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.

A few of you are missing the point here ... a few quid extra in damages is hardly likely to shift the share price but a drawn out case could.

Definitely time to move on.

MS

18k? Is that it?

Always said this was a red herring. Not keen to be long of either of them to be honest.

Big Al: 18K for court costs and expenses. Damages to be assessed once Stanelco release the relevant paperwork. Bio will then have to present the figure to the court for approval, but you can expect it to be 'mega'! John

Will keep an eye on it as usual, John! ;-)

Sp being kept artificially low!! Wonder who parasite MMs are doing the favour for?

Get real.

Sorry that not fit in with your slant on things, tough!

No , I just think your talking boll*x.

DSTOREY - there was massive volume on the way down, whichj will need to be worked off before any rise can happen.

MM's run a balanced book by and large and to say it's being held down artificially is simply not the case. Everyone needs to understand the workings of the market to get the real picture and that isn't it, I'm afraid.

Al
;-)

Thats what I said :-)

You're far more succinct than me! ;-))

Interesting post on the SEO thread from the other place

sirjc - 11 Dec'04 - 02:55 - 15963 of 15976

Paulmasterson1:

The main legal issues have been dealt with. There only remains the damages issue and the remote posibility of an appeal.

On the damages issue I believe it is important to mention:

1.- As D J Hayton, LL.D. Barrister, Professor of Law, Kings College, London University, points out on page 579 of his book "Commentary And Cases on the Law of Trust and Equitable Remedies." 10th edition "The equitable right of confidentiality is stil in course of development." However it is common practice that once the confidant (SEO) is found to have consiously broken confidence from the interested party (BPRG) the court will grant an injuction and direct an account of profits, treating the confidant as a constructive trustee of the profits and the patents. Thus in my opinion the money that CAH has paid to SEO will be awarded to BPRG on top of the patent and the injuction. Peter Pan Manufacturing Co. v. Corsets Silhoute Ltd [1964] 1 W.L.R. 96; Att.-Gen v Guardian Newspapers (No. 2) [1988] 3 All E.R. 545; Nanus Asia Co. Inc. v Standard Chartered Bank [1990] Hong Kong L.R. 396; and many more. Therefore SEO will have to pay BPRGs cost plus whatever CAH has and will pay to SEO on top of other loses BPRG has suffered. Furthermore the amendment that SEO and CAH have made to their contract is now under BPRGs scrutiny. Why? because since SEO was duly notified of the Courts findings SEO is now a constructive trustee, hence Balchin better behave or he will find that the courts are not very nice to those who breach their fiduciary duties.

2.- It is my submission that the damages in this case will be high because the Court will take into account all relevant matters such as unfairness, the lack of clean hands from SEO and the way they have acted before and during the trial. Remember that the court has discretion and it can exercise it in the particular way it thinks fit. In this present case there is the issue of floodgates and the fact that this is an area of law in course of development, therefore the courts have to make it clear to everyone else that if you behave like SEO has, the punishment will be severe, nothing personal but the judiciary has the resposabilty of preventing this kind of conducts from proliferating to reduce the number of similar cases and protect the rule of law and good faith in business. Can you or anyone imagine what the corporate world would be like if most of the companies around behaved like SEO? It would be an absolute caos.

3.- The damages issue although interesting is not the main part for BPRG. The most significant issue was the protection of their IP and that has been obtained. Therefore It really does not matter what Balchin or you say what matters is what the law protects and what the court has found.


On the appeal issue:

I really do not understand why you or Balchin make a big deal out of this. I imagine is because you both have no legal trainning or legal experience at all, I will only say that usually most appeals are dealt with by a rehearing in which the appelate court rehears the case using transcripts. The appelate courts are reluctant to overule decisions on matters of fact. So unless there is a legal mistake commited in trial this is over, an appeal is extremely far fetched, especially if you take into account that the Judge is an experienced barrister who is considered by many in the legal profession as one of the best in his his field if not the best, be aware that not just anyone is able to be a Judge in an English Court, it takes many years of barrister experience and an excellent professional reputation and the Judge you and Balchin want to take to appeal is simply one of the best so there is virtually no chance that an appeal if any will be favorable to SEO. This is over, yes over. The only thing that SEO can win is time at the expense of loosing shareholder value by dilution, and directors credibility, and a weaker barganing position with Asda if they decide to proceed. I do not know what your holding is but if substantial I would advise you to have a more inquisitive attitude towards your CEO, but hey, that is your call not mine.


Finally

1.- The reason I posted my previous post here is because it seems that some SEO holders also hold or are interested in holding bprg, that is all.

2.- I wish no harm on SEO shareholders and I really think that the best for both companies and for CAH is that the later bids for BPRG so that SEO can concentrate on the tray side of its business and CAH keeps its market share and shareholders happy. After all I can see why CAH has been so desperate in supporting SEO but it is time for them to reconsider other options since the money they have paid to SEO is going to go to BPRG anyway and as BPRGs CEO mentioned in his iii interview on friday " it now turns out it is actually us that Cardinal needs to talk to."

3.- I am sure CAH is already considering its options and that it will be a long working weekend for some key employees and legal consultants.

4.- On the basis of the above mentioned I wish you the best of luck with your investments and all IMHO of course DYOR and I shall post again my previous opinion for the consideration of those who hold BPRG or are interested in holding it:

The 20 MA seems to be turning upwards and the sp has closed above it, although modestly. It is likely that 70 is now our support and 75 our resistance therefore 75-70= 5 hence 75 plus 5= 80 so in theory that will be the next resistance, which if reached and breached could mean that the 20 MA and the 50 MA make a golden cross at around 90. This usually means a higher high for the year. Another bullish indicator is that since the second bottom was at 65 or 10p more than our previous 55 bottom we have had a double bottom for the year that is higher than the first bottom. To this we have to add the fact that this time last year the sp was about the same before all the contracts and the CC results.

Furthermore the prior art argument was SEOs last resource and failed this week. This could result in a TO bid from CAH since they have more to lose than SEO and the CC has proven the strenght of BPRGs IP, thus making an aquisition very justifiable to CAHs shareholders. There are according to BPRGs CEO further contracts to be announced which are not yet in the sp due to the CC resolution that was pending and that now is behind.

It would seem reasonable that the predicted contracts begin to find their place in the sp.

To all the above we have to add that estrategically this is a good time for a TO bid.

Excellent post from sirjc.

By the way, and this is a general question to anyone following this thread, is there a suggestion that the inventive step for tray lidding developed by SEO is in fact a derivative of the main patent now clearly owned by BIO. If there is a possibility that this is the case, it may not be good to be a SEO stock holder.

To add balance to this discussion I hold both stocks.

johng - time will tell and a good question. I'm not sure I would want any money riding on the outcome of such speculation myself.

LOAD up chaps, BUY BUY BUY (I have topped up at 74p)

some big buys going in towards the end of the week

I am very confident BPRG will bounce back, soon

good luck all

Geeez , looks like the fight for Hilary's crown in 2005 has already started.

send him back to the other lot

Points

) I understand that a new contract has been won? (to be confirmed)

) The Colgate contract is in the bag

) The company is financially sound

) Compensation/damages on the way, BPRG can wait (ps I dont mean the 18,000)

BPRG's sp has always been heavily influenced by 'hype' and will continue to be in the future.

Great for day traders (if they get it right obv)

IMO

BPRG is still a winner in the longer term

As I said , I have topped up at 74p

Good luck all

ps I have also posted this on ADVFN

Big Al

You said a week or so ago this was a raders share. Well this share hardly in moved in at least 2 weeks or more. And trades are pretty low too. So who r the traders then?
It doesnt bother me as i'm happy to hold for at least 5 years. Be funny to see folks comments then when looking at this now.