for more information about stanelco click on the links.

driver's research page link
http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=7681#lastread
website link
http://www.stanelco.co.uk/index.htm

Does anyone know how many days have been set aside for the court case by the bench?

4

Morning all.
No great convulsions in the sp this morning to explain the big deals late yesterday, so I'm gonna go for them being buys yesterday, which explains the sp moving upwards over the course of the day.
Alan

And just to make it interesting and add confusion, there goes 2 x million plus sells!!!
I give up!!!
Alan

But interestly - no movement in the sp !!!!!

Makes it look like the trades were linked, or at least the sells were known about when the buys went through, because the buys had little effect on the sp either!!
Curiouser and curiouser, to borrow from Alice.
Alan

MMMMmmmmmmmmmm to quote from my dad

Strange co-incidence. My dad used to love to dress up as Alice.

quite right exy` boy, not arguing that, problem is some people are less intuitive amd wordly than you and I ,and many of the remainder on bb`s are grasping parasites, using the office PC , pretending either to be ` experts` or just punters.
One day the law will change and the dozen or so who use hundreds of aliases will be prosecuted.
I have sprogs who are interested in trading, how do you explain fully to keen youngsters
that gangs operate on bb`s , that tipsters `tip and run`,that if they hint on a bb that a share may not rise to infinity they will be attacked by morons? its terribly corrupt.
Just a thought.

ps if the court report IS phony, that is extremely bad.

But Bling - it is not - go check for yourself

COURT 74
Before LORD JUSTICE WARD
LORD JUSTICE JACOB and
LORD JUSTICE WILSON
Tuesday, 17th January, 2006
At half-past 10
APPEALS
From The Chancery Division
Patents Court
FINAL DECISIONS
A3/2005/0824 Stanelco RF Technologies Ltd v Bioprogress Technology Ltd. Appeal of Claimant from the order of Mr Christopher Floyd QC, dated 9th December 2004, filed 15th April 2005. Part Heard.
A3/2005/0823 Stanelco RF Technologies Ltd v Bioprogress Technology Ltd. Appeal of Claimant from the order of Mr Christopher Floyd QC, dated 2nd November 2004, filed 15th April 2005. Part Heard.
A3/2005/0819 Stanelco RF Technologies Ltd v Bioprogress Technology Ltd. Appeal of Defendant from the order of Mr Christopher Floyd QC, dated 2nd November 2004, filed 15th April 2005. Part Heard.


Not sure if this has been posted but here it is anyway

It is phoney, it was hived from another site and edited to suit the posters needs.

Oh Shamona - go look for yourself - or post what you think is the correct version - no matter - the gist was pretty accurate

i don't understand why they can't reach an ooc settlement. makes a lot more sense than paying lawyers.

Remarkably quiet on here considering the sudden drop. Hope its only a tree shake with MM's looking for stock - but not sure how that works with a Sets stock - if it works at all.

Not sure even if it really exists!!!!

Chin up lads, win or lose, once its out of the way, the only way is up. For SEO & BPRG.

Jim - 100% agree with you - though I suspect agreement is still some 6 months down the line. Not sure that they will agree anything this week and as SEO are bound in my opinion to pick up some damages and of course costs - it is in their interest to delay things until they have more revenue coming through the door - so thgat it will not hurt as much.

bhunt, er yes I can read the High Court page too, unfortunately it doesn`t say what happened yesterday, where is the official version of the minutes you imply are extant?

Oh and take a look at the share price and volume to see the opinion of holders.