the UK is not seeking to recover these funds; instead, it is refunding the amounts previously collected under the now-overturned state aid decision…….after a recent ruling by the (CJEU), HMRC is in the process of, voluntarily, without FOCS,  refunding approximately £700 million to major British companies, including the London Stock Exchange Group and ITV. This action comes after the CJEU overturned a 2019 European Commission decision that had classified the UK’s tax exemption as illegal state aid. Financial Times: The CJEU’s ruling in September 2024 concluded that the European Commission had erred in its assessment, leading to the annulment of the previous decision. Consequently, the UK government is refunding the collected taxes to the affected companies. This development indicates that HMRC is not pursuing the recovery of these funds; instead, it is returning them to the companies that had benefited from the exemption.   Therefore, despite the UK’s departure from the EU, HMRC is adhering to the CJEU’s ruling and is not seeking to reclaim the exempted amounts.

>> cocoo:  the fact halma will be refunded the alleged ‘illegal state aid’, adds up to the fact that HALMA PLC HAS BEEN ENGAGING IN :

  • -KILLER ACQUISITIONS FOR A LONG TIME >> POT ADP (‘MOAT’)
  • -STEALTH CONS. IN ITS INDUSTRY.MARKET…..WHICH IS QUITE DANGEROUS AS IT IS DEDICATED TO SAFETY.    <>  IN HEALTH/SAFETY,, THE WPI MANDATES CMA TO PROACTIVELY REVIEW, WITH DISREGARD TO THRESHOLDS , VOL OR NOT.
  • -ANOTHER POT WPI VIOLATION IS THAT ITS SUBSIDIARY, CROWCON (GAS DETECTION), HAS BUSINESS TIES WITH IRAN’S OIL INDUSTRY
  • -ENJOYED COMPET.ADVANTAGE…..DID HALMA REPAY THE MONEY TO THE EU?

list of companies: https://www.halma.com/our-companies


eu publications office =             : case: group.fin.exemption: [vodafone,halma plc etc  v  EC]:     ecj concluded that the UK tax exemption granted illegal state aid advantage for UK multinationals in certain circumstances.  FACTS OF CASE: MLEX:  2019: The appeal by Vodafone, GlaxoSmithKline and another 15 companies of a European Commission decision at the EU’s lower-tier General Court has been published in the EU’s Official Journal. The companies are seeking to overturn a decision ordering the UK to claw back taxes from companies that benefited from certain tax exemptions on cross-border lending under controlled-foreign-corporation rules.(July 15, 2019, 16:27 GMT | Insight) — Vodafone, GSK and Diageo are among at least 15 companies and groups that have filed appeals challenging an EU order from April that the UK recoup unpaid taxes from a series of multinationals, MLex understands. The appeals shed light on what companies benefited from the loophole and are now facing a tax bill, since the commission never identified them. They include: BT GroupAstraZenecaBASF, Pearson, Spectris and Weston Investment.The UK government is also seeking to overturn the decision by the EU’s state aid watchdog, which found that its exemption for some cross-border lending between companies in the same group breached the bloc’s rules. Its appeal was filed at the EU’s lower-tier General Court on June 12. The latest appeals were filed around the first week of July. In 2017, the commission opened a probe into whether the “group financing exemption” in UK tax law complied with EU state-aid rules. The exemption, since removed, allowed certain companies to avoid “controlled foreign company” rules designed to prevent multinationals avoiding taxes through elaborate offshore tax structures. in 2019, ec concluded that while the group financing exemption was “partially justified,” it had still given certain companies a selective advantage (see here). It ordered the UK to recover the taxes from the companies which had benefited from the scheme, although it left the job of calculating the final bill to UK authorities.>>>>  many uk plcs appealed the ec.decis to ECJ, using these 9 pleas in law (JR standard):

1. First plea in law, alleging that that the Commission wrongly applied Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in its selection of the reference framework for the analysis of the tax regime. The Commission should have treated the reference framework as the UK’s corporation tax regime, not simply the controlled foreign companies (CFC) regime itself.
2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment by adopting a flawed approach to the analysis of the CFC regime. The Commission at recitals (124) to (126) of the contested decision wrongly treated the provisions of Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the UK’s Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 as a form of derogation from a general charge to tax found in Chapter 5 thereof.
3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU when finding at recitals (127) to (151) of the contested decision that the selectivity criterion was fulfilled in that undertakings in factually and legally comparable positions were treated differently.
4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the 75 % exemption under section 371ID of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system.
5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of a tax burden on CFCs meeting the exemptions contained in Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the UK’s Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 as a class would breach the applicants’ freedom of establishment contrary to Article 49 TFEU.
6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that there was a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in relation to the 75 % exemption and fixed ratio issue.
7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision fails to comply with the general EU law principle of non-discrimi-nation or equality.
8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission also erred in law in applying by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164, which was not applicable ratione temporis.
9. Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU by finding at recital (176) of the contested decision that a class of beneficiaries exists (including the applicants) and that the applicants had obtained any aid which needed to be recovered under Article 2(1) of the contested decision.

——————————

https://www.investegate.co.uk/announcement/rns/halma–hlma/half-year-results/7884403

———————————————————–

https://opencorporates.com/companies/gb/00040932    >>>>  UKSIC 4digitcode: halma plc = Activities of head offices.   this code lets us assume who are a plc’s direct competitors (horiz.comp)

Code70.10Code SchemeUK SIC Classification 2007Code Scheme Websitehttp://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/classifications/current-standard-classifications/standard-industrial-classification/index.htmlParent Code70.1: Activities of head officesMaps To

  • 70.10: Activities of head offices (European Community NACE Rev 2)
  • 7010: Activities of head offices (UN ISIC Rev 4)

main markets for which the companies that halma manages (as head office):  Global Fire and Gas Detection System Market   ; TECHNOLOGY; MEDICAL DEVICES

——————————-

https://www.opensanctions.org/entities/ir-br-co-b165ee410eb0c3b6e5d83407d5c0449ee802c953/  >>Crowcon Detection Instruments Ltd. is an entity of interest. It has not been found on international sanctions lists.

https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/company/crowcon-detection-instruments-ltd   :  According to the webpage of Iranian company, Tima Kala Tehran Engineering Co Ltd. (“Tima Kala Tehran”), Crowcon is a partner of Tima Kala. Crowcon Detection Instruments Ltd. (“Crowcon”), a Halma plc (“Halma”) subsidiary, is listed as an exhibitor at the 23rd International Oil, Gas, Refining and Petrochemical Exhibition (“IOGRPE”),

https://www.crowcon.com/   =  detecting gas, saving lifes:   With over fifty years’ experience, we’ve helped keep 25 million lives safe [OR AT RISK!],  through our award-winning gas detection technology. Whatever your needs, Crowcon offers reliable gas detection when you need it most, helping keep your people and property safe.

Iran UANI Business Registry2,629   = REG. OF COS THAT DO BUSINESS WITH IRAN =    https://www.opensanctions.org/datasets/ir_uani_business_registry/

————————————–

Halma’s now totals  19 company (KILLER) acquisitions, with a total of 53 businesses across all three of its divisions

  • INDUSTRY: Security & Protection Services
  • sector: Services

Halma plc is a life-saving technology company. Its segments include Safety, Environmental & Analysis and Healthcare. The Safety segment provides products that protect people, property and assets and enable safe movement in public spaces. This segment’s solutions include fire safety, through fire detection and fire suppression solutions; safe movement in public, commercial and industrial spaces; elevator safety, and more. Its Environmental & Analysis segment provides solutions that monitor the environment and improve the availability of life-critical natural resources, such as air, water, and food, and analyze materials in a range of applications. It also manufactures devices for high-precision measurement of trace moisture found in gases. Its Healthcare segment helps healthcare providers to improve the care they deliver. It offers minimally invasive procedures, complementing its products used to diagnose and treat cancer. It also develops, manufactures and supplies medical devices

Industry

Appliances, Electrical, and Electronics Manufacturing

Size

5001-10000 Employees

Address

Amersham, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom, HP7 0DE

Revenue

> 1 Billion USD

NAICS Code

332811

—————————-

https://www.annualreports.com/Company/halma-plc:  Statement of compliance: The Company confirms that it complied throughout the year with the provisions of the Competition and Markets Authority’s Statutory Audit Services for Large Companies Market Investigation (Mandatory Use of  Competitive Tender Processes and Audit Committee Responsibilities) Order 2014.

———————————-

recent acquis exs:

01 May 2024:   MK Test Systems Limited (MK Test), a leading provider of safety-critical technology for the aerospace, rail, and commercial electric vehicle industries, is pleased to announce its acquisition by Halma Plc, the global group of life-saving technology companies

27 June 2024 : Halma, the global group of life-saving technology companies, today announces that it has acquired G.F.E. – Global Fire Equipment, S.A. (“GFE”) for its Safety sector company Ampac

——————————————–
google: Who owns Halma PLC?:
Top 5 shareholders
Owner name chevron-l-regular chevron-r-regular No. of shares
Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC 8,891,017
BlackRock Fund Advisors 6,453,858
BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited 5,791,956
BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd. 5,731,916

——————-

Dharmash mistry

is a director of halma plc and was appointed as a CMA Board member in February 2024.

Dharmash is a venture capitalist, specialising in technology, new business models and finance. He has served on a wide range of board in executive and non-executive capacity. He is currently a Non-executive Director of Halma PLC, the Premier League, the Football Association and Rathbones PLC.

Dharmash was appointed as a CMA Board member in February 2024.

Dharmash is a venture capitalist, specialising in technology, new business models and finance. He has served on a wide range of board in executive and non-executive capacity. He is currently a Non-executive Director of Halma PLC, the Premier League, the Football Association and Rathbones PLC

Other roles held at present

  • Non-Executive Director, The Football Association Premier League Ltd
  • Non-Executive Director, Investec Wealth & Investment Limited
  • Non-Executive Director, Rathbones Investment Management Ltd
  • Non-Executive Director, Rathbones Group Plc
  • Non-Executive Director, Football Association Limited
  • Non-Executive Director, Halma Plc
  • Adviser at Blue Lion LLC
  • Adviser at Blue Coast Capital

——————————————-

https://www.stockopedia.com/articles/four-clues-to-the-competitive-moat-at-halma-plc-4561/

What makes these elite stocks so appealing is their ability to resist competitive threats and generate breathtaking profits. They compound investment returns at consistently above-average rates over the long term.

These stocks are different because they’ve got what billionaire investor Warren Buffett, calls economic moats. Like medieval castles, their profits are fortified by impregnable business models.

In this article, I’m going to tell you what makes these stocks so special – and I’m going to use Halma (LON:HLMA) as an example. Halma is a conservative, large cap in the Electrical Components & Equipment industry

How can you tell whether a company has a moat?

Moats are desirable because they often guarantee a sustainable competitive advantage. But there are several ways that companies can get them. For example, they might have:

  • Intangible Assets – Such as brands that customers love, valuable patents or regulatory approvals
  • Switching Costs – It might be too costly, complicated or unnecessary for customers to look elsewhere
  • Network Effects – When customers become part of a product it creates tremendously powerful businesses
  • Cost Advantages – Superior processes and unique locations and assets make it hard for others to compete
  • Great Scale – Large infrastructure and distribution networks are powerful barriers to entry in many industries

Has Halma (LON:HLMA) got a moat?

When it comes to searching for companies with moats, some of the biggest clues actually lie in their financial statements. By looking at a small number of important ratios you can get an idea about the competitive strength and profit power in a business.

Here’s what they are and why they are important – and how Halma stacks up against them:

  1. High rates of Free Cash Flow – the measure of a thriving company.
    – A high ratio of free cash flow to sales can be a very positive sign. For Halma, the figure is an impressive 14.6%.
  2. High Return on Capital Employed – the measure of a company growing efficiently and profitably.
    – A 5-year average ROCE of more than 12 percent is a pointer to strong efficiency. For Halma, the figure is an eye-catching 14.7%.
  3. High Return on Equity (compared to peers) – the measure of a company making good profits from its assets.
    – Halma has a 5-year average ROE of 18.5%.
  4. High Operating Margins (compared to peers) – the measure of a company with pricing power
    – Halma has a 5-year average operating margin of 17.8%.

 

Leave a Reply