in this case. If I've understood correctly, while it means the buyer can get 100% control with only 75% of the votes, it also means they can't get control with 51% which would be the usual case.

This implies either that they are very sure of getting the 75% or that they're not interested in less than 100% control. Or of course both. They must be certain they've got all the large holders in the bag.

Does anybody have an accurate list of major shareholders? The AIM Rule 26 stuff on the AP website is worse than useless, but as far as I can see Helium and Appian between them hold over 20% so if they were against the deal it would have no chance of going through.