Healthcare Locums Share Discussion Threads

[bill182] 26/2/2013 15:04

begorrah88 - they are AT trades which means that they are matched trades. Someone is buying the shares the other person is selling! The O trade at 0.48p was mine and is a buy.

Still a lot to play for and the directors will have to come clean with the current trading position if they were to recommend the bid by Tosca et al. I can't see them getting away with a low ball bid and expect the offer to be at least double the current suggested bid price.

[begorrah88] 26/2/2013 14:51

That seller of 250000 is a regular as is mr 90000.

Certianly don't get the impression there is a great deal of belief in the .54p coming to fruition.

I took some heart from the Tibbles post but don't see the board changing tack if they are trying to offload to Tosca etc so think they will continue to paint it black and may paint it blacker if it looks as though the bid might not be forthcoming.

[bill182] 26/2/2013 12:25

bozzy - I am aware of how the trades work, but in my opinion the MM's work the spread - in some cases, where they want buys showing as sells or sells showing as buys when it suits them.

In this instance, I also do not think there are 'tons available' at the current price. Having just purchased another 100,000 at 0.48p, the bid immediately moved up!

[bozzy_s] 25/2/2013 17:59

1739 - It's not MMs who put a trade in buy/sell column!!! If a trade is below mid-price ADVFN say it's a sell. If it's above mid price it goes in the buy column!! Being able to buy stock below mid-price is usually a sign there is tons available.

[bill182] 25/2/2013 12:19

MM's playing games again. Just managed to buy 100,000 @ 0.47p which is showing as a sell!

[dusseldorf] 25/2/2013 09:00

7 working days until the concert parties cards are laid on the table, place your bets now

[rodez] 25/2/2013 03:25

JoJo
Have you seen news on engelo's thread?

[jojo_jo] 22/2/2013 11:29

I've seen some pathetic tree shakes in my time, but the one at the open today... well, totally pathetic!
Took out a stop or two I suppose, but a bid well above the minimum suggested of 0.54p is a certainty impo, and possibly substantially above. Other bidders, subsequently coming in at much higher offers will force Tosca&Co to match them.

IMPO/DYOR/NAI
Jo

[jojo_jo] 21/2/2013 20:00

Loverat,

I think here Tosca&Co will 'feel out' shareholders with a speculative bid around the 0.9p - 1p mark after talking to the BOD (...they did say 'at least 0.54p', so it will be higher). They will run it past major shareholders for reaction. Depending on that, the BOD may feel they can recommend such an offer, having already lowered shareholder expectations to 0.54p. It will by comparison look relatively fair. They will see if any other parties appear, or not. Tosca&Co know it's a bargain at such a price, and it will only cost them around £2.2m in real terms. If most reject it (which they should), they may come back with 1p+.

It's interesting to see Fidelity (FIL) taking 17m shares (2%) recently. They're confident of a positive/profitable outcome. I'm sure they'll be expecting to double their money in double quick time!

This is looking very good now, from where I'm standing. Very happy holding.

IMPO/DYOR/NAI
Jo

[loverat] 21/2/2013 19:21

Unfortunately, based on my experience in these types of situations the mindset is very stubborn. Carpet baggers would rather their reputation was dragged into the gutter through bad publicity than spend out a few bob more. That's what happened with Colliers and other companies.

On a related matter - they are even starting pre packs in the legal profession. The strength of feeling against this one is reported on Law Society Gazette.




Anyway - regarding this, I wonder if the management here have presented a fair picture. If not, they might be accused of acting in the same way as Colliers directors who handed over the company on a plate, to the detriment of shareholders.(and creditors)

[jojo_jo] 21/2/2013 18:28

From 'RECRUITER':

A shareholder of healthcare recruiter Healthcare Locums (HCL), who it was believed had decided not sell his shareholding to the company's two largest shareholders, has since told Recruiter that he has yet to make up his mind.

Last week, HCL told the City that it had received an indicative offer from Toscafund Asset Management and Ares Capital Europe, who together hold around 72% of HCL shares, to purchase the remaining shares from current shareholders.

Last week, Craig Tibbles (right), director of candidate compliance firm Compli With Us, who holds 3.2% of HCL shares, was reported on a forum run by 'Say NO to HCL', a pressure group holding out against selling their shares to Toscafund and Ares, as having decided not to sell his shares. A member of the forum wrote: "We have support from Craig Tibbles."

However, Tibbles tells Recruiter that he has yet to make up his mind, and won't do so until more information is forthcoming from the HCL board. Tibbles says: "It is my understanding that the board of HCL have until 6 March – unless an extension is granted – to assess and present any formal proposal... Following this 'closed period' all shareholders will be presented with the board's recommendations. There has been far too much sabre rattling regarding HCL. Informed judgements are now required."

The value of Tibbles' shares has fallen from £2.5m in September 2011 to around £125k today.

Former executive chairman and founder of HCL Kate Bleasdale, who is continuing to pursue a claim for compensation against HCL, tells Recruiter: "I am not going to voluntarily sell my shares," adding: "I am not going to co-operate with the current management in any way, but if they compulsorily buy them from me there is nothing I can do."

Under the Companies Act 2006, once a bidder for a publicly quoted company has acquired 90% of shares, it can force minority shareholders to sell it their shares.

------------------------------------------------

So if they can't get agreement from at least 17% of PIs, the bid fails.
They won't be getting mine, or CT's or KB's, or a lot of other people's. Who is going to accept such a low price!?
The derisory bid deserves to fail, and fail miserably. I believe it will.

IMPO/DYOR/NAI
Jo

Caveat: If they came in with a half-decent offer, of perhaps 1.5p - 2p a share I'm sure they would get it through, as it was around 2p a year ago, and 1.5p in the autumn. Most current PIs could not complain about an offer which equaled or exceeded an historic price. Such offers would only cost them £3.3m - £4.5m approx. to execute. Small beer compared to what they have already put in.
IMPO

[bill182] 21/2/2013 13:27

Just received the attached from the 'notoHCLoffer' campaign. I assume the distribution is with the agreement of Craig Tibbles:


Letter from Craig Tibbles
Thursday, 21 February 2013

Further to the article in Recruiter magazine and the subsequent speculation, I write to make my position clear.

The article is correct in stating that I have not made any decision. This is because there is no formal offer.

The Recruiter article also quotes me correctly in stating "There has been far too much sabre rattling regarding HCL". This is also correct. My reference is to idle speculation and wild accusations and claims surrounding HCL since the removal of the previous Board of Directors.

In the interests of clarity, I wish to make my position clear regarding the indicative offer referred to in the announcement of the 6th February by the Board of Directors of HCL;

The indicative offer is in line with the depressed share price following the trading update issued on the 23rd January 2013. This update highlights concerns regarding 'continuing' legal action regarding US based proceedings against the company and the former Executive Vice Chairman Kate Bleasdale. In both cases, the Board of HCL have made their position clear.

The "Update on the US proceedings commenced against HCL" of the 14th August 2012 the Board stated;

"Accordingly, our legal advisors have today written to the Plaintiffs' US counsel confirming that the Company does not propose to respond to the US proceedings and informing them that, if they wish to pursue a claim, they should do so in the proper forum, namely, the English High Court of Justice. The Plaintiffs' US counsel have also been informed that the Board consider the underlying claim to be wholly without merit and that if proceedings are commenced in the proper forum they will be strenuously defended".

No further action, or filing in the English Courts has been notified as far as I am aware. The update also states;

"Since the Interims there have been no further material developments with respect to this litigation other than the initial rejection of Ms Bleasdale's application for an appeal. As allowed in such an instance, Ms Bleasdale has requested a hearing in front of a Judge to challenge this decision. The Board remains confident of its defence in both claims and will strenuously defend its position".

The update of the 23rd highlights concerns regarding the possibility of HCL not meeting its covenants with the banks in March and June 2013. There is also the reference to the possibility of a requirement for further capital funding in the next 12 months.

There have been several significant, and positive, developments in HCL's trading. The update of the 23rd makes no reference to any of these developments. Furthermore, many, if not all, of the issues that have delayed HCL in achieving its financial objectives have either been addressed or will be addressed in the next few weeks.

In my opinion, the content of the update of the 23rd January appears to be unduly negative in its overall message. The absence of almost any reference to positive (and significant) developments, many of which have been reported in the press or within internal news updates, presents an unbalanced and unduly negative picture. The result of the announcement was clear in the dramatic fall in the share price. The absence of any positive elements could, and probably would, lead any investor, potential investor or other interested party to lose interest.

My own assessment of the value of HCL and its subsidiaries is very different from the 'Market Cap'. The current share value is, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, grossly below the true realisable value of the company. In my opinion, the realisable value, after repayment of bank debt, is closer to £60 million plus cash in bank, not the sub £5 million reflected in the current share price.

Although I am, formally, undecided with regard to any possible and (as yet unforthcoming) offer, I would anticipate that this letter would enable any informed party to ascertain my current view.

Kind regards

Craig Tibbles

[football] 21/2/2013 08:36

grax this is up to you now I once ask if you wanted me to bite and you didn't like it when i posted about your vile post! so started all this trolling


Now I'm asking do you want me to become a Blue name and follow you to every thread you post on? knowing that you can't ban a blue name!



It's up to you

[dusseldorf] 18/2/2013 13:24

I thought we had pancake day? HLO seems to be doing a very good imitation of one.

[prosportlm] 16/2/2013 13:12

This investigation is ongoing

AADB announces investigation into ICAEW and ICAS members and member firms in connection with Healthcare Locums plc
AADB PN 3828 Nov 2011

The Accountancy and Actuarial Discipline Board (AADB) has launched an investigation under its Accountancy Scheme into the conduct of certain members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), and of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS), and of BDO LLP as auditors of Healthcare Locums plc. The scope of the investigation relates to the:

•preparation, approval and audit of the financial statements of Healthcare Locums plc and its subsidiaries for the years ended 31st December 2008 and 2009;
•preparation and approval of the interim financial statements of Healthcare Locums plc and subsidiaries for the six months ended 30th June 2010;
•operation by Healthcare Locums plc and its subsidiaries of the discounting facility with Barclays Bank plc during 2010; and
•compliance by Healthcare Locums plc and subsidiaries with the National Health Service terms and conditions as set out in the Framework Agreements since 1 January 2008.

For the avoidance of doubt, the AADB's investigation will consider the conduct of certain members in relation to historic issues around compliance by Healthcare Locums plc and subsidiaries with the National Health Service terms and conditions as set out in the Framework Agreements up until 30th June 2010.

The AADB's decision to initiate an investigation was taken following references from the ICAEW and ICAS.

The AADB is independent of the professions it disciplines and operates in the public interest.

________________________________________

If the individuals and BDO.LLP are found guilty, would this then be referred to the police? Would this then give shareholders an opportunity to sue the guilty
parties paticularly the auditors?
Also, Kate Bleasdales claim for £12m compensation for wrongful dismissal is still outstanding as an appeal.
Thoughts appreciated.

[dusseldorf] 14/2/2013 13:37

germalene - Nothing of note, along with holders over 1%, directors must declare thier interests when in an offer situation (10 working days from original offer intention announement(, most hold hardly any stock:

Director- Holding - %'age
Peter Sullivan - 200,000 - 0.02%
Stephen Burke - 1,824,087 - 0.22%
Andrew McRae - 900,000 - 0.11%
David Henderson - 200,000 - 0.02%
Mark Andrews - 618,055 - 0.07%
Sue Bygrave - 0 - 0%

We have until 6th March for concert party to put their cards on the table, but also perhaps for others to have a look.

[germalene] 14/2/2013 12:01

Hi

Could some kind soul go to the following link, then translate into English: