Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Alliance Pharma Plc LSE:APH London Ordinary Share GB0031030819 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.10 -0.15% 65.20 65.20 65.60 66.00 64.20 64.20 459,165 16:35:25
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology 163.2 18.2 1.4 47.6 352

Alliance Pharma Share Discussion Threads

Showing 2151 to 2174 of 2425 messages
Chat Pages: 97  96  95  94  93  92  91  90  89  88  87  86  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
27/6/2019
15:44
marksp2011,

Apparently, Alliance were still supplying Buccastem around Oct 2014.

Selling a licence to one company (rather than licensing to a few) may not be too unusualafter all, isn't that APH's own strategy?

Alliance were governed by the PPRS (Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme) which the DoH use to control profits of UK based pharma cos. In some years APH had actually had money clawed back!

Focus/Amco/Concordia etc would not have been governed by this but would simply have increased prices based on supply and demand. With a virtual monopoly-we can see what can happen.

Imho it was the DoH's job to stop this. But when you're fast asleep....zzzzz

wetdream
27/6/2019
15:09
Smoke with a fire of sorts....
winnings1
27/6/2019
13:47
Wet

The price increases have been relatively recent. The license agreement was long ago.
By naming APH they can get access to APH documents which they can use to screw the guilty.
I am sure APH aren't above ramping up prices if they think they can get away with it but they haven't raised their price so I doubt they would run the risk for £200k REVENUE.

Here is the CMA announcement

Looks like APH are saying we had no control of this drug from 2013 so we don't know what they were doing with it. So APH got £200k for something FOCUS sold on for £7.5M

=================================================================================


In a statement of objections issued today, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) alleges that, between June 2013 and July 2018, Alliance Pharmaceuticals, Focus, Lexon and Medreich agreed not to compete for the supply of prescription-only Prochlorperazine 3mg dissolvable or “buccal” tablets to the NHS. Prochlorperazine is an important drug used to treat nausea and dizziness.

Between December 2013 and December 2017, the prices paid by the NHS for Prochlorperazine rose by around 700% from £6.49 per pack of 50 tablets to £51.68. From 2014 to 2018, the annual costs incurred by the NHS for Prochlorperazine increased from around £2.7 million to around £7.5 million, even though the number of packs dispensed fell.

The CMA has provisionally found that Lexon and Medreich were paid a share of the profits earned by Focus on the supply of the Alliance Pharmaceuticals product, and agreed not to compete for the supply of Prochlorperazine in the UK.

The CMA provisionally finds that Alliance Pharmaceuticals, Focus, Lexon and Medreich entered into an overarching agreement that was implemented through 2 separate agreements – one between Alliance Pharmaceuticals and Focus, and one between Focus, Lexon and Medreich. Under these alleged agreements Alliance Pharmaceuticals supplied Prochlorperazine exclusively to Focus. Focus then paid Lexon a share of the profits it earned on the onward sales of Alliance Pharmaceuticals̵7; Prochlorperazine. Lexon, in turn, shared these payments with Medreich.

In its provisional findings the CMA alleges that, before entering into this arrangement, Lexon and Medreich had been taking steps to launch their jointly developed Prochlorperazine. Although Medreich obtained a licence to supply Prochlorperazine in January 2014, it did not supply the product until November 2017.

The CMA alleges that each of the agreements between Alliance Pharmaceuticals and Focus and between Focus, Lexon and Medreich, individually broke competition law.

Ann Pope, CMA Senior Director of Antitrust, said:

Agreements where a company pays a rival not to enter the market can lead to higher prices and deprive the NHS of huge savings that often result from competition between drug suppliers.

The NHS should not be denied the opportunity of benefitting from an increased choice of suppliers, or lower prices, for important medicine.

This is the CMA’s provisional finding and the companies now have the chance to make representations to the CMA before it reaches a final decision.

marksp2011
27/6/2019
13:33
Big sale gone through there. No wonder the price has been struggling :)
marksp2011
27/6/2019
11:21
winnings1,

I think 'collusion/connivance' may be a bit strong & difficult to prove (save perhaps for tape recordings/statements from disgruntledex-employees)....

If you know where to look, the Drug Tariff(ie NHS reimbursed prices) is available monthly and the industry and now the Public (if they're bored!) can see the changes for all medicines.

Imho in this and other equally opportunistic examples, the DoH has been incompetent in not spotting the price increases earlier (I bet some pharmacists notified them separately about what was happening) and cannot claim to be blameless in this fiasco.

But, as they say, 'It's only (our) money'...🙄

wetdream
27/6/2019
07:24
Wetdream - Your final sentence in you last paragraph touches on the potentially sore point. In my view, that is the area the investigation is focused on - I don't rule out a verdict of collusion/connivance.
winnings1
26/6/2019
09:24
£££;s + buyer thought he could do a better job.

APH is probably governed by the PPRS which limits price increases. Generic cos aren't but operate in a commodity market where prices are governed by the Drug Tariff.
Looks like the DOH were asleep at the wheel, as this was one of several examples where the commodity market was dominated by a single or v few suppliers, hence the ability to massively jack up prices.

While APH's statement is undoubtedly correct, I'd be surprised if they didn't know what the buyer's intentions were. So, possible 'guilt by association'?
All imho.

wetdream
25/6/2019
22:08
But why sell the licence, what was the benefit in doing that....?
winnings1
25/6/2019
19:46
Yeah they were very clear in their own statement. Funny that...
dround87
25/6/2019
12:07
APH were fairly clear
They do not control the marketing or price and have not benefitted from any price increases

marksp2011
25/6/2019
10:07
I am beginning to wonder whether APH will be found totally in the clear in respect of the price-fixing allegation. It seems to take rather long for the investigation to conclude one way or the other.
winnings1
19/6/2019
05:51
That's why I'm considering coming back but your valuation post q4 2018 is off. Many companies are in a similar position and few have recouped all their losses at this stage. 80s is probably more realistic right now. That said looking at the volume yesterday a big fish jumped which did lead to momentum selling. This creates an opportunity to buy but firstly I'd like it to settle and secondly I'd like to try and figure out why they jumped. Usually comes ahead of some news or an announcement in my experience. I'll be scouring news today.
dround87
18/6/2019
21:50
The share price deserves to be in the region of 100p, not in the region of 70p. I think there has been an element of momentum selling, which is selling simply because others are selling - without looking at the sound fundamentals.
winnings1
18/6/2019
15:12
I get the feeling we're in for some news soon about the price fixing. Looks like someone knows something to me though. Not going to jump the gun on this.
dround87
18/6/2019
14:40
Yep, set at 65.5 now... such fun.
rathean
18/6/2019
14:27
I may join you there if this slows down. Another day like today and I'll aim lower though.
dround87
18/6/2019
08:02
Well that didn't last long, set an alert for 68.
rathean
17/6/2019
18:48
Doubled up today but with tight stop-loss, should be support level but with it being ex-div and potential regulatory trouble it's 50:50 to hold imo dyor ofc.
rathean
28/5/2019
14:53
In a statement, Alliance said it had "no involvement in the pricing or distribution of Prochlorperazine since 2013, when it was out-licensed by the company to Focus Pharmaceuticals Limited on an exclusive basis as is normal market practice".

The firm added: "Alliance has not had control of or influence on, and nor has it benefited from, any price increases."

Looks pretty clear to me

marksp2011
23/5/2019
16:33
I sold this morning. Already deeply under on INDV, don't need another one.
markdallara
23/5/2019
16:33
I sold this morning. Already deeply under on INDV, don't need another one.
markdallara
23/5/2019
14:26
Well they would say that wouldn't they. My experience with these things is that there's no smoke without fire. And the share price is unlikely to make progress when the hammers poised to strike. So I'll take my chances elsewhere.
dround87
23/5/2019
14:20
If, as they say, they've had no influence on the price of the drug in question, of what could they be found guilty?
wetdream
23/5/2019
12:08
Yeah I'm out. Don't need the drama. Good luck all.
dround87
Chat Pages: 97  96  95  94  93  92  91  90  89  88  87  86  Older
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.

Log in to ADVFN
Register Now

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

P: V: D:20230208 00:07:28