Member Info for Frankys

I am not surprised that you are confused. This industry and its shenanigans has to be seen to be believed. Helphire had to go to court maybe 6 months ago to get access to the dodgy Autofocus data disc. Directline (owned at the time by RBS Insurance) and RSA opposed this application, arguing that the disc also disclosed sensitive commercial info about them. Therefore Helphire agreed to allow (an unnamed as yet) third party to act as go between, between them and the Autofocus administrators who own the disk. RBSI and RSA obstructed Helphire's access to the disc, but settled with Accident Exchange (who have been allowed to see the disc) It is AXA and a few other smaller insurers who had refused to settle with Accident Exchange, until it was (probably) forced upon them a few days ago at The Court of Appeal. And I think it is this breakthrough that led to the surge in Helphire shares. Axa has now had to admit that the Autofocus evidence is tainted.

I think I may have worked out why the shares went ballistic. They gapped up and started to rise on 30th Oct. This was the day Accident Exchange was in The Court of Appeal against AXA Insurance and others. The hearing lasted 3 days (during which time HHR shares rocketed) Many other insurers had previously settled with Accident Exchange, but the Awkward Squad including AXA pushed it to the line, before throwing in the towel at the eleventh hour. i.e. in court. AE will therefore get an extra £6 million. I copied the article from the Insurance Post previously here, but I did not realise that the hearing dates coincided with the rise in Helphire shares.

Well the RNS we got was not the one I expected! Seems strange that there has been no change in notifiable holdings. I also don't know how long these (changes in notifiable holdings) can be witheld for under the regulations.

yes, but it might take a while! and I get the feeling that Helphire is trying to be less confrontational with the insurance industry, which has deeper pockets to fight it.

"Hopefully, the judgment will be sufficiently clear that it gives parties a realistic idea of what impact the evidence will have on the awards that have been made. There is more likelihood of cases being settled after the judgment than there ever was before. "The trigger point to resolving things will be once the cases have gone through or once a compromise is reached. "It might make sense for them to wait for the judgment when there is clarity on the issue and then perhaps attempt negotiations. A retrial could be quite costly." Out-of-court settlements? Several insurers with stayed cases declined to comment. However, a spokesman for Saga said: "We have made no attempt to settle on a bulk basis and are content to deal with each case on its merits." Zurich said that it continues to engage with Accident Exchange on a small number of cases. Accident Exchange chief executive Steve Evans told Post that there is still a chance some insurers will attempt to settle out of court. An Axa spokesman added: "Axa has made every effort to resolve the claim raised by Accident Exchange in an amicable manner. This has proved unsuccessful, and the court is considering both sides' submissions. "Until such time as the court issues its decision, it would be precipitous to comment on the issues between Axa and Accident Exchange." Meanwhile, rival CHO Helphire has revealed that it is still engaged with the solicitors of RSA, Direct Line Group and Autofocus over accessing information. The listed firm was granted a High Court order to access evidence on the rate surveyor to ascertain how many claims were affected in June. Helphire said in a Stock Exchange statement this week that it hoped to complete negotiations soon.

sorry message below posted itself befor I had finished! I am hopeful though that the resignation is positive rather than negative, but why a week before the AGM? I notice that on 6th Nov The Insurance Post published the article below about Accident Exchange's recovery from the Autofucus debacle. It implies that AE has had £12 mill and might get another £6mill. This might further imply that Helphire could end up recovering more than £10 mill. Helphire has a prestige division Swift, and is much bigger than AE. ' Insurers await outcome of 'dishonest' evidence appeal in Axa case Several insurers are awaiting a Court of Appeal decision on Axa's use of allegedly "false" Autofocus evidence before potentially resuming out-of-court negotiations with Accident Exchange. 06 Nov 2012 By Chinwe Akomah Last week at the Court of Appeal, the credit hire organisation sought permission to appeal against judgments on four test cases which had found that it had charged Axa excessive hire rates. Accident Exchange claims to be able to prove that failed rate surveyor Autofocus used "dishonest" information to claim that its rates were too high. While Accident Exchange has settled with several insurers that also used Autofocus, amassing £12m in recoveries, the CHO said that Axa cases made up much of the £6m in unsettled monies, which includes more than 1400 cases with other insurers. Zurich, Zenith, Saga, LV, Equity, Endsleigh and run-off business Riverstone Group are understood to have outstanding litigation with Accident Exchange, and the Court of Appeal judgments could be binding on these insurers. The cases - Gary Dickinson v Tesco, Martin Verley v Christopher O'Neill, Guy Simmonds v Stewart Alexander Group, and Peter Moonsam v Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA - were ruled on after September 2009, the month that Accident Exchange filed evidence in the Glossop v Salvesen Logistics case, which led to the conviction of Autofocus employee Helen Whysall. Dishonest evidence In the test cases, the court originally found that Accident Exchange had charged excessive rates, but the CHO told the Court of Appeal last week that it has new evidence to prove the rulings were based on "dishonest" evidence. The company said it did not have enough evidence when the cases were ruled on originally. Axa, however, argued that Accident Exchange had enough information at the time of the original hearing, as it produced statements and examples of Autofocus fraud in the Glossop case. The Court of Appeal is expected to reserve judgment on whether to grant Accident Exchange leave to appeal against Axa's cases until later this year. If an appeal is granted, the courts will have to decide whether a retrial is necessary or award Accident Exchange the money it claims to be owed. Sarah Cartlidge, head of the credit hire team at the Forum of Insurance Lawyers, told Post: "This ruling

He was interim CFO for the first four months of the last financial year, so members of the company might have preferred if he had waited til the AGM to resign? But he is a turnaround and aquisitions/disposal guy, so there is a chance that his work is done? or that there is a conflict of interest or something. But the RNS is very curt, and I am not sure if I should read anything into that. i.e. like to thank for contribution and not like to thank for major contribution in turning company around,.

For a long while the share price movement of this company has mystified me. I suspect that the mm's can manipulate it quite easily, and if not the mm's some other interested party or parties. I have no idea how or why. I do not understand the dark arts of Level 2, placing orders and sells on different markets. I am a simple old school investor. But over the last three days the shares have fallen and plateaued in the afternoon, to fall dramatically nearing the close to then rise just before the close. It will be 'interesting' to see if this happens again on Friday. I am sticking with my holding come Hell and high water though, as I think there is value here, which will be realised sooner or later.

I don't think it will make any difference. The bonuses are for things like debt reduction if I remember correctly. This is what the big institutional investors have prioritised, and that is what (the only thing?) the Board is delivering. So they have done what the big investors have asked, and they will not therefore vote against the payment of bonuses. Question though is this. Why did they demand that the company divest CS2 solicitors (which was part of the ABS plan years ago) Although I suppose that might have been a bank demand on The Board. What we are left with though is a pure credit hire/repair brand leader, with its own fleet and contracts (what is left of them), which will become, or is, attractive to a bidder once it ceases to be a potential drain on a bidder's cash. i.e. when it starts to make a profit, which might not be far off.