Alliance Pharma Dividends - APH

Stock Name	Stock Symbol	Market	Stock Type
Alliance Pharma Plc	APH	London	Ordinary Share

	Price Change	Price Change %	Stock Price	Last Trade
	3.65	8.39%	47.15	16:35:12

Open Price	Low Price	High Price	Close Price	Previous Close
44.00	44.00	47.40	47.15	43.50

more quote information »

Industry Sector
PHARMACEUTICALS & BIOTECHNOLOGY

Alliance Pharma APH Dividends History

Announcement Date	Type	Currency	Dividend Amount	Period Start	Period End	Ex Date	Record Date	Payment Date	Total Dividend Amount
22/03/2022	Final	GBX	1.128	31/12/2020	31/12/2021	09/06/2022	10/06/2022	07/07/2022	1.68
21/09/2021	Interim	GBX	0.56	31/12/2020	31/12/2021	23/12/2021	24/12/2021	07/01/2022	0
23/03/2021	Final	GBX	1.08	31/12/2019	31/12/2020	10/06/2021	11/06/2021	08/07/2021	1.61
22/09/2020	Interim	GBX	0.53	31/12/2019	31/12/2020	17/12/2020	18/12/2020	07/01/2021	0
24/09/2019	Interim	GBX	0.54	31/12/2018	31/12/2019	19/12/2019	20/12/2019	10/01/2020	0.54
26/03/2019	Final	GBX	0.98	31/12/2017	31/12/2018	13/06/2019	14/06/2019	11/07/2019	1.47
19/09/2018	Interim	GBX	0.487	31/12/2017	31/12/2018	20/12/2018	21/12/2018	10/01/2019	0
27/03/2018	Final	GBX	0.89	31/12/2016	31/12/2017	14/06/2018	15/06/2018	11/07/2018	1.33
13/09/2017	Interim	GBX	0.44	31/12/2016	31/12/2017	21/12/2017	22/12/2017	11/01/2018	0
29/03/2017	Final	GBX	0.807	31/12/2015	31/12/2016	15/06/2017	16/06/2017	12/07/2017	1.21
14/09/2016	Interim	GBX	0.403	31/12/2015	31/12/2016	22/12/2016	23/12/2016	12/01/2017	0
07/04/2016	Final	GBX	0.74	31/12/2014	31/12/2015	16/06/2016	17/06/2016	13/07/2016	1.1
09/09/2015	Interim	GBX	0.36	31/12/2014	31/12/2015	24/12/2015	29/12/2015	14/01/2016	0
25/03/2015	Final	GBX	0.67	31/12/2013	31/12/2014	18/06/2015	19/06/2015	15/07/2015	1
10/09/2014	Interim	GBX	0.333	31/12/2013	31/12/2014	03/12/2014	05/12/2014	15/01/2015	0
26/03/2014	Final	GBX	0.61	31/12/2012	31/12/2013	11/06/2014	13/06/2014	10/07/2014	0.91
11/09/2013	Interim	GBX	0.303	31/12/2012	31/12/2013	04/12/2013	06/12/2013	15/01/2014	0
21/03/2013	Final	GBX	0.55	31/12/2011	31/12/2012	12/06/2013	14/06/2013	11/07/2013	0.83
12/09/2012	Interim	GBX	0.275	31/12/2011	31/12/2012	05/12/2012	07/12/2012	15/01/2013	0
22/03/2012	Final	GBX	0.5	31/12/2010	31/12/2011	13/06/2012	15/06/2012	12/07/2012	0.75
07/09/2011	Interim	GBX	0.25	31/12/2010	31/12/2011	30/11/2011	02/12/2011	13/01/2012	0
23/03/2011	Final	GBX	0.4	31/12/2009	31/12/2010	15/06/2011	17/06/2011	14/07/2011	0.57
08/09/2010	Interim	GBX	0.17	31/12/2009	31/12/2010	01/12/2010	03/12/2010	14/01/2011	0
24/03/2010	Final	GBX	0.23	31/12/2008	31/12/2009	16/06/2010	18/06/2010	15/07/2010	0.3
09/09/2009	Interim	GBX	0.07	30/12/2008	30/06/2009	02/12/2009	04/12/2009	15/01/2010	0

Top Dividend Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 23/11/2022 16:50 by gopher Will they hold divi, attractive for small cap income seekers at this level Read Full Thread Follow Reply
Posted at 22/9/2022 23:35 by blackhorse23 I don't get it's mcap , far too high .. good stocks out there like CURY (LSE) mcap 700m , revenues 10.1 billion , dividend yields 8% , share buy back 75m , APH not near any of those numbers but mcap 350m ?? Read Full Thread Follow Reply
Posted at 20/9/2022 20:39 by wba1 Just a few points; That APH acquires niche medicines in no way precludes it selling on rights and no court would see that as unusual, especially when a company has done so on other occasions. It is perfectly normal commercial activity. The onus would be on the CMA to show any other motive with evidence. Either the entire board are complicit in a cover up or there are no side agreements which can be evidenced regarding the disposal and pricing of the drug. If the former then the problem is much worse than we think. If the latter then the CMA case is built on straw. It really is worth looking at the L&G/Prosser case. In essence the FSA found mis-selling of financial products but based that on no more than rumour and similar (evidenced) cases in the industry. It was that lack of solid evidence specific to the case which caused the hugely embarrassing defeat for the FSA. This is a similar situation unless the board are misleading us. I agree that the conflation of on course for full year forecast and timing of some restocking orders is a concern, although some assurance comes from the comment about orders received in July. I think this is one which will affect the share price for the next 12-18 months, but some recovery is likely if full year forecasts are delivered. Read Full Thread Follow Reply
Posted at 20/9/2022 19:32 by wad collector Ouch, the dividend may be up , but the market is viewing the reduced EPS with the critical eye of the moment closing at a 2 yr low. The "On Course to meet FY Expectations " doesn't cut the mustard when suffixed with "noting that the timing of certain orders in Q4 is dependent on the rate of recovery in those markets." Bit more clarity about the legal case; The Group believes that it has a strong case and has appealed the CMA's decision, and the proposed fine of GBP7.9m, with its appeal now fixed to be heard at the Competition Appeal Tribunal from 5th June 2023. Despite its Appeal, the Directors believe that, as a result of the Infringement Decision, a provision of GBP7.9m should be recorded at 30 June 2022 (31 December 2021: GBP7.9m). This reflects the amount of the proposed fine communicated by the CMA, and therefore, notwithstanding the Directors' belief as to the merits of the grounds on which it is appealing the CMA decision, the Directors consider this to be the appropriate position given that, in the event that the Group's appeal proved to be unsuccessful, the ultimate level of the fine cannot be greater than this. In addition, in the event the Group's appeal were to prove to be unsuccessful, the Directors consider that there are strong grounds upon which the amount of the fine could be reduced. However, as this is a matter which cannot be predicted with certainty at this time the Directors believe that the most appropriate course of action is to include the maximum potential amount of the fine. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the Group may also be liable for a proportion of the legal costs of the CMA relating to the appeal. The Group has not recorded a provision in relation to these potential litigation costs as their amount cannot be reliably estimated. Read Full Thread Follow Reply
Posted at 05/9/2022 21:50 by winnings1 I reckon the appeal court will judge against APH because APH will have to explain the sale of a niche medicine to an 'unscrupulous' outfit whilst APH specializes in acquiring niche medicines,collects niche-medines for its portfolio of niche-medicines. . Read Full Thread Follow Reply
Posted at 02/9/2022 15:15 by wba1 wad collector; I think your analysis is sound, but I expect this to progress to the Appeal Court if the CAT appeal is unsuccessful, although that would need to be on a point of law. In the FSA/L&G/Prosser case it was the judges in the High Court who applied a proper judicial requirement for solid evidence to throw out the case and criticise the FSA, so I am optimistic that the specialist judges in the CAT will apply similar standards. In terms of company value it is difficult to see why this is having such an impact. Underlying performance seems to be robust (and we will be even clearer shortly with the results) and the great thing about APH is free cash flow, which is exceptional. I would be more concerned about the Chinese exposure than this case in terms of value and, even there, regard it as manageable given the broad product and geographic base. As for KPMG; it is legitimate for there to be a difference between an auditor and a company in these specific circumstances. That is much more worrying when the reasons are opaque. I am sure you are right about the market being uncomfortable with all the noise around this issue but, at some point, it will clear. But I can imagine this stretching into 2024, especially as the CMA are attemting to impose exemplary punishments for refusing to admit guilt. It all smells more like the US legal system with the innocent forced to plead guilty to avoid the death sentence. Read Full Thread Follow Reply
Posted at 02/9/2022 14:39 by wad collector The massive price rise in buccal prochlorperazine to the NHS was outrageous ,it suddenly went up about 700% for a few yrs and this year has gone back down by the same factor. The CMA press release in May19 damned Alliance as conspiring to pay the competitors through its distributor Focus who paid a share to the competitors between 2013 and 2018 , fining APH £7.7M. That appeared to be the end of the story apart from the appeal against that fine which will be heard early next summer. So the Disqualification Order trial will only be heard if the appeal is unsuccessful and it includes the CEO and director John Dawson .Though the latter resigned in 2019 from APH when that story surfaced. If the APH statement is correct and " Alliance out-licensed prochlorperazine to a distributor in 2013 in return for an agreed fixed transfer price. Since that time Alliance has had no involvement or control over, and did not benefit from, the in-market pricing of the product, which is entirely managed by the distributor." then the case should be thrown out, but I guess it depends on how the CMA views the independence of the distributor company and whether the agreement was legal. So it will hang over APH for another year, and possibly result in disqualifications of CEO and another ex-director as well as the fine. APH also changed their auditor a month ago as KPMG were not happy with the way the fine was accounted for last year, that doesn't look good either. No-one here commented on it. The market clearly doesn't like it. So if you are confident that the company is innocent then it is a good buying opportunity..... Read Full Thread Follow Reply
Posted at 02/9/2022 09:23 by wba1 It looks as if the regulator is attempting intimidation in revenge for APH challenging them. I trust APH will take this all the way and that Butterfield will seek damages from them if and when APH win the case. It is an almost carbon copy of the FSA tactics against L&G and Prosser years back, when the FSA were exposed as utterly incompetent and prepared to sanction companies with no evidence of wrongdoing. Read Full Thread Follow Reply
Posted at 25/7/2022 22:01 by blackhorse23 CURY (LSE) another all ticked box stock .. revenue growth 10 per to 10.1 billion, profit 186 million, dividend yields 7 percentage , share buy back allocated 75 millions pounds.... Read Full Thread Follow Reply
Posted at 04/2/2022 09:21 by wba1 winnings1; no, that is not the question. Many similar arrangements occur across the industry for a variety of reasons. The question is whether APH made the arrangement with knowledge (either explicit or reasonably anticipated) of the activity of the distributor and benefitted from that activity. APH have been clear that they received no financial benefit from the pricing so only the former applies. This investigation falls under the cartel/anti-competitive behaviour function of the CMA and requires that APH be a participant in the behaviour. The only way I can see this being possible is if the CMA claim that APH entered the distribution agreement knowing of the pricing activity and were able to extract some benefit up front as a consequence (given that APH have made it clear they did not receive subsequent benefit). I can find no reference suggesting this is the claim of the CMA. Read Full Thread Follow Reply

Your Recent History

LSE

APH

Alliance P..

Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

Advertise Here

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

ADVFN UK Investors Hub ADVFN Italy ADVFN Australia ADVFN Brazil

ADVFN Canada ADVFN Germany ADVFN Japan ADVFN Mexico

ADVFN France ADVFN US

P: V: D:20221128 22:56:17