Bioprogress is a stock I have been in and out of quite a few times since it floated in May but not much mention here on the Investors' Room. Does anyone else follow this stock. I see it is up 1.5p today and a few good buyers seem to have appeared.

Jumpin , who cares ?

Its a shit or bust company thats future has sod all to do with "the case" as shown by todays share price action.

As you all know .... I aint convinced and until the eps justifies the share price its a dreamers/rampers/derampers/ delight.

GOOD LUCK.

Jumping, the word desperation springs to mind

Morning all,just entered this one ,,is there something about a case ,,joke..

Dil - I disagree. The outcome of the dispute with Stanelco has plenty of impact on the long term prospects. It's not the only prospect but as it impacts on potentially the biggest customer to date, it is relevant and definitely not a sideshow.

I know what you say about traders and short term psychology but that is not of concern to me. The price can do what it likes, I am not concerned. The business being put into place will create the sought after fundamentals. Whether you can pick up the shares at Dave's 1 by then I somehow doubt, but nothing in this world is a certainty.

Note AFX been corrected!


(Correcting this item from yesterday to show BioProgress never claimed that
Stanelco had been ordered to pay damages, but rather at this point only costs)
LONDON (AFX) - Stanelco PLC said the UK Patents Court has not ordered it to
pay damages to BioProgress PLC in a dispute over patent applications.
BioProgress earlier said that the court had made an order for Stanelco to
pay costs to it, and must make an interim payment towards these costs of about
180,000 stg within two weeks.
However, Stanelco said later that the court will not make a final order
until the company's application to admit further evidence, which may result in a
reconsideration of some of the judge's findings, has been determined.
The company added that it believes that no damages, or at worst minimal
damages, will ultimately be found to be payable to Bioprogress.
cml/bam/cw
For more information and to contact AFX: www.afxnews.com and
www.afxpress.com

Bones - think you misunderstand me.

I meant to say, the award of costs or damamges is pretty irrelevant. I know the fact that they effectively keep all the revenue, etc from the technology is a big plus once it gets going.

Sorry for the confusion, but I just get a bit fed up when people who are supposedly long term investors get upset about daily, weekly or even monthly situations. They should be looking at years ahead with an outfit such as BPRG. That's when the "jam" may arrive.

More from the other place

schull69 - 4 Nov'04 - 10:52 - 3120 of 3152

A bit more from the cc on Tuesday.I'm not a lawyer so wont be able to comment on detail but this might add to the current talk about damages.The issue came up in court after 4.30 when the time had overrun and the Judge had asked the usher if he could carry on which was granted.Floyd said that 'the usual order for breach of confidence, should be made either by enquiry or by accounts.'This is when our man Baldwin stepped in making it clear that he requires the enquiry to extend to all 3 patents,that he requires disclosure and not an interptetation of them,'..we want to know sums so that we can make an informed election.'This was ordered to be made within 28 days as I posted and I remind you that Baldwin was insistant on the wording 'sufficient to show.'My impression is that he cant wait to get his hands on the figures and then send SEO down the Swanee, never to be seen again...and BPRG wont be on the bankside with a life raft'Remember also that Baldwin is the top patent lawyer in the country....it's a real pleasure to see this terrier at work....this is real court room drama.

Another point:the Judge said in court that costs take into account'..the conduct of the parties in court.'If their rns is in contempt of court then I think Floyd should be informed of this..he wont take kindly to it.

Afternoon all glad to be aboard,not sure how long,but will play it by ear.

Big Al - I bow to your all-knowing intellect........!

Carry on trading. I will comment in 2008.

20:08 tonight or tomorrow ?

Anyone want too hazard what if any tomorrow's bounce will be?

...........and out!! ;-)

Done OK, back to watching.

It would seem that this was written by Tom Bulford of Red Hot Penny Shares now on ADVFN


graemepirie - 4 Nov'04 - 18:17 - 3409 of 3448

RHPS

"STANELCO (SEO): As promised I am continuing to follow this one,
although it is no longer in the RHPS portfolio. Rival BioProgress's
spin merchants have put out another misleading statement concerning
Stanelco's liability to pay its legal costs. Deputy CEO, Howard White,
gave me details of the costs of this case, and suffice to say that
Stanelco has all the necessary cash, but in any case intends to appeal
against the judgement. WATCH "


Graeme has written to him ! Wonder if he will get a reply

graemepirie - 4 Nov'04 - 18:25 - 3413 of 3448

Tom,

I am a shareholder in Bioprogress.

I take great exception to the paragraph on Stanelco. Please expand on this
for me and explain what is incorrect regarding the Bioprogress RNS.

I would also like to ask why you have not mentioned that SEO have NO rights
to use any part of the patents without permission from BPRG. Also why you
have not mentioned the order made for SEO to declare all relevant info to
Bioprogress so that DAMAGES can be calculated.

You seem to be playing down the fact that SEO have been found guilty of
Breach of Trust and of stealing the original idea from Bioprogress.

I look forward to your reply

Graeme Pirie

As a holder in SEO, I read with interest some of the comments on this and have to say that disappointed with some views that hope SEO goes under. Both parties have f**ked up here on this issue. SEO have developed technology that BPRG couldn't but the use appears prohibited by a master patent, a fact that SEO management should have known and then discussed a JV with BPRG if correct.
Whatever the costs/damages, SEO has developed technology that is a no-brainer to meat packers and with just a 10% strike rate in the world market will make today's sp look ridiculous.I obviously hope and expect SEO to survive and make me some good profit over the next few years. I also hope you all do well with BPRG cos' I hate to see anyone lose money!! In fact BPRG looks a good company to me, it has a good portfolio and management and I may well be joining you all soon if the sp falls much further, thought I'd missed my chance!!
Just remember that BPRG is still speculative and still has to deliver some decent earnings, just like SEO. SEO is just in strike position to make good money and so it seems is BPRG. Long term this cc should not affect either company although SEO might have been in a brown smelly creek with the packaging potential. Some think (hope) 3 for BPRG by end of next year, hope you are right. SEO 10-15p by then??

Good Luck to you all, and I mean that.

Somewhat long but very good post from Elikkos Georghaides on Ample and worth a read.

The purpose of this post is to hopefully clarify the fiasco created by Stanelcos incorrect and misleading announcements.

1) Yesterday they issued an AFX purporting to correct an allegedly misleading statement put out by BPRG that the former had been ordered to pay the latter damages. Stanelco were incorrect as BPRG NEVER made such a claim. They quite clearly referred to the court order for costs which Stanelco had been ordered to pay.

This was evidenced by STANELCOs further AFX put out today correcting its previous misleading one. In particular todays RNS which appears to come from STANELCO states:


"(Correcting this item from yesterday to show BioProgress never claimed that Stanelco had been ordered to pay damages, but rather at this point only costs)."

There at least appears to be some agreement on the FACT that "the court had made an order for Stanelco to pay costs to it,( i.e. BPRG) and must make an interim payment towards these costs of about 180,000 stg within two weeks"

2) ISSUE OF DAMAGES

i) As to the issue of damages STANELCOs latest AFX reads " the UK Patents Court has not ordered it to pay damages to BioProgress PLC in a dispute over patent applications."

On its own this statement is also misleading since it superficially implies that the court has actually made a decision (i.e. refused to make an order) pertaining to the issue of damages whereas in fact it has not. This confusion is further compounded by the contents of their subsequent paragraph which states that " the court will not make a final order".

ii) The reality and accurate position is that the only financial order which the court apparently made related to the issue of COSTS and since (on application of basic principles) such orders usually follow the courts finding on the principle issue, namely of breach of primary patent, it is not surprising that STANELCO were ordered to pay a substantial amount of BPRGs legal costs.

Nor is it surprising that the issue of damages (which is far more complex and more difficult to assess) was postponed to to a future hearing date.

iii) However, again (and also applying general priniciples) the courts decision on the question of damages usually follows its findings as to the main issue.

This finding is accurately encapsulated in BPRGs AFX the contents of which are undisputed and which reads as follows:

" In its earlier judgement the court held that Stanelco had MISUSED BPRGS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by making the fillings which founded the 3 families of patents."

iv) However, STANELCO apparently wishing to cause yet further confusion added that:

" the court will not make a final order until the company's APPLICATION to admit further evidence, which may result in a reconsideration of some of the judge's findings, has been determined."

Indeed they seek to persuade the reader and no doubt (particularly) their shareholders that, the court is unlikely to order them to pay any damages and certainly not more than nominal ones.

v) Before dealing with the principle point raised by STANELCO in this part of the AFX, (namely their belief that they would have to pay no more than nominal damages), it is worth pointing out that that there is a distinction between evidence which is really only relevant to the quantum of damages and which arises only following the courts finding as to the main issue, from evidence which is relevant to that main issue and which should have been adduced during the original hearing of that issue.

The admission of the latter kind of evidence would require an application for leave of the court since it effectively amounts to a request of the court to reconsider its original decision as to its main finding. In short it would amount to an appeal to the same court to set aside all or part of its original finding. This would be quite extraordinary and whilst as I have previously stated this area of law is not my speciality, I would find it quite extraordinary to believe that such a procedure exists. But assuming it does, (again applying general principles), before granting such leave, the court would have to be satisfied that there was very good reason for not introducing such evidence during the main hearing.

I believe the above point is hypothetical, since STANELCO themselves have stated that their belief that such evidence would affect the amount of damages. The reason I dealt with it above was because,

a) STANELCO referred to their APPLICATION to admit further evidence, and such evidence relating purely to quantum of damages would not ( I believe), ordinarily have to be the subject of a special application for leave. having said that, I should point out that it would appear from AFX issued by BPRG that " At the end of the hearing, Stanelco indicated that it had commenced an application to request the Court to reconsider CERTAIN ASPECTS of the previous judgment. Stanelco was ordered to file its evidence within seven days."

b) STANELCO stated that such evidence "may result in a reconsideration of some of the judge's findings". This again is ambiguous and misleading, since it superficially implies that such evidence could result in "a reconsideration of some of the judge's findings" on the main issue. That is clearly not the case, because STANELCO go on to say that its effect would be on the amount of damages and nothing else.

vi) And that brings me back to the principle point conveyed in this part of STANELCOS AFX. This appears to be their own belief in the fact that the effect of such evidence would at worse reduce their damages to a nominal level.

I confess, that as a lawyer, I find their belief difficult to accept for the following reasons.

i) The order to pay damages, usually follows the courts main finding which was that "STANELCO had misused BPRGS confidential information"

ii) Evidence relevant to or having a bearing on the issue of damages, would ordinarily (though not necessarilly) have some bearing on the issue of costs. And we know that STANELCO have been ordered to pay more than nominal costs.

iii) "Yesterday, the Court made an Order for the commencement of the procedure for assessing the amount to be paid in damages by Stanelco to BioProgress for breach of confidence"

iv) It should not be forgotten or overlooked that as part of its main findings on the principle of breach of confidentiality that the "Court made various declarations ....(which)... made reference to BioProgress' SOLE entitlement to the MAIN claim and ALL except three subsidiary claims in the Master Patent." It also "clarified that BioProgress' entitlement to the main patent claims in the Master Patent conferred NO RIGHT upon Stanelco TO USE any of the (3) subsidiary processes WITHOUT the PERMISSION of BioProgress.

In summary the following appears quite clear to me:

1) That the courts judgement on the principale issue was completely in favour of BPRG.

2) That as a direct consequence even STANELCOS claimed victory as to the 3 subsidiary processes is an empty one because it cannot use them without permission of BPRG. This is partly why "Stanelco was ordered to disclose details of its foreign patent applications, so that ownership of all patents and patent applications in the Master Patent family can be dealt with at a further, final hearing in approximately 4-6 weeks time."

3) That pursuant to the courts judgement on the main issue of breach of confidentiality by Stanelco, they were ordered to pay costs with an immediate interim order for 180,000 within 2 weeks.

4) That pursuant to the same finding the court has made a further "order for the commencement of the procedure for assessing the amount to be paid in damages by Stanelco to BPRG for breach of confidence."

5) That Stanelco have been given leave to submit further evidence within 7 days the object of which is to persuade the court to "reconsider certain aspects of its decision", but the effect of which at best (in Stanelcos own rather "optimistic" opinion) is limited to affecting only the quantum of damages payable by them. My own opinion, (for what its worth) is that Stanelco have an uphill task, to put it mildly, bearing in mind the courts principal finding.

6) That ever since the original judgement, AFXs issued by Stanelco have at best been ambiguous and confusing, and at worse downright misleading. Indeed, this is why they even had to issue a further AFX withdrawing their erroneous allegation that BPRGs previous AFX was incorrect.

As a lawyer, I dont believe for one moment that any of the misleading AFXs were approved by Stanelcos lawyers.

This has been a rather long post, but I have taken the time and trouble to explain matters and have hopefully clarified certain issues of understandable concern to fellow BPRG shareholders. In my view there is NOTHING whatsoever to be concerned about. The judgement is very clear, and whats more, I believe that after all the hot air blown by Stanelco has dissipated, they will be ordered and will have to pay a rather hefty bill in damages to BPRG. I also dont believe for one moment that Stanelco are serious about appealing the courts main findings. The judgement is based primarily on fact and unless there is any point of law giving rise to an appeal the Court of Appeal will not interfere with a judges findings on facts.

Morning all,,lets hope for a slight bounce..

i didnt think i would be able to buy back at 102p last week, now i am wary of buying way below that price.

the sums quoted wrt damages seem paltry wrt market cap etc, so i think the old cliche "the market hates uncertainty " is strongly in force here.

superrod: No sums of money have been mentioned yet in respect of DAMAGES. The monies mentioned to date relate to Court costs. It does not take a genuis to work out that an award of costs to BPRG strongly suggests that this is a slam dunk case in favour of BPRG. The recent flurry of incorrect AFX news stories are not too surprising (I use Bloomberg/Reuters)...hence the need for STANELCO to clarify them. It just underlines the need to verify the source of the information. Once BPRG's legal beavers have had a look at STANELCO's Court submissions the damage claim can then be processed.

Re recent SP movements, I agree the mkt does not like uncertainty, but there isn't any and once punters catch up with the true situation the picture should change. I hope this clarifies events for you.

thanks

i should read news more carefully. still looking for an entry point.

A bit flat with posts here today ??