Please post Date, Time, Heading of any news released in any official format by Stanelco than you deem relevant to above proposed report.

Thanks in anticipation.

Greekman.

greekman

I have some info to send to you via e-mail which I hope yuo in your task. Will do this later today.

The oily onw

Oily,

Thanks, look forward to it.

Greek.

greek,

if you need any help doing this please let me know - I'm happy to join forces.

I'll send you my personal email address and would appreciate it if you let me know what you have so far, or maybe we could split the work - e.g. you do the 2005 RNS's and I'll do the 2006? Whatever you think may ease the burden on you.

When we come up with something I would have thought the best impact would be for individual complaints to be made, sharing the core list of complaints.

posted twice - 2nd removed

Is the FSA the correct body for any complaint? It isn't a financial service as such we are complining about. It is the misleading (maybe false) information put out in RNS's.

Isn't regulatory news put out to adhere to the rules of the Stock Exchange? If so wouldn't any complaint be made to them?

This from the Stock Exchange Rules -

'General conduct
Misleading acts, conduct and prohibited practices [3300]
G
3300
A member firm shall not, in respect of its on Exchange business:
3300.1 do any act or engage in any course of conduct which creates or is likely to create a false or misleading impression as to the market in, or the price or value of, any security;'

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/NR/rdonlyres/E715C337-8630-4D1C-A24F-7F5735C40AA7/0/RuleBook220307.pdf

Oblomov,

E Mail sent prior to reading this. I think you are right, will obviously find right authority to complain to. Good idea re you offer. I will do 2005/2007 if you can do 2006.
I have a solicitors firm on contact through a previous employers link (no charge re advice) so I will give them a call.

Greek

Greek, I'll do 2006.

Ta, I will keep in touch

Investment in SEO has been a bitter pill, but I feel there is more to this complaint than this thread shows - is it elsewhere for others to see?

SEO has been run by a bunch of duffers for so long they think it's the Norm - the latest fiasco being that their flagship product (starch boxes) was too expensive...er, isn't this one of the first questions ASDA would ask and any company asks of an inventor?
[Sure they can't know exactly the price as it depends on the process, World price for potato-peel and so on ]..... but to find out after years of development; it is a cringingly sad-ending for Execs ...who should repay their salaries as "Not Fit for Purpose."
yet, Being Incompetant isn't (yet) a crime - just what angle is this proposal taking?

Hi Hangon,

I agree being incompetent is not a crime. Shame, if it was SEO management would be the equal of any Mafia Family. ( Now who would be the Godfather).

But seriously, the way I am going is to look for misleading, statements.
Also at delays in publishing knowledge known to management.
For Example....Surely if a RNS is deemed requirement for a notification of a 12 months trial (greanseal/Asda) they can't go a total of 15 months without an RNS giving results or at least a reason why no results available.

If the first notice is SP sensitive then a second re result, or none result must also be SP sensitive.

greekman

If you request an investigation from FSA / LSE , it might help if you inform them that their findings may be used in a court of law.

Maybe a chat with your 'solicitors firm' as to how this 'may' help or hinder your request would be prudent.

Good Luck.

Patisear,

Thanks for the warning but if any legal action is taken it will be by the authoritive power (which I understand will be via the LSE).

Cheers Greek.

Greek - I've emailed you. Let me know if you dont get it.

Re: your post above on RNS's and SP sensitivity - that must apply to the letters of intent and contracts in the final stages of completion (at the time of the open offer) of which we heard no more.

Morning Oblomov,

Agree, that is one of the angles I am going for.

E-Mail received thanks (will still take me a couple of weeks my end) you must have been very busy last couple of days.
As you say some points stronger than others, with several points in my opinion, Very Strong with the rest as a sort of filling out.

Hope to break the back of it, so to speak this weekend.

A quick update.

I have almost finalized the report.

When completed I will compile a post that will contain all the references to those RNS releases I have used in the report contents.
I have already decided with advice to concentrate on certain time spans between releases such as the 12 month contract with Asda, and the first release that gave a hint to the progress (none progress) of the 12 month trial.
I will give facts but not opinions, except the reasons I will state to the appropriate authority why I am making the formal complaint.
The reason I will not repeat the opinions is that I am well aware of the laws of liable, and the fact that if the authorities decide to take any action, any opinions may if repeated in a public forum jeopardies any evidence presented by myself.

greekman
i sold a couple of weeks ago (had eneough) lies, untruths? good luck

Are you guys holders?
Surely if this report manages to do what you want it to then the shares will collapse yet further? Causing further loss of money?

Hi GD,

Yes I am a holder and I thought very hard before I decided to take action for the sole reason you have stated.
The dilemma was do I continue to allow the management to carry on keeping us in the dark, (we still have no idea why Greanseal failed, was it cost, weakness in the technology, problem with sales, a competitor, unable to deliver volume, or a mixture of all/some) or do I try to bring things to a head.
As a PI making the complaint I am sure if the market authorities decide that the complaint is worth looking into things will be kept well under wraps.
If an inquiry is launched and evidence is found of mismanagement then things will have reached such a stage that nothing will effect the sp as it will be too low to save.
After all how can it get much worse. Perhaps a cash shell buy out by a Private Equity group might even get a bottom line value increase.
I doubt if my effort to get to the bottom line of facts will get anywhere but someone must do something.
The institutions don't like complaining as the publicity that comes with the territory of buying into a bad sp, hurts them often more than the company they are complaining about.
Look at Banks/Building societies, if they are fraudulently misused they often try to keep things quiet. It's not good publicity.
Punters often complain that the market authorities have no backbone, but the more we push them to act, at least they have to respond one way or the other.
All I and I am sure others want is the answer to a very simple question.....What Went Wrong and Who was Responsible.
That's not a lot to ask.

I also thought about this and decided that any complaint would relate to the previous 'regime' and as such would be unlikely to affect the SP. If anything, it could improve it because the company would have to be more careful what it promised in the future if it thought it was under scrutiny officially.

Not that we have any reason to believe the current head has been anything but candid and open since he took over.

ok thanks for the replies.

Please see below a rough draft of my complaint re Stanelco to the London Stock Exchange.

Several posters have assisted me in my research for which I am grateful.
Some information is sensitive and I have given my word to these persons that I will not divulge any source or material without their express permission.
I have used some of this information to lead me in certain directions.

I will credit them on this thread for their valued assistance (username only).

I have limited my report to facts as I know them and although my report contains my viewpoints, I have not repeated them here as I am aware of the laws of liable.

In the many hours of research taken to formulate this report I have been continually hampered by the actual wordings of any news releases.

Innuendos are easily found if you look for them, but obviously I can only present the LSE with any repeated facts.
It will be up to the Regulating Authority, to consider if wordings in these releases were mis leading or not.
It is also for them to consider if any company has been negligent in releases or equally none release of sensitive news.

Please feel free to comment on the following contents baring the above in mind.

Subject.... Formal complaint re the management of Stanelco PLC (epic SEO), Listed on the London Stock Exchange.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to make a formal complaint against the management of the above listed company.

I consider that over the past 2 to 3 years (Opinion*************)

I feel that (Opinion************).

Continuing comments such as, Contracts in the process of being finalized, on the cusp of full commercialization, imminent have been used in many of the news releases.

The significant dates are 28.07.05 re Start date of exclusive trial period. Prior to this date all released were very upbeat. These upbeat releases continued from the 28.07.05 to the release dated 29.05.07.

This release (29.05.07) was the first giving a hint as to any problem 22 months after the 12 months trial period date concluded. Trial extensions were granted, release dated 10.08.06.

It is noted that following positive news releases from the company the Sp rose often significantly, followed by a steady decline at the lack of news as milestones, such as contract terms agreements dates were reached.

I consider that the company have not followed the London Stock Market rules in releasing all news within a reasonable time, that is deemed likely to effect the share price and in doing so have been selective in such releases.

On this date 16.06.07 the company are (opinion*********) re, What exactly were the reasons why Greenseal is what has obviously now been admitted a failure in it's present form.

Was it due to cost, weakness in the technology, problem with sales, a competitor, unable to deliver volume, or a mixture of all/some.
Depending why Greenseal was not taken up as presented would obviously effect the SP, to differing levels.
As a shareholders I feel Stanelco have an obligation to inform myself and the market of negative news with as much expediency as they have previously shown, when releasing positive news.


The following releases may assist you in this matter.

16.11.04.

States. Full scale commercial tray lidding trials with Asda, with a nominated supplier.
In addition an agreement to start commercial trials with another major food packing company.

23.12.04.

Update re trial with Asda. First trial commences.

01.03.05.

Update re trial with Asda. Now proceeding to actual use in product at manufacturing site. Asda product appearing on shelves from today. Asda are delighted.

24.03.05.

Signed 12 month contract with Asda, exclusive use of the application. The 12 months will commence from the first Monday following 2 week of further successful trials with 3 of Asda suppliers, expected to be in April.


10.05.05.

Update re Asda trials. No problems.


23.05.05.

Following extensive trials now entered into formal commercial agreement (Greenseal) dedicated Asda supplier.
The commercialization proceeding at an unusual fast pace.


22.06.05.

Update re trails with Asda. No problems.

29.06.05.

From Interim Results.

Chairman states. Enormous confidence in our technology.

Chief Executive states. We expect momentum to continue over the year ahead. Asda anticipates that several hundred machines will be adapted in the next 12 months.

28.07.05.

Update re Asda trials. Announce stability results of the 3rd and final commercial trial with 3rd supplier. The 12 months exclusive period now formally commences. Asda anticipate several hundred machine conversions.

30.08.05.

AGM.Business update. Commercial trials with Asda completed. Committed to several hundred machine conversions.

16.12.05.

Pre close update. Greenseal significant progress.

28.02.06

Significant strides forward in this time re Greenseal.
The message comes back from these companies is that we have the product ranges at the right price, engaging their attention at the highest level.

02.05.06

Greenseal and starpol. Both are on the cusp of full commercialization.
Stanelco is in the highest level negotiations, with some of the largest companies in the world.

We have a number of meetings in the US next week to finalize details regarding to vertical integration into their supply chain by establishing Micro Manufacturing Facilities.


17.08.06.

Letters of intent with two companies have been exchanged, and the company believes that these will lead to contracts in the short term.


08.09.06

Trading update.

Company continuing negotiations with the 2 parties with which it signed letters of intent and contracts are in the process of being finalized.

21.03.07.

Martin Wagner, Chief Exec,

Positive comments re the last 12 months.

Philip Lovegrove, Chief Exec,

We continue to be an active member of the Walmart Sustainable Value Network, and are developing close relationships with our fellow members. Two Starpol products are on Walmart shelves in the US with a third imminent.
As previously stated the time taken to to commercialize this technology and the ongoing hurdles have proved to be a major disappointment.

The trials continue.

My Comment. This appears to be the first official mention of a company official publiclly mentioning a disappointment in the process of commercialization.

29.05.07.

Trading Statement.

My Comment. This this trading statement is the first time a negative update has been issued re problems with Greenseal and several other products.

NOTE... The finished report will obviously be grammatically correct (with someones assistance) and hopefully read clearer.
At the moment I am suffering some kind of bug, so I am struggling somewhat, but I do not want to delay this report.

I'm a bit amazed here.

Investing in any company is inherently risky and every day you have 2 choices, to hold or to sell. There is always a time and a place to sell a holding. SEO has been going down for so long people should have been out long ago IMO.

On a legal footing, if there was anything to investigate, a body (FSA or whatever)would be doing so. For an RNS to paint a rosy picture is a given.

I have a certain amount of sympathy, but you cannot blame the company for your loss. It's that simple. You were the ones who held on and every time you find folk on a BB carrying heavy losses this always comes up. It's always somebody else's fault.

I'm afraid the fault is only ever to be laid at the door of the investor who put his/her money into the venture to begin with.

Al

Greek,

Personally I feel most of the points are unlikely to lead anywhere. On Greenseal, no promises were made on deals and it was actually ASDA who said they expected to convert several hundred machines - cant blame that on SEO. Things were generally hyped up, but no promises made.

However, the two points I feel could be justification for a complaint relate to:-

1) the MMF's - the letters of intent and contracts being finalised on which we heard nothing more!

2) The stated use of proceeds in the open offer document - i.e.

'Specifically, funds raised will be used for the following: - to ensure successful completion by either Biotec, or in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Venture Agreement, Stanelco of at least the first two manufacturing facilities in the USA, which will cost approximately 2.8m each, for the production of starch-based resins, including Starpol materials, developed by Biotec; '

The funds have not been put to the use for which they were raised from investors.

I would concentrate on that for starters.

Al,

The FSA or SE aren't going to investigate if no-one makes a complaint. I take your point about being responsible for holding on, but my complaint relates to the reasons why investors put more money into the company at the time of the open offer and has nothing to do with holding on.

I thought I was investing In two Micro Manufacturing plants in the U.S. for which the contracts were being finalised - thats what I put my money into. Where are they? It is the circumstances behind SEO saying they were building the plants, raising money on the strength of that but then not building them that I would like to see investigated.

Big Al,

As an investor for several years, I fully accept that companies can fail and I invest on the understanding that I can loose all my stake.
But companies must stick to the rules, which are there to protect both the company and the share holder.
My gripe is just that. I believe that Stanelco have not followed the rules, IE quick to release news that is SP sensitive in a positive way, but slow to release news that is SP sensitive in a negative way.
If no one complains, very rarely is an inquiry commenced.

Oblomov,

Whilst I agree it was not always Stanelco who released or/and made promises re Greenseal, they were obviously aware of the conversion roll out and progress, and as already stated, they were in my opinion slow to update the market on any problems.
Hype, yes plenty of that, imminent, on the cusp etc, etc.
There have over the last 2 years many posts inquiring why deadlines have passed and why no updates.
The main gripe I have is as already stated, We still do not know what went wrong with Greenseal. Stanelco do, so we should be informed.
Saying that, I also feel my complaint will have no effect, but I must try.

Thanks to both re your responses.

Will give it a few more days, re any further responses, advice prior to forwarding complaint.

Greek.

Points taken, Greek, and thanks for taking the time to put this together. I agree it should be done whatever the chances of achieving anything.

Regarding what went wrong with Greenseal, it might be argued that putting that information into the public domain could jeopardise any future attempt to return to the technology and commercialise it.

Morning, OB.

I did consider that re Greenseal, but putting myself into the mind of a potential purchaser, the first question I would ask is, Why did ASDA not continue with the take up? as no doubt any company looking at Greenseal would have made very diligent inquiries, and be aware that there had been problems.

Hi guys. Yeah, didn't wish to get everyone's back up, but simply wanted to maybe put some perspective on it.

We have all been in this situation, but I for one learnt many years ago that my energy is far better spent forgetting a disaster, for whatever reason, and focusing on recouping the loss by hunting for prospects that would achieve that goal. Stay positive!!

As for SEO in particular, we are all quite aware how they have fared. I've traded them at times ove rthe past couple of years (both ways!). I know many were bearish a long time ago and it could be argued they saw the light. As far as the FSA, etc go, I'm sure investigations would be well underway if irregularities were evident. Also, all companies play up the good and play down the bad. I could go on re-iterating the bear points that were being shouted from the rooftops for some time.

At the end of the day, SEO simply joined a long list of failed companies. ;-))

Morning Big Al, and all.

I do agree that companies shout up the good news more than the bad and I don't blame them for that, but there is a difference between releasing the bad news in a quieter form to not releasing it at all. Also whatever the news, the facts should not be expanded upon to the extent of misleading.
I do not go looking to complain against a company just because I have lost money on the share, in fact this is the first (and hopefully the last) company I have looked to complaining against.

As to getting anyones back up. No problem, never even considered it. Your post and any others are welcome.
It's those posters who get personal and insulting that bug me.

If we ever reach the stage where we all agree and have the same viewpoints, then these threads will hardly be worth reading.

Note, the complaint is being sent to.

Regulatory Complains
Trading Services
London Stock Exchange
10 Paternoster Square
London EC4M 7LS.

This address took some digging out and I finally contacted the LSE for advice.
They informed me that the complaint should be in letter form, hence the none E-Mail approach.
Just in case anyone was curious.

Quick update.

Report is now ready, after a bit of tweaking and a lesson from my son in grammar.
There are no alterations of any significance from my earlier post of the draft.

I have decided to hold fire for a couple of weeks due to the research I have done re the Biotec issue that has been of interest of late. I have not found anything that has not been mentioned on this and other threads/sites, and I am not going to state as some have that, We are heading for a big sp rise, or its another load of bull. I am not going to second guess whats happening.
But I am willing to give the possibility of credence a chance.
If something good regarding the sp comes from this within 2 weeks, I may look for a longer delay, but whatever happens, the report will be submitted, either in 2 weeks time (if no news) or slightly after with good news.
Whenever the report is submitted, I will update re day sent.

Open to all opinions on the above.

Cheers Greek.

Greekman, so all the stuff being posted on other boards re output, walmart visits etc, you have managed to verify with your own research? If so then this surely will help the share price to recover once the news is officially released.

Hi Sellsell,

Please read my post again. It states that, "I have not found anything that has not been mentioned on this and other threads/sites, and I am not going to state as some have that, We are heading for a big sp rise, or its another load of bull. I am not going to second guess whats happening.

It clearly states that I AM NOT GOING TO SECOND GUESS, that surely implies that I have not been able to verify anything.

Also it states," But I am willing to give the possibility of credence a chance".

Again this surely implies that I don't know what is/ true, lies or just plain spin.

So yes, I have done as much research as possible but cant verify anything.

Not having a go at you, (if my post comes over that way I apologize in advance, it is often difficult to purvey attitude in print) but it is difficult to put my views any clearer.

Regards Greek.

Please Help.
Sorry to go off thread but I have received an E-Mail via Moneyam, from a user name procroft.
The E-Mail stated, To reply to this email you will need to go to the MoneyAM Bulletin Boards and click on the name of the user that sent you this email and then click the 'message button'.
But when I go onto the Bulletin Boards, procroft does not appear on any pages I can find.
Anyone help.

Quite possibly "procroft" has not registered an email address for the messaging system to forward a message to.

Dunno, but hopefully that's useful

Big Al,

Thanks, obvious really.

Procroft, the appears to be no way to contact you except via this thread.
Please see my previous posts, which I feel explains my feelings.
I do value your suggestion as all who have contributed have assisted in my complaint contents, in one way or another.
But to re-iterate.....Enough is enough. I feel we have been very patient with the management (mainly the old management) but a stand must be made. Deadlines have been passed many times with no or very late updates, Starpol, Cig Filters, Greenseal to name but three.
As previously said, I was willing to give them another couple of weeks, re good solid news. The time will be up Friday.
Thanks again for you message.
Greek.

greekman

It's just a thought, but, do you think that if you were to forward a copy of your complaint to SEO, prior to posting to the FSA, asking for clarification on the relevant points, might get you some satisfaction. Or have you already done so.
Good Luck with your quest.
And thanks for making the effort.

Hi, Patisear,

It did cross my mind but decided not to for 3 reasons.

1 Several previous E-Mails from myself and others have been ignored.
I have never requested sensitive info, only clarification of details promised via dead lines. So I doubt if I did forward a copy,they would reply.

2 If they did reply, I feel it would be the usual spin, fob of updates.

3 If they took my report seriously, it would pre warn them of a possible call from the regulating authority.

But thanks re your post.

You may not have a choice Greekman!
Not certain of the FSA approach to this area, but certainly in retail areas they are very clear that they will not investigate anything until the complainant has put a formal written complaint to the alleged offender and allowed 8 weeks for a the offender to respond and offer (where appropriate) either settlement or justification.
Only when the complainant and offender disagree over justification and settlement will the FSA intervene, and then only if they consider it a breach of their rules. If not they will pass it to another of the regulatory bodies such as the FSO.
Might be worth checking if you need to complain to SEO first.
Alan

Surely it is the Stock Exchange rules that have been breached. SEO are not a 'Financial Service'. Aren't RNS's issued in order that the company complies, as a fully listed company, with the rules of of the SE?

Cant see why the FSA would be interested - SEO haven't supplied a 'financial service'.

From the FSA website:-

'Who we regulate


The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is an independent organisation responsible for regulating financial services in the UK. '

Possibly right Oblo, but the FSA would have an interest as they regulate the SE. It could also be argued that they provided false information, or didn't provide information on which financial services decisions were made.
Murky, but I still think any regulatory bodies first question to Greek will be whether he has addressed his concerns to SEO themselves.

Hi Alan,

Yes you are correct if it is complaints that are personal to an individual or to a body and do not include possible abuse of market rules. So if these rules are breached, every shareholder is effected.
All I am in fact doing is bringing to the attention of the regulator a possible breach of their (the market)rules.
As the regulatory authority are the market regulating body, they will be able to judge if these rules have been breached where as a layman I am not.
As I consider these rules may have been broken, I have been advised the correct complaint procedure is directed to Regulatory Complains Trading Services London Stock Exchange. I received this info by E-Mail from the LSE.

Initially I did think (wrongly) that it was to be made to the FSA, but several posters put me right. Following this I carried out quite a bit of research via the LSE.

If nothing else it is proving a learning process for myself.

No doubt if I am wrong, the regulator will soon put me right.

As a foot note... I think the possibility of my complaint leading to an inquiry is very slim. But no matter what the outcome I will keep everyone informed, ( if only Stanelco had done the same)! I may end up with a serious amount of egg on my face.

EDIT... Slow in typing, so posted the above before I saw the last 2 posts, but I think the above gives clarification.

Cheers Greek.

Thanks for clarifying that, Greek, and the time you've put in.

One thing, if the complaint is thrown out we can at least sleep more soundly in the knowledge we were not conned and the SEO management are a wonderful bunch of people after all! (*!*!*)

The deadline is reached.
I have considered at length my decision of reporting Stanelco, now or to delay it further.
The temptation to delay is always there, but if I do, days could stretch into weeks, weeks into months etc.
I feel we have given Stanelco's management every chance to be straight with their shareholders (the company owners).
I have also, as someone suggested considered (again) informing Stanelco's board of my intention to report, but as I and several others have had E-Mails ignored in the pasts decided against it.
I will not repeat the reasons behind this complaint as they have been aired on this thread many times.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all who have contributed to this thread, those for and against.
I especially thank, Oilywag, Oblomov and Tonyrelaxes (beginning to sound like an Oscar or Bafta awards speech) all who provided me with information that has not been repeated or indeed mentioned in any form, as some has been sensitive (but legal). This info has been valuable in leading me to other avenues of information generally available that I have used.

The final report has no substantive changes from the draft I posted on 16th June. It has been fleshed out, with certain points highlighted .

It is ready for posting, and if there is no RNS of any substance by market opening tomorrow, the report will be forwarded as stated.

I will confirm posting.

Regards Greek.

To Greek for best speech

and what will you give him for the likely result of his diligence? .... nul points is my bet as, though i have not followed this, i would doubt if there is much (anything) of substance to interest the relevant authorities.

greekman
There is a very interesting post on Interactive Investor by pollock4 regarding Howard White and his son
Take a look before submitting anything to the FSA

cynic 'though i have not followed this...'

You're in no position to comment on it then, are you, so why bother?

Hugybear,

Yes, very interesting. I read it before seeing your post. I was not going to mention anything on that site re the complaint, but after reading the post by pollock4 I have now posted re the substance of the complaint on that site.

Cynic,

I agree that the authorities may not feel there is any substance, and as previously said, I have no problems re opposing views, but as Oblomov states, I find it difficult to see how you can judge without following the plot.
Someone has to try. A line has to be drawn, or do we just shut our eyes to what we feel is injustice.

To all posting 0900 hrs today.

As a foot note, anyone see the article in The Telegraph on Saturday. The LSE state that 1 in 3 takeover deals probably involves insider trading. Not referring to SEO or any other company, but it shows how corrupt the market can be. Us poor PI's don't stand a chance.

i can comment because the same applies in many many instances ..... most often the gripes are based on general disgruntlement because certain people have done their dosh instead of taking the prudent course of cutting their loss ..... for sure some management is (arguably) not as open as it should be, but then any sensible management will not respond with anything of substance to some individual's request for info, because that sort of info should be for public dissemination.

for sure everything is also not Portia clean, but then nor is general business - e.g. the so-called BAE corruption nonsense which is (imo) merely driven by certain (US!) political pressure ...... however, the real question is do you have any solid evidence that would stand up even in a civil court? ...... almost certainly not is my bet

Cynic, you can answer your own questiona by reading the posts and as Greek says 'follow the plot'.

I've personally made two complaints to the financial ombudsmen over the past two years and won both after being told almost unanimously by those who knew I was complaining that I hadn't a chance. The evidence is in the RNS's and what happened afterwards, particularly to the cash raised in the open offer on the basis of the US MMP's.

IMO

i have long thought SEO was a load of rubbish and merely regret that i never shorted it ..... my observations were general ...... if you have indeed succeeded in "winning" on a couple of occasions, though i wonder if there was any financial benefit from that, then good luck to you ...... i don't think the markets are any more crooked than say horse or dog racing, and shares are merely another form of gambling ...... if you don't like the set-up or the odds, then don't bet!

Cynic,

When I invest, I look at the odds, be it on the stock market or race course.
It is when the odds become loaded against me (bending/breaking the rules), I become annoyed. I agree that investing is a form of gambling. One of my portfolio's is a high risk portfolio (SEO are in that portfolio). I except that some companies in this portfolio will fail for many reasons, bad management being one of them. Annoying as this might be, I have to accept it. But rules are there to protect, investors, companies and the market as a whole. I am not so naive that I invest on the premise that these rules are always adhered to but I expect certain parameters not to be crossed. Feeling Stanelco have stepped over the line, was the deciding factor, re the complaint.
Please don't take offense, as I do appreciate all sides of the augment, but feel I have covered most in my previous posts. So please read my previous comments on this thread prior to posting as I do not wish to repeat detail.
If you do read the full flow, I am quite happy to discuss anything not covered.

i never take offense even with the not-at-all-lamented-and-now-sent-to-the-gallows-tcdmt, who reckoned my daughter was fair target for obscene abuse!

by the looks of it, i am just more pragmatic than you, so just avoid companies whose management looks to have more than a little to be desired - e.g. RPT ..... to my amazement, i see that stinker has now gone up 4-fold in the last year

If the post on ii contains genuine info then I would have thought it puts the Howard White reign into perspective and our suspicions could be well founded.

cynic - you're last post amazes me! You're presumably just trying to wind us up. What you're saying is that nothing should be done about a suspected crime (and I'm not suggesting we are talking 'crime' in SEO's case) because there are other crimes being committed and that makes it OK in some way.

Why investigate a murder in Manchester because there's been one in Liverpool and the murderers got away with it there!


Lets just do away with the Police and legal system then and let anarchy replace it - thats what you're saying.

You cant be that big a berk - time to stop digging!

oblomov ..... crime? ....... if so, then SFO should be contacted ..... if you and greekman are actually right in this instance, then no doubt appropriate action will be taken ..... however 99/100 is just inept management or communication, and very very occasionally, the management has saild close or too close to the wind ...... if the evidence against Mr Timmis (RPT) did not stack up to justify prosection, and clearly it did not, then the odds are longer than 1 to 1p that there is nothing to hang the management of SEO, galling as that might be for you guys.

Please lets keep the peace. Report now on way to the LSE, so will not post again till reply received, or specific questions asked, that have not been answered before.

cynic,

you seem to have a problem with reading - from my post to which you refer:-

'(and I'm not suggesting we are talking 'crime' in SEO's case)'

not shouting at anyone ..... though oblomov now denies he was talking of crime, it certainly read otherwise .... merely stating what i think is the almost inevitable outcome - i.e. if you are lucky, some soothing noises but nothing else ..... i shall watch with great interest

cynic,

Are you a child?

My post was answering yours in which you said 'i don't think the markets are any more crooked than say horse or dog racing, and shares are merely another form of gambling '

Crooked = crime in my book - its you who bought up crime and my post relates to that point - in general, not related to SEO as I clearly said with '(and I'm not suggesting we are talking 'crime' in SEO's case)'.

can't be arsed to argue semantics with you ...... i shall just wait and watch with interest as to whether the authorities have the remotest interest in taking any action at all on SEO .... my guess is that your real soreness is because you are mug enough to be still a holder

Cynic - I'm not sore and there are no semantics involved. You're just being a prat, thats all, and looking for an argument.

fine by me if that's your view; personally i have no more view of you than the man on the moon ..... i shall scarcely lose sleep

keep holding them SEO .... you are sure to make your fortune!

Please people, this thread is pointless if things become personal.
My reason for creating this thread was to glean information and help re my complaint. My intention is not to take sides in any debate re hold, sell or buy this share. The SEO thread is more relative to that. It matters not to me what people think re this share. The input up to now has been very helpful in this fact, don't lets allow it to drift to the level seen on other threads/sites.
Not taking sides.

quite right .... smacked wrist accepted! .... lol!

cynic - I dont need SEO to make my fortune - like many other posters here I've already made it. Stop being silly now.

When people make silly comments after the hours greek put in on this (and myself too) and say they haven't actually been following things it's pretty difficult not to get personal!

If you'd written a book and a reviewer said it was rubbish but he hadn't read it, what can you say?

lol - time to take a walk

Update.

Prior to posting the complaint I contacted the LSE and FULLY explained the basis of the complaint and the company involved. They did not ask where it was listed.
I stated that I was requesting their advice as to whom the complaint should be forwarded to. I received an E-Mail directing me to forward the complaint to the following address.

Regulatory Complains
Trading Services
London Stock Exchange
10 Paternoster Square
London EC4M 7LS.

Today I received a reply stating, from the above dept..... Thank you for etc, etc. Based on the information you provided it appears to be a matter more appropriately to be dealt with by the UK Listing Authority (UKLA) who as you will be aware, monitor releases of information in relation to Main Market companies such as Stanelco plc.

They have supplied an address for the above which is part of the FSA, which is the department I initially thought I needed to contact, but the LSE advised me otherwise.

So I now have to re submit the complaint and corresponding evidence. (Will do so this Saturday).

If the LSE when contacted give the wrong department initially, it does not fill one with confidence.

But I will not give up yet.

I will keep everyone posted.

Thanks Greek.

Hmmm, yes thanks Greek,................LSE, is that an abbreviation of Let Stanelco Exaggerate?

Possibly. In my last job the CPS was referred to as The Criminal Protection Society.
(See the Talk To Yourself Thread).

Just noticed this thread, well done Greek, in my view if you don't ask you won't get! Maybe also send a copy of the letter to the top corporate holders, you never know who may be willing to add support and weight.

Hi Explosive,

Thanks. I believe the corporate holders would be reluctant to back a complaint at this stage, as it would be an admission that they had got it wrong. My feeling is they will wait till the final moment (a possible suspension of dealings) before they act. That is not to say they will still be holders by then.
I am not saying this will happen but you never know.
All IMHO of course.

Confirming report was sent Sat 21st by recorded delivery.

Nothing to do with Stanelco complaint but may be of interest. You can win sometimes....I have just received a small amount of compensation from Halifax (won't go into the boring details) after threatening them with the FSA, now waiting for a reply from the Law Society re a complaint against a solicitor (connected to the Halifax complaint). So some you do win.

Well done Greek, it's good to know that the 'big boys' don't always get their own way!

Kim,

See the Talk to yourself thread in about 15 mins. It takes some believing.

.

Update.

Received acknowledgment from the FSA.

Thank you or your letter dated, etc,

If the UKLA finds that a company has contravened the listing rules, it is possible for it to be sanctioned by means of a censure, the details of which may be published. Information, such as you have provided us, is a valuable contribution to our work. However, for statutory and policy reasons the UKLA's investigations are strictly confidential and, unless they result in a public censure, the UKLA does not comment on specific cases.

We thank you for etc, etc.

The above is obviously the usual proforma type letter.

There is NO mention that I will receive any update, if No action is to be taken. I would have expected this to be mentioned.

Watch this space.

Update.

No further contact from FSA. (I did not expect anything yet).

Just to keep everyone informed.

Whilst I agree that those who have acted incorrectly should be brought to account, I am not so sure complaints against the Company and possible public censure of the company will help us.

Possibly the reverse. it could bring into disrepute the Company and the management, which is completely changed except for the new(ish) FD and dear old Liz.

Mind you, a public censure would not be a final glittering entry she would welcome on her CV. And she should have had the knowledge available to stop irresponsibility - or resign in protest.
But she did not, thereby giving credence to how the company behaved.

I believe the merits of doing this were discussed earlier in this thread.

My feeling again, FWIW, is that the company would not be damaged for the very reason you point out above, Tony.

i.e. Since the period when the announcements complained about took place 'the company and management is completely changed except for the new(ish) FD and dear old Liz.'

I don't see that 'dear old Liz' is a good enough reason to hold back, however 'dear' you think she is. If there are victims in this story and there has been any wrongdoing she'll have to join the many other victims - those of us, including yourself, who lost a lot of money.

Investors deserve some answers - if the FSA decide there is nothing to answer, fine, Thats our answer - as investors we were stupid and not conned. If we were conned, however, we should be told.

Hi Toneyrelaxes,

As Oblomov has stated, this has been discussed earlier so it might be worth a read back. But I do agree that any inquiry into a company by any sort of regulatory body can (if that report comes to light) have a detrimental effect. Even if nothing comes of said inquiry, the no smoke without fire brigade etc.
But to reiterate briefly......If we allow companies to trade with impunity, where will bad practice end.
The FSA do make it clear that most of their inquiries start due to info from outside.
As to there being a different management, whist I agree that most of my complaint basis is regarding the past (management) there are still many questions that need to be answered. Cig filters, Greenseal, Wrap to name but 3. I have no idea where issues are with these although several time scales dates have long past.
If there are serious issues updates should have been forthcoming.
They may as well have said, We have a 12 month trial with *****, or we are in serious negotiations with some major companies re ***** and after the mentioned dates, deadlines we will inform our shareholders if the news is good but we won't bother if its bad.
It was suggested that to inform re serious problems would impede sales, but my answer was and still is....Any potential buyer does due diligence on the products they are interested in, as well as the company. Perhaps that is why take up by Walmart is so slow, almost to a full stop.

I am hoping re several updates in the results, but all I am expecting is much of the same stalling techniques, more fog, no clarity. If I am wrong (and I truly hope I am) I will be the first to admit it.

I will be on Hols the first 2 weeks in Sept, so will post on return, even if the update is No Update from the FSA.

Lets hope I come back to good results and a recovery in the SP.

Regards all, Greek.

Well back from Hols.
No update re SEO complaint.
Just read the results. Looks like as said, stalling techniques.
The problem is that whatever they say, we have heard similar before.

Quick update. Now into Oct and still nothing from the FSA.

Will only post once a month, or if/when I receive a reply.
Not holding my breath.
I think the chances of any reply from the FSA, or SEO making it big time are about the same.
Both appear to have no interest in their customers/shareholders.
Pathetic.

Greek,

Will the FSA not give you an idea of when you can expect a reply? The Financial Ombudsmen does and even sends a monthly update, even if it does only say they haven't reached the case it does tell you they haven't lost the file!

Hi Oblomov,

They informed me that unless their investigation (if they have one) results in a public censure, the UKLA will not comment on specific cases.
This is due to statutory and policy reasons of confidentiality, (their words not mine).
So if there is no public censure, thats that, I presume I will hear nothing further.

The above gives no cause for openness, or confidence in the system.
Now if I was a representative of a large city institution, or someone with a name, I wonder if the same criteria would apply.

And the FSA is supposed to be open and forthright.

I'm sure you agree that we are all equal. It's just that some are more equal than others.

Note... I have penciled in to re contact the FSA in December so I can at least draw a line under what is increasingly looking like a waste of time.

Thanks for your (and all others) continuing interest.

Regards Greek.

Hi Greek,
Knowing the FSA very well, they will do precisely nothing.
They are spread too thin, trying to police far too much, in areas they know almost nothing. With this in mind, they focus their efforts on the easy stuff. Like the CSA chasing fathers who are easy to catch and ignoring the rest, or local coppers doing nothing about burglaries, but devoting half their force to speeding motorists.
This is the problem with having targets set. Ones natural instinct is to ensure the targets are met, regardless of whether wider objectives are achieved, but that is another subject.
The chances of censure are nil. If SEO can show they have systems in place so that rules are not usually broken, then nothing will happen. If systems are in place that are faulty, they will be asked to fix them. That is all.
There is so much wool in the heads of the FSA that it is childs play to pull it over their eyes.
Bunch of jobsworths with no clue at all about the real world outside Canary Wharf.
(Can you tell I have little time for them)?

Hi.

I have also had dealings in the past, and fulling agree with you re the easy stuff.
I also believe they are not fully independent of outside authority. Their remit may state they are, but like you say, in the real world!
No doubt if a case worker causes too many waves, they are quickly reigned in.
Several years ago I was in a profession that had dealings with Social Workers.
A case worker transfered to the area, who within a few weeks sorted out so many child abuse cases by not taking no for an answer. Many of these cases involved serious obvious physical abuse, but previous case workers had not seen the children involved because parents had given many excuses why their children could not be seen (similar to those that reach the news, such as the Crombie case to name but 1).
This worker after a few months was moved yet again to another area, presumably to satisfy the don't upset too many people brigade, and things drifted back to normal.

Thanks Greek.

Alan, I'm going to reply to your email shortly (next hour or so). Let me know if you don't receive it.

Apologies for delay - been a bit chaotic since I got back from hols for one reason and another!!

Cheers, Oblo.
Popping out soon so it may be this evening before I check my mails.
Thanks alot
Alan

On contact with the FSA 1055 hrs today the following has been confirmed.
They informed me that unless their investigation had resulted in a public censure, they would not comment on specific cases.
They also confirmed that if there is a none public censure or a NFA decision I would not be informed.
So as it stands, I can't find out if the decision after investigation (if indeed they did investigate and not just bin it) was a private censure or NFA.
Figures show that very few FSA censures are public with most being of a private nature. No doubt the vast majority are NFA, as no doubt mine was.
And the government continues to state that all such department should be open and above allegations of none compliance.
Some hope. The system as it stands gives no cause for confidence.
Prior to commencing on my quest, I gave little hope of justice, but felt I had to at least try.
I would like to thank all those who contributed to this thread, even those who had differing views to my own. I only wish I could have finalized this issue with at least a semi definitive result.

There is only one more route I can take and that is through the civil courts.
I therefore request that all SEO shareholders send me a cheque of 100 (I need about 100,000 so anyone who wishes to contribute more please do so) details of my Caribbean Bank account number supplied on request.

Please trust my honesty, remembering that if I did run off with your money, you could always retrieve it via the Caribbean Financial Services Agency.

Regards Greek.

Greekman
One route that occurs to me - but I'm not sure if it would work - is to contact your local MP and ask him/her to request information regarding the case with the FSA using the Freedom of Information Act.

The FSA might be able to dodge a reply because it could be regarded as "Commercial In Confidence" but most MPs like haveing a pop at Bureaucracy and the FSA is a good target - 'cos they're crap.

The only downside is that I suspect your MP is part of the establishment - Alan Johnson - so he may dodge it himself. However, if it's David Davies I'm sure he'll be more than up for it.

Just a thought

Hi mg,

So I presume your not sending me a 100 then.

The problem with the Freedom Of Information Act is that it's as selective as the government want.
For example..... A while ago John Hemming MP asked how much was the total cost of the governments Red Boxes, which all ministers are entitled to.
He used the Freedom of Information Act to ask them to justify their response by disclosing the advice they had been given.

But they argue Section 36 (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) "provides that information can be withheld where disclosure would make officials less willing to seek or offer free and frank advice would inhibit the frankness and candor of guidance in future."

The above covers a be all and get all situation.

They have been made the same way for centuries - a wooden base covered in roan deer leather, or cloth. The cost varies, depending on size and finish.

Prices of the boxes, which are used to store government papers securely, ranged from 385 to 750 each.

Of those who responded, the DTI - now Department for Business - spent the most at 13,337.50 for 18 boxes.

I appreciate not all info can or should be released due to sensitivity/security but the price of a wooden box, well say no more.

There must be plenty of other examples.

So although I appreciate the suggestion, I won't be going down that dead end.

When it comes to trust, politicians are at the bottom of my list.

Nice finish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

greekman
Sorry I didn't reply - busy setting up a red box business :)

Thanks for that - it was just a thought - and you are right - it should be called a Freedom of Information That Won't mean Anything To Anyone - or - Yeah Right, You Think We're Gonna Tell You That !!

Thanks for the reply anyway.

Mg,

No prob, I'm just annoyed that I could not gain a better and satisfying result.
I hope your red box business goes well. Will they be bio-degradable?
Don't forget to include a plain brown envelope inside!
Look forward to seeing you in the New Years Honers list.

Note.... To date no one has requested any details re my Caribbean Bank Account. What a none trusting lot you are.

Regards to all, Greek.

Greek.
I was thinking of paying the 100 in cash over the Bank's counter.
Just send the address and fare please.

Tony,

Nice one.

Greekman...do you have an email address ?

I would like to discuss something with you?

lostalot,

Got your E-Mail via the MoneyAm messenger yesterday but can't reply same way as from 1st March (today) no longer Level 2.
But you can contact me via tradavanmar@hotmail.com. Hols from 6th march though.

regards Dave (greekman)

The Daily Telegraph reported today that the LSE has come under fire for refusing to name 4 AIM companies that it has fined a total of 170,000.
These breaches varied from
1 Misleading and unrealistically optimistic statements.
2 Delaying the publication of price sensitive information by up to two months.
3 Omitting material facts.
All I feel are serious enough offenses for these companies to be named. As it stands I/You may have shares in these companies, and have been mislead.
As many will remember, the FSA informed me that if my complaint against Stanelco resulted in a penalty that was not deemed a Public Censure then I would receive No update.
It looks as if the LSE are as open as the FSA are. Decisions such as these make companies less likely to be open with their shareholders.
I appreciate SEO are not on the AIM but I'm sure the treat shareholders like mushrooms is relevant to the main markets and AIM equally.

nothing to do with SEO...as you say they are on the Main MArket, but one wonders - for how long - they must be a blight/tarnish there and maybe nudged out.

FSA fines - are a sad joke, IMHO - since a "fine" is not directed to the wrongdoer ( ie Management, who collect bonus fees etc.) - but the Shareholders whose dividend is cut as a result.

If shareholders are fined for the wrongdoing of their shares - then shareholders need at least twice the power thay have at present. The ability to set the AGM-agenda and maybe forced rotation of Execs that cannot show their performance is well above average. AGM Time and Place.

And so on. Indeed shareholders would ppear to be better "regulators", since any bad outcome directly affects their investment...

And up 25.49% on the day with as yet no justifiable reason. If there is such a reason then someones in the know, or it could be similar to the last 3 such rises, whereas the sp steadily drops over the coming days/weeks.
If course I'm not suggesting the possibility of someone chasing up the price in order to start the shorting merry go round again. Perish the thought.
Whatever is happening we (PI's) will be the last to know.