I was reading elsewhere that something similar happened in NSW at some point and the impact on legal firms there that relied on those sorts of frivolous claims was fairly big. Any info on this?Yes. I would say so. But they're only proposals at this stage.
I was reading elsewhere that something similar happened in NSW at some point and the impact on legal firms there that relied on those sorts of frivolous claims was fairly big. Any info on this?
Apparently this move would save the UK government about 1 Billion pounds in claim payments a year (50% or so reduction). In times of low growth in Europe (and in some cases austere budgets), you'd think there wouldn't be much opposition to these proposals if they sell them as cutting out frivolous or borderline fraudulent claims, which they no doubt will try. Not like it's a high-profile public issue either AFAIK, so why wouldn't they wave it through?
Yep, spot on. My error.I believe it will save the insurance industry 1b pounds, not the government. But they're talking about 40-50 pound savings on car insurance which isn't exactly a hard proposition to sell.
Yes. I would say so. But they're only proposals at this stage. The Tories are probably on the side of the insurers so I imagine they'll be trying their hardest to get this through.
I was reading elsewhere that something similar happened in NSW at some point and the impact on legal firms there that relied on those sorts of frivolous claims was fairly big. Any info on this?
Apparently this move would save the UK government about 1 Billion pounds in claim payments a year (50% or so reduction). In times of low growth in Europe (and in some cases austere budgets), you'd think there wouldn't be much opposition to these proposals if they sell them as cutting out frivolous or borderline fraudulent claims, which they no doubt will try. Not like it's a high-profile public issue either AFAIK, so why wouldn't they wave it through?
PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY
Shine Corporate Ltd (SHJ) is an Australian plaintiff litigation company
providing damages based litigation services in personal injury and emerging
practice areas. SHJ operates through its Incorporated Legal Practice, Shine
Lawyers Ltd, and has over 39 offices located across QLD, NSW, VIC and WA.
"Shine Corporate Ltd confirms that it has no presence in the United Kingdom and that the proposed regulatory changes do not impact its operations"
While the change has come as a surprise to Slater & Gordon, analysts were well aware of the potential for changes in the UK.
CLSA analyst Oscar Oberg told clients in September that industry contacts pointed to a potential regulatory change as an increase in the Small Claims Track from £1,000 to £5,000 damages.
"Following the UK election in May, conversations with our industry contacts have suggested the possibility of future regulatory change that may impact the UK personal injury sector," said Mr Oberg in his note.
This reflected the Conservative Party winning by a majority and the influence the insurance industry has previously had on the party in instigating change within the sector."
Still cant believe news was out around 1am Aus time overnight.
My guess is shorters had no more ammo left - But they called up the co' and let them know they need to address this issue to keep the markets updated
Did they really not know change was coming? If you're in a highly regulated industry surely as part of due diligence you'd study the regulatory landscape and the prospects for change before splashing out $1b....Hmmm.
Still cant believe news was out around 1am Aus time overnight.
My guess is shorters had no more ammo left - But they called up the co' and let them know they need to address this issue to keep the markets updated
Now hands up who's even seen a Reg_Halt on an ASX100 stock.
In August, Skippen told the Company Directors magazine that one of the most important considerations for the board of Slater & Gordon when it paid $1.3 billion for the Quindell business in the UK was assessing regulatory risk.
"People sometimes underestimate or don't understand regulatory risk in new markets," he said in a feisty interview that included an attack on hedge funds and short sellers.
"Every country has its approval process, which varies across industry, and it's easy to overlook how much damage can be done from legislative change."
HA! At this rate everyone will be experts on Chi-X halts
Also, please return your borrow so I can get some
It's not like they were new to the UK. Their UK business was already larger than the Australian operations from memory.
Now.. their operating cashflow across the group was something like $40-50m. Assuming half from the UK which will be reduced by 50%, you get ~$30-35m.
SGS is worse because it's 80% fast track stuff (according to Macquarie)... you can easily assume that it won't make any cash.
SGH with $650m in debt @ 5% interest = $32.5m in interest expense alone.
It's bye bye SGH if the law gets passed.
You can't write this stuff... Someone in your family is a writer? May be you can... but I am still shaking my head. Transformational acquisition... in every sense.
The truth will never really be known on why they go so hard and paid so much on QPP. Their acquisitions in the past usually isn't that much more than the WIP acquired. But with QPP they paid $1B in goodwill with some very questionable WIP to start with.
There is a theory that SGH was like a mouse in the wheel - its needs ongoing acquisitions and WIP growth in order to keep the story going... well they certainly went out with a massive BANG.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?