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

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_coacivil.htm

Finally got a reply re Starpol and Lendel MFG which says that Stanelco and Lendel are not working together in any capacity. Lendel MFG Inc was developing a polyurethane foam material for the agricultural industry and called it Starpol, merely a coincidence. Lendel have since agreed to cease to use the name which is registered to Stanelco plc.

No court case can be " scheduled for a max. of 4 days", utter rubbish, the court -room may have been reserved for four consecutive days, that is a different matter.
You really must try to keep up with ` events`in the real world outwith bb`s.
The court case continues until it is resolved,

Can't be any love between these companies now, so I really don't see it beiing a case that leaves both equal.
If BPRG wins damages it will sour SEO's operation, IMHO. If it doesn't then one has to wonder a the morals of their customers - really would you want to deal with the loser? In this case it appears that BPRG was the "wronged" party...so if they "Lost" due to SEO dragging the case along slowly, it would have little effect on BPRG customes, unless it resulted in BPRG going bankrupt. The BPRG falling sp was not helping investors.
Not much longer to wait, then........but I can't see the winner being happy with a "Get Well Soon" card and a contribution to costs..........whoever wins will want compensation for this whole debacle.
My money's on BPRG (I hold).
All imho - dyor.

Does anyone remember when the 120 day period for an FDA ruling on Starpol expires ?

I think it was around 6th feb

The Starpol 2000 European announcement was made by RNS on 12th October 2005. It also mentioned at that time US approval for fruit and veg.

"Starpol 2000 has been fully approved for use in food contact applications for
all food categories throughout the European Union following analysis and testing
carried out by PIRA International (Packaging International Research
Association).

Food contact approval has also been granted for Starpol 2000 for all fruit and
vegetable categories in the USA, with tests continuing for contact with all
other food types to US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) standards."

So I guess mid Feb at the latest, assuming approval is granted.

BPRG sounds a good bet to me ` hangon`

Thanks.

A bit of old news - which I only found out about today. I had always assumed that there were no major institutional investors in SEO - which has always been one of my risk worries.

Apparantly, apart from the major shareholders (Age of reason - 23.5% and Richards & Appleby -7.35%), other shareholders includeSchroeders - 3.1 %, Framlingtin @ 2.5%, Flemmings at just under 1% and a host of other minor holdings held by the likes of Jupiter, M&G, Gartmore and AXA. Up to date as of today

Although not yet major holdings - it certainly eased one of my main concerns - and although the latter all hold less than 1% - and in some cases pretty paltry numbers - it does at least show it is on their radar.

No doubt someone will find a reason to knock the figures - but thought you may be interested amyway.

Hello Sequestor

Extra comment on the CC from a contact : apparently a case between two other companies has made it even more difficult for the SEO/BPRG case to be decided by the judiciary. That might seem to help SEO in that the dispute can lay fallow whilst the precedents in this area with other litigants are decided at the others' costs and time, leaving SEO's mgt to get on with commercialising their other IP, and coming back to getting a decision on their dispute with BPRG at a later date at a time when they need it decided.

Very interesting sharesure
thanks
lindos

Good luck Bos.

Many of the `Institutional Shareholders` are merely holding punters money in Nominee accounts, Sipps,Isas ,Peps and merely just `punts`, means nothing.

Final results mid-February.

Rumour is that the court have advised the two parties to settle between themselves. The whole thing is so complex it would take ages to sort out.
Also a dispute has arisen between two other companies which has muddied the waters of the whole legal area.

stateside

if the court case isn`t settled by the time the final results are out, the results will be conditional, as nobody will know what the settlement is between the two parties.No auditor will sanction the figures without putting a `coda` against them, not a good result.
BPRG know this, and will use it as a lever to force a settlement in their favour, have no doubt about that.Whether they (BPRG) do win or not, SEO is in for a bashing in Feb.
AIMOHO, DYOR!!!!

blinger

You are wrong about expecting a qualified Auditors Report because of outstanding litigation.

Look at Note 27 Contingent Liabilities (page 42) of SEO's Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ended 31 October 2004. This refers to the Chief Executive's Statement dated 28 February 2005 where (page 7) the court case situation was summarised.

Having digested that look at the Independent Auditors' Report dated 28 February 2005 (pages 19 & 21). No 'coda' as you expect. No qualification. No mention ! A clean report.

This situation has not altered to this day (although this may change in the coming hours). The Apeal is still before the Courts. There is no reason an Auditors Report would be any different this time round.

If you are not an investor in SEO (if so what are you doing here?) you may not have a copy of the Accounts. If so, you can find links to them via PM1's excellent Stanelco Research website. Want a link to this?

I hope your post arises from lack of basic knowledge/research rather than a desire to scaremonger and deramp. In your post you tell everyone to DYOR - but do you?

Tony,

I read your reference to post 14280 on the FYB site and you'd never guess, but I predicted with absolute accuracy who the culprit was!

I also noticed that a person with a similar attitude is conspicuous by his absence of late!

Never a dull moment with SEO, things always seems to take a wee bit longer than one anticipates, but as they say, "All good things..." etc...

Oh dear seems that tomy isn`t relaxed about SEO any more then?
Its all supposition dearie, and you walked straight into your own little trap full of love of the share i.e. "This situation has not altered to this day (although this may change in the coming hours)", indeed it might change, that is the whole point, and the accounts aren`t out yet, see the problem?
As to the rest of your pompose patronising post ( no change on that one), I have read the last accounts, they certainly were NOT gleened from a ramping web site published by a loonie (banned from all bb`s with sense)who said the share price would be 50, what a silly boy?
I am at the moment short SEO, oh and your use of the non-word "deramp" reveals the paucity of your knowlege of sophisticated investment, as to " scaremongering", read the post again with open eyes, a settlement would help BOTH companies.
Relax Tony, relax.

The most interesting part of the SEO/BPRG ( to me anyway) is the mood swings between the two shares exhibited by punters, an opportunity which one could almost classify as an "arbitrage" situation between the two.
As BPRG gains cudos SEO often falls and vice versa, nipping in and out short or long, on both at once is good fun, the court case rumours only help this.
Hence at the moment I am long BPRG short SEO, it may well change as the court case unfolds.
Hey but what do I know, reasearch must be left to the " in crowd".

lol!!!!