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

Nothing from/about ADSA on TV here - but I am in the former USSR! All the news here is about Georgia and trade reprisals. Bugger, going to a Georgian food restaurant tomorrow - if it is still open! And going to eat at OBLOMOV again later in the week!!!

I believe certain SEO products/technology will be on the shelves from 1st November. I am unclear (from here) what producls and if it is Asda or Wall*Mart shelves. We shall know in a fortnight - possibly a week.

Good penny's worth Garyble.

But if the LOI's were worthy of an RNS surely their demise should be treated with similar formality - not Sylvia's usual (these days) stonewall approach to Shareholder/Investors quite valid enquiries.

Tony,

The SEO spin re: LOIs would be, the intent is still there albeit SEO will now have to take on the resin production due to Biotec JV constraints.

If all is well, the announcement of the MMPs will be combined with a statement of the JV partners' commitment to use a quantified tonnage of resin.

Just a small point - you've had your share of me of late, but LOI's dont have to be unsigned! They show intent at the time they were written. They dont have to be followed up with letters of UNintent!

Quickly glanced Tony's post at first and saw the words 'bugger' and 'oblomov' - not as bad as it seemed on second reading!

Actually Oblo (we do seem to be disagreeing a fair bit) LOI are very specific and contain the major terms of the contract and the intent is based upon that old chesnut of specific performance of certain acts, and subject to the parties agreeing the minor conditions. To my knowledge if either party decides that the letters are no longer viable, due to performance, conditions or timescale they must notify the other party(s).
I asked a legal acquaintance what he thought about LOI and he told me they were very simple (usually) and were an agreement to contract subject to due diligence, and had, in the past, been held binding where a party to the letter pulled out without good reason. His words were they are a contract to contract as soon as the parties had satisfied themselves that their signature was both legal, and defensible to their shareholders, and this was the due diligence element.
True, either side can pull out for any number of reasons and the legal stuff he rattled on about was mostly un-understandable, but LOI being cancelled does have to be communicated.
Still no wiser though, and you still may be right.
Alan

Good to see some sensible and interesting debate on this board - unlike another one I wont mention.

Letters of Intent

Alan,
Your link puts it clear and simple, but in fuller explanation than my previous post.
Also like the reiteration of a time scale.

From my post....LOI's...Not dead as they were LOI's for the sole purpose of intending to sign future agreements (contracts) if certain conditions, also already agreed are met. It would be impossible in a business sense to sign an LIO not being fully aware of the aforesaid conditions.

Greekman,

SEO may have slipped up on the assumption they were free to licence the JV partners to produce resin with the MMPs, and as such could have been a key element of the LOIs.

It is also possible that a work-around would be SEO take on 100% responsibility for the MMPs and still retain commitment from the JV partners and therefore LOIs still valid.

Simply put, we do not know the details of the LOIs.

Not giving SEO the benefit of the doubt, as they have been very long on promises. I reckon, including this fund raising, they'd have tapped us for a total of 36m over the past 2.5 years....not a bad earner! Time to produce the goods I'd say.

I get the feeling that quite a few of us have been far too forgiving, especially as SEO have not been fair with us with regard to unambiguous news releases...LOI situation a prime example, as well as the GS "commercialisation".

Alan,

I dont think were so much disagreeing as attempting to arrive at the truth via different routes!

I note your post above relates to a US case and sets out US law and I assume the agreement would have to be covered by US law.

Reading a little from other sources about LOIs, it seems that a time limit is usually included and the intent can lapse when the limit is reached - no notice from either party being necessary.

Commitment to a Time Line: An LOI will set forth a time line for negotiations, including a deadline for closing the deal and what will occur if the parties fail to meet the deadline.

Link here:

http://www.coollawyer.com/webfront/internet_law_library/articles/law_library_letter_of_intent_article.php


There are binding and non-binding items - we dont know the balance of those in SEOs LOIs, but it says here LOIs are typically non-binding, except for certain limited terms such as confidentiality, exclusivity, and allocation of costs and expenses. As the Southern District of New Yorks recent decision in Beekman Investment Partners, L.P. v. '
Link here: http://www.reedsmith.com/library/search_library.cfm?FaArea1=CustomWidgets.content_view_1&cit_id=8047


However, even well drafted letters of this kind (the ones that we produce!) can be very difficult to construe if a dispute arises later on. They are to be avoided if at all possible'
Link here:
http://www.collyerbristow.com/Default.aspx?sID=88&cID=278&ctID=43&lID=0



Final word from a Barrister, from link below, But please don't give up the endless letters of intent. They keep many happy families well-clothed and snug in these winter months. Clothed in wigs and gowns, of course.


http://www.tonybingham.co.uk/column/1999/19991203.htm

I chose the yank ones because I believe the LOI are with yank companys. Again, no evidence I can quote on here to support that.
I feel confident, I really do, but each to make his own decision, on his own research. I understand garys take on being cynical, and he echoes much of what i feel, but I feel happy with my holding once more, and look forward, as Tony says, to an interesting end to October and start to November.
We done well though, oblo. Views aired, facts found, disagreements(?) published and we are yet to call each other names!! Collectable.
Alan

alan, do you have any further info that makes you more comfortable?

Nothing I haven't already put on here.
In summary, Asda are committed. Wal-Mart want it. There are a minimum of 2 MMU's waiting to happen (according to SEO). Serious money men are happy to put 12 million into a company on the verge of bankruptcy and with no firm orders. French investment funds and miners pension funds are buying up stock at a higher price that I can buy for now and next week. If you do the sums, very few Starpol contracts equates to a much higher SP than now, and that has not even started on GS and all the other stuff that may come.
The downside?? None of this is getting confirmed by SEO and we are all fed up to the teeth of over promising from the management. SEO have no money left and there is an EGM next week.
Strangely, we all complain about SEO promises, yet when they shut up and say nowt, we complain even more!! What would we do if they published the details of the contracts and then they failed to finalise them??? We would crucify them, yet we moan when they refuse to give us details.
I don't feel sorry for them, they have brought this on themselves, but they are in a no win situation these days regarding offering news.
DYOR, as always, and SEO are still a gamble, though IMHO, the upside is as great as ever and the downside appears to be diminishing. After all, those putting up all that cash are not going to let it go bust if at all possible.
Alan

Keep on talking guys - the sp has just popped up - maybe you can talk it up some more !!

Alan, at the risk of again attempting to arrive at the truth via a different route to your goodself, might I say we wouldn't need to ask SEO for details if it weren't for the fact that everything they put out is ambiguous and as clear as mud!

My response from SEO was exactly the same as Alans - despite the fact that I pointed out that their last statement specifically mentioned that contracts were under discussion and LOI's were in place. They would not even confirm that the original statement was still true/current !

The news must be so massive that they are scared to even open the door a crack !

A flurry of purchases just in ??

Bhunt,
In the event that the original statement is still true/current there is no requirement to confirm it, so SEO having in the past inundated us with needless news releases, are imho confirming it by not confirming it, if you follow me (by their silence).
If anything had changed, that is surely when they would have to put out a release.
No news is very frustrating, but thats how I read it.

Greekman - I agree with your logic - so why would they not confirm that there had been no change in the publicly stated position when I asked them?