after yesterdays agm statement the share price has risen 50% how much upside is left or is this another false dawn?
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/thewellnessshop.co.uk
womans hour link below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/04/2008_08_mon.shtml

This is getting dire. There is no reason for such a steep fall recently, on the basis that the company is profitable for the enxt 2 years on contarcts already signed.

at the moment it is all about sentiment.

my several posts in mid June say it all

At last a bit of upside. Hopefully we will get some news re the PCT's take-up which will help continue the rise.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldcumlst.htm
The Earl Howe
Peer 
Shadow Minister for Health
Questions for Written Answer
No. 30 10 JULY 2008
Tabled on the dates in bold and due for answer by the dates in brackets.
The Government Department responsible for answering each Question is shown in square brackets
Tabled on 8 July and due for answer by 22 July.

Earl Howe to ask Her Majestys Government how many treatments for depression using the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence-approved computerised cognitive behavioural therapy, Beating the Blues, have been commissioned by primary care trusts since March 2007. [DoH] HL4765

Earl Howe to ask Her Majestys Government what estimate they have made of how many people are currently able to access National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence-approved computerised cognitive behavioural therapy treatments at their local primary care trusts. [DoH] HL4766

Earl Howe to ask Her Majestys Government what steps they are taking to extend access to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence-approved computerised cognitive behavioural therapy across England. [DoH] HL4767

N.B. Mother of three Mary was referred onto the course after seeing her GP with severe post natal depression and now credits cCBT with turning her life around.

http://www.thebiglifegroup.com/Uploads/050608CCBTEASTCITYLIBRARY%20amended.doc
25 June 2008

BEAT THE BLUES AT THE CLICK OF A MOUSE
A computerised therapy programme is helping people across East Manchester beat the blues.
Thanks to the Big Life groups Self Help Services charity, the computerised Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (cCBT) Beating the Blues programme helps people change their ways of thinking negatively and work towards a positive outlook.
The course is run on Tuesdays from East City Library based at Manchester College of Arts and Technology (MANCAT).
Mother of three Mary was referred onto the course after seeing her GP with severe post natal depression and now credits cCBT with turning her life around.
She said: I first suffered from postnatal depression after the birth of my first child; it was so severe I ended up in hospital at one point. The depression never really went away once Id got it and I hit rock bottom again after I had my second child. I couldnt work and was really struggling to cope.
Mary initially sought help at a group for other women with postnatal depression but found once the talking was over, her feelings of despair returned.
By the time she had had her third child, Mary had lost a lot of weight, was exhausted and her relationship with her children suffering.
I was snapping at them, not spending any time with them and although I loved them, I had lost all my motherly instincts.
When her GP referred her onto the cCBT course, Mary was initially dubious, I was very sceptical as to how a computer course could make me feel better but I was amazed.
Self Help Services cCBT East Manchester co-ordinator Christine Molloy said: The course works by teaching people how to turn around their damaging, automatic negative thoughts and to recognise the signs and how to challenge them.
By giving people a weekly schedule and the chance to look at how they are spending their time, they can really see how their behaviour can be changed.
In just eight sessions, Mary says her life has been turned around. I feel like a different person, I do still have my bad days but I recognise this and then have a quiet moment to read through the notes you are asked to make. I now have a set routine with the children and make sure we do at least one pleasurable thing a week so now we all walk to the park together, take a loaf and feed the ducks. The children love it and it makes me feel so much better.
She added: I have already recommended the course to a friend and I would advise anyone suffering from depression to ask their GP to refer them onto a cCBT course.
For more information people should visit http://www.selfhelpservices.org.uk, call 0161 232 7854 or email ccbt@selfhelpservices.org.uk
Notes to editors
Self Help Services is a registered charity (no. 1122063) that co-ordinates primary care mental health services including self help groups, complementary therapies, cCBT services and other self-help initiatives for people experiencing mental ill-health, discrimination, social exclusion and/or emotional problems across the North West.
.
Self Help Services is part of The Big Life group of social businesses and charities which provide support and opportunities to help people change their lives.
For press information, please contact Dawn Bunnell, The Big Life Company, on 0161 227 0205 or mob 07723 997113 or email dawn.bunnell@thebiglifecompany.com?

Guess the carnage on the stockmarkets can only be good news for Ultrasis.....moi for one is in some serious need of a "beating the blues" dose and guess a "few" bankers can do with some as well

Now that we are told that there is light at the end of the tunel by the financail pandits - we should return with ULT where it was a few weeks ago - may be with some more PCTs take up see some upward movement!!!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/health/health/article1871975.ece

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/health/health/article1874274.ece
just in case no-one noticed on here the Sun article was changed later & now mentions Ultrasis


AFTER HOURS RNS on a Friday - must be bad news! NO IT ISN'T- it is someone with a Notifiable Holding in the Company!!

RNS Number : 2161H Ultrasis PLC 31 October 2008

Ultrasis plc('Ultrasis' or the 'Company')

Notification of Interest

Ultrasis, the provider of computer delivered interactive healthcare products and associated services,wasinformed today thatPaul Anthony Bellhad notified the Company on 14 October 2008following an acquisition of shares in the Company on 13 October 2008,thathe is now interested in 45,295,000 ordinary shares representing 3.1% of the Company's issued share capital.


Ends

Ultrasis enjoys strong growth for year
MoneyAM
In its final results for the year ended 31st July 2008, Ultrasis said it enjoyed sales growth of 66% on the prior year at 2.614m.

Deferred income was 2.142m, compared to 1.388m.

The company said it had strong cash generation and was debt free, with year end cash balances of 2.036m.

Ultrasis said it had continued high renewal business and significant growth expectations for 2008/09.

from iii's

http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/Companies/ByEvent/Results/Analysis/article/20081111/3145c88e-afee-11dd-a1f7-00144f2af8e8/Dotcom-survivor-Ultrasis-growing-fast.jsp
Created: 11 November 2008 Written by: Nigel Bolitho

Ultrasis is a dotcom bomb with a difference: not only has it survived but it's starting to make significant sales of its original product developed seven years ago. The product is an eight-week interactive CD, or online course, called Beating the Blues, which is designed to treat mild to moderate depression using Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.

Thanks to successive government and NHS initiatives to promote cheaper self-help services, together with approval from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Ultrasis can now sell 200,000 of its inter-active courses to NHS patients each year. To date, the company is supplying 80 out of the UKs 153 primary care trusts. In 2007-08, it sold around 45,000 treatments to the NHS, and there is plenty of scope to sell more. In addition, the latest results include 200,000 of revenue from the US, while 2008-09 turnover should be boosted by demand from Holland and Belgium.

Ultrasis also sells its programs to health insurers and direct to consumers via its website. It claims a high level of renewal contracts and at end-July 2008 deferred income (most payable this year) was up from 1.39m to 2.14m. The company is already at breakeven and 2008-09 is expected to be "a year of significant growth and cash generation", according to chief executive and major shareholder Nigel Brabbins.

Not many other companies are that confident at the moment - and not many companies have a share price that has gone sideways over 12 months. Buy.

http://getdotted.com/domain-name-search-old-browser.php?domain=overcomingtheblues

overcomingtheblues.co.uk Registered on: 19-Sep-2008 Ultrasis

OVERCOMINGTHEBLUES.COM Registered on: 19-Sep-2008 Ultrasis

for more information on the reasons an EGM has been called please have a look here

http://www.thenewphase.com/ultrasis/

All shareholders should vote in favour of the resolutions. This management have taken shareholders for a ride for too long.

Even with the verbal pressure on the G/ment from the likes of Alan Johnson etc in his Speech and NICE. Unfortunately in times of G/ment funding hardship I just cannot see any additional money (income to ULT) flowing here. Regardless of how good the product is. Additional spending in this area and new projects will be fudged until the economy turns. Yes the contracts are won and being renewed in some cases but thats it sad to say no major up turn for ULT, may be in 2 years time or so. Hope I am wrong but the facts speak for themselves.

Any good news on the horizon for ULT ?

Ultrasis plc AGM resolutions to be voted on 26th February 2009

Shareholder Group recommendations

The Board have given their recommendations for voting. We therefore will also provide our guidance on voting and set out our reasons behind the recommendations.

Whilst we make our recommendations it is for you to decide how to vote . We would not, on principle, issue you with forms which would only permit you to vote one way. We do not consider such action to be democratic or in the best interests of shareholders overall.

Quite frankly we are astonished that a Board of Directors of a plc do not seem to understand the difference between stating their recommendations on how to vote and the process of voting itself which should be fair and equal to all shareholders regardless of whether they agree with the Board or not.

Recommendations

Our view is that shareholders should vote for resolutions 1 and 6 and 10

We recommend voting against resolutions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9

Reasoning following the resolution order and aiming to be brief (difficult at times!)

Voting for resolution 1

These are straightforward and we see no reason not to approve the report and accounts.

Resolution 2 voting against the remuneration report

The max bonuses are supposed to be 40% yet JS has a 63% bonus

NB is only due to get an additional 10% on securing exceptional deals we do not know what he did for the additional 10% this year

%age increases look high at 18% or over

Bonuses are not closely allied enough to share price performance

Benchmarking to AIM salaries seems to be used as an excuse for over inflated salary levels (combined code warns of risk of this)

No explanation of the greater portion of share options not being tied in to performance

NB never seems comfortable defending his package at meetings suggesting he knows its not defensible and hides behind saying, when asked in general meeting, it would need to be announced to all shareholders at the same time.

Board need to know enough is enough 47% percent of 08 turnover went in Board pay and option charges

Resolution 3 - Voting against Anthony Knights appointment

What value has he added?

Mr Knight made no attempt to contact dissatisfied shareholders until EGM papers were to be filed. Why?

Mr Knight was formerly at Meldex. He resigned because he had personal reasons for doing so so suggesting this was his call yet he still considered it appropriate, having decided to leave, to take 80,000 as compensation for deciding to leave, after having only been in office for 7 months. Do the ULT shareholders need this?

Can ULTs shareholders afford the risk that potential investors steer clear of ULT because of having on its Board, directors that are tainted by association with Meldex a company understood to be being investigated by the relevant authorities because of the actions of the directors?

Mr Knight has said he is alienated from the shareholder group and its supporters at the EGM that was just under 25% of the company. How can he properly represent their views on this basis?

Mr Knight has failed to answer correspondence from shareholders expressing concerns on voting procedures adopted by the company

Mr Knight did not seem to want to listen to concerns being expressed about service delivery to ULTs main customer, the NHS suggesting complaints being made were a good thing as it showed at least the NHS had heard of them.! Do we want a Ned who seems not to understand that the difficulty with which a good reputation is won is in inverse proportion to how easily a bad reputation sticks.

Despite having been non exec for 11 months Mr Knight does not seem to have enough confidence in the company to buy any shares in it!

Resolution 4 - Voting against Gerry Malones reappointment

GM clearly considers that his personal view on how you should vote is more important than yours if you happen to disagree with his view. Hence the one option only papers issued both for the EGM and the AGM coming up.

GM has effectively stated that the corporate governance failings (as noted in EGM papers in the shareholder group statement) were due to time lag that the company was always aiming to be more compliant as it grew. He has stated ULT would meet all appropriate corporate governance guidance as appropriate. These seem empty words against actual deeds . ULT, as part of the current AGM is seeking to amend its Articles. The combined code recommends that non execs in office for 9 years or more should be subject to annual re-election rather than the more usual three yearly rotation. Mr Malone will have been in situ for 9 years in April. If his words were true then why has he (or any of the other NEDs looking after this aspect of ULT) not amended the Articles to enshrine this for ULT, given that they are seeking to update the Articles in any event surely the most convenient time? Why is it that they seek to update them so that non execs salaries can be increased to over 50K (which is in their favour) but not to update the Articles at the same time to bring in annual re-election after 9 years in office as the Combined code recommends (perhaps seen as not in their favour)?

Meldex generates a common link for GM, AK and NB ( re NB via Kryotrans which we understand received loans from Meldex loans which were , per Meldex shareholders , not approved by the Meldex Board ) as directors. GM and NB were also a Chair/CEO double act prior to ULT. No mention of any of these connections at the time of NBs appointment. Why are they not more open about prior business linkages? NB has referred to the Meldex connection as occasional and unrelated It must be pure coincidence then!

GM is supposed to be the bridge between management and shareholders. That bridge resulted in a significant number of shareholders deciding that they were so unrepresented by their Chairman, following having met with him and corresponded with him over a two year period, that an EGM was called. The Board talk of the cost that involved. The cost was entirely down to them & their poor handling of the shareholder relationship. If GM had been doing his job properly it would never have been necessary for shareholders to requisition an EGM. Representing shareholders is part of the job for which GM is paid and for which he seeks re-election.

Since the EGM the shareholder group asked GM to indicate the Boards proposals on how to address their concerns. No response was ever received to that.

Resolution 5 voting against Nigel Brabbins reappointment

In our opinion NB does not maximise opportunities to promote the companys successes.

In our opinion NB does not seem to have communicated effectively his ambition for where he wants the group to be.

Recent PR attempts have been poor for example, the SUN article and offer re the Relief Series had to have the internet version of the article changed. Whilst we do not know why we might guess that it was because the branding message was so confused between BTB and Relief series

As a group, we were not impressed with the delivery of the AGM presentation last year.

RNS flow shows a cynical correlation to AGMs and EGMs. We understand announcements re Northern Ireland may be made pre the AGM.

Our research suggests he is viewed as GMs lapdog. ULT business partners that we have spoken to have described them as Siamese twins and some have also said that if they could have done business with anyone else they would.

When asked about the recent GETFIT deal NB described it as already being income enhancing. Does he understand the difference between income and profit? It may well be adding to income but is this company which was losing money yet adding to profit? Why did NB not state when the deal would be earnings enhancing and give the market the info it needed to properly evaluate the strength of the transaction .

NB made some members feel intimidated at the EGM, speaking to them in the pre meeting gathering and stating he would publicly identify them in the meeting itself in a manner which they felt was threatening. Remember this is from a CEO talking to his investors and was a breach of their rights to privacy!

NB has stated that he considers he cannot afford to buy any shares in the company and does not seem to grasp the impact this has on investor confidence.

NB has stated in meetings with shareholders that the shareholder group is responsible for the poor share price performance but also states that share price is nothing to do with management. This does not seem a consistent viewpoint.

Resolution 6 voting for re-appointment of auditors

Non contentious

Resolution 7 & 8 voting against authority to allot shares and waiver of pre-emption rights

Board have stated desire to knock froth off the number of shareholders so why would they need to have authority to allot even more shares

Boards papers on this state they have no current intention to use either of the powers being given by these resolutions so it seems unnecessary to grant this power as we have no idea what they may use it for

The Board previously said they intended to use these powers to award share options to their staff that had stayed with the business through the difficult times etc and then issued 50m shares in options to NB who had been with the company for only a few months, and to the non execs (contrary to the combined code).

The company has cash in the bank equivalent to approx 25% of ULTs current market value, If they have plans for further aqns (remember currently no intention to use this power) which would need to be satisfied by share issue and thus using these powers rather than using cash it would be significant enough that shareholders should have the opportunity to approve it first

The recent GET FIT purchase was made by diluting existing shareholdings using these powers. GMs view on this was that the dilution was irrelevant At which point does dilution become relevant to their decision taking? The pre-emption waiver allows the Board to continue in this vein via a succession of irrelevant dilutions Nothing in the official announcement re GETFIT indicated when this deal would be earnings enhancing.

If the Board are making deals for which they would not be prepared to have used 10% of the companys cash resources why should they be allowed to do the same with shares?

Resolution 9 voting against amending the Articles

We do not consider it in shareholders best interests to sanction amendments which increase non exec salaries above 50k. GM is already paid above this level. How?

We do not consider it is in the shareholders best interests to sanction amendments which would allow the company to effectively fund directors legal defence against actions taken against them for failing in their duties.

The Articles should also be amended to reflect the guidance in the Combined code for the 9 year in office rule.

Voting for 10 voting for the appointment of Susan Malin

Susans aim is to ensure shareholders interests are given proper consideration and to seek to improve the relations between Board and shareholders.

Past actions of the Board suggest the company needs someone to represent their views lack of independence, links with Meldex, a poor approach to corporate governance

Susan is independent of the current Board and has had no past or current business links with any of them

Contrary to the suggestions made by the Board her appointment is not about passing on inside information she understands fully about confidentiality.

The Board assert that they are fulfilling all their duties. If this is the case this will be very clear to Susan following appointment and would go a long way to re- assuring shareholders. Why is it such an issue to them not to agree to her appointment? The vote at the EGM was close with an almost 50:50 split of the votes cast. This despite the Board spending vast sums of money just to try and prevent her representing shareholders on the Board. Why?

At the EGM GM never referred to the shareholder group that requisitioned the EGM as a minority but has reverted back to that in the AGM papers.

Susans appointment will be a proactive step rather than shareholders having to be re-active after events have happened.

Ultrasis plc comments on resolutions proposed for the AGM on 26TH Feb 2009

Please note these are our views on the proposed resolutions with the aim of explaining what the resolutions are about. They are given to try to assist shareholders in deciding how to vote they are not a legal opinion, nor intended to provide any form of financial advice.

The company has also issued explanatory notes (though the voting instruction form issued with this if you hold via a nominee does not enable you to vote other than in accordance with the Boards wishes somewhat undemocratic if you happen to have a different viewpoint).

Please also note that in addition to voting for or against resolutions it is possible to abstain (if you have the proper voting proxy form). This is intended to give a signal to the Board that whilst you did not wish to vote in favour of a resolution you also did not wish to vote against. You vote will however not count in determining whether a particular resolution is passed or not

Resolution 1 Report & accounts

This simply approves the report & accounts as presented. Whilst you may have questions to ask about particular items within the accounts etc , unless there are concerns that these are manifestly incorrect in some way it would be usual to vote for this resolution. I

Resolution 2 Remuneration report

This lays out the details surrounding the companys remuneration policy. Again you may have questions about certain aspects of this eg the robustness of target setting, or why there is explanation of using performance targets re 40% of the share options but nothing about the reasoning of making the greater portion (60%) non performance related , or about the rates of increase in pay levels.

If you consider that the policies adopted and applied are in the best interests of all shareholders then it is likely you would vote in favour of this resolution. If you consider remuneration policy is inappropriate for the size of company then you would probably vote against this resolution. A vote against does not overturn remuneration paid but should make the Board actively re-assess their current operation of policy.

Resolution 3 Election Anthony Knight

If you wish to see Mr Knight continue as a non executive director than vote for. If you do not consider he should be appointed vote against the resolution.

Resolution 4 Re election Gerry Malone

The position is as for resolution 3. In considering re-election shareholders should consider whether the director concerned has undertaken and performed their duties in a manner suited to a plc director, bearing in mind the specific responsibilities they have in their role. For example, as Chair , Gerry Malones role is stated as being responsible for representing shareholders interests at Board level. If you feel that he has failed in that duty, a vote against is appropriate.

Resolution 5 Re-election Nigel Brabbins

As for 3 and 4.

Resolution 6 Re appointment of auditors

A vote for will mean that the auditors continue in office that would be the expected vote .

Resolution 7 Authority to allot shares

The company currently has an authorised share capital of 2,000,000,000. Of this 495,096,742 have yet to be issued - (the issued shares equates to the issued share per the July 08 accounts plus the shares issued on the GET FIT deal). This resolution gives the directors the authority to issue the shares. Currently, to do so, unless under powers being given under resolution 8, any issue would have to be under pre emption.

Resolution 8 Authority to allot share without pre-emption (Special Res)

This resolution will have to get approval from 75% or more of those voting. This resolution gives the directors the power to either issue shares under a rights issue where the issue is pro rata to existing holdings. This would not dilute your holding if you can afford to take up the rights.

The second part of the resolution gives the directors power to issue 150,490,000 shares to whomever they wished without pre-emption and therefore would dilute your holding if used.

If you are satisfied this power would be used wisely and in your best interests then vote for this resolution. If you consider this would be used to dilute your shareholding in a manner that you would not approve were you to be asked at the time you should vote against the resolution.

Resolution 9 Adoption of amended Articles (Spec Res)

The Board wish to amend the Articles these essentially set out the rules which govern the running of the company. If you consider ALL of these changes to be in your interests you would vote for this resolution. However, if you are not happy with any one of the changes you would vote against because you cannot select which amendments you approve and which you do not.

Resolution 10 Election of Susan Malin

As for 3, 4 and 5. Susan Malin has stated her aim in standing is to represent your interests to ensure best practice is adopted re corporate governance ( as appropriate to the company), that shareholders viewpoint is put forward in Board decision taking and to aim to improve relations with the Board and its shareholders. If you want Susan Malin to be elected you should vote for this resolution and against if you do not.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1151825/SIMON-WATKINS-One-hours-notice-rapid-slump.html

One small private shareholder has managed to put Britain's biggest funds to shame and to prove it is possible for investors - against the odds - to bring boardrooms to account.

Susan Malin's campaign as a shareholder in Aim-listed group Ultrasis should be an inspiration. This week she stands for election to the board and she has a fair chance of success.

Then she would be able to raise all of the questions to which she and some of her fellow shareholders have been unable to get answers.

As a by-product it may even see the current chairman and chief executive removed from their posts. Setting aside the rights and wrongs of this case, it demonstrates powerfully what can be achieved by investors who play their part in making sure companies are properly run.

In the case of Ultrasis, which has no major institutions as investors, it has fallen to Malin and her fellow private investors to take the lead.

The same is not true elsewhere, such as among our banks. The roll call of individuals and organisations that failed to avert the banking disaster gets longer every day and it includes the leading shareholders, who invested billions of pounds of pension fund cash in businesses that have collapsed.

Small investors cannot be expected to know the ins and outs of complex financial instruments, but it might reasonably be expected that our biggest institutional investors were keeping a more expert and professional watch and asking probing questions about the banking system.

Malin's concerns about Ultrasis may or may not be valid, but her campaign, backed only by small private investors, should be an example to the biggest fund managers of what their responsibilities really are.