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

Back from Bonny Scotland anyone that wants any stuff put on the Research Page post it here and I will transfer it.

Any comments on the buy of 27,764,721 shares @ 1.86p at 17:10 surely an RNS must follow this purchase.
Colin a long time holder and avid reader of this very informative thread

The 27m plus is I believe a sell and matches the one earlier this morning.

This is why the price is lower.

Someone has made a fast profit!

Hi Fred you could be right 1/2 a mill's a lot of dosh, it could be baza?

Just checked not a buy or a sell it's a

X trade Cross at the same price.

Driver, what is a X trade? could you explain please.

willing buyer/willing seller matched off market so no risk to broker who does it for an undisclosed fee (zero?) charged to one of them not in the price - e.g. a fund wants to sell its holding to a sister fund; a husband to a wife to balance their portfolios/tax situation etc.
at least, that's what I understrand. others can coorect me if I'm wrong.

Nice to see an upturn in the sp. May the board keep quiet whilst were heading in the right direction.

Back to Notifiable Holdings...

Irrespective of those Instittutions taking up the Firm Placing, there should be more RNSs following the Refunding because 3 of the holders listed in the Prospectus would now have dropped below 3% - even taking up their full entitlements.

Tony,
Unless they have purchased more via the open market.
As no RNS I think that is most likely.

greekman

For Fidelity perhaps but LR Nominees and TDWaterhouse Nominees were not their own shares but us PIs - and we were not able to partake in the Firm Placing.

As we all know, articles such as the 2 below are telling us nothing new,BUT they do show that it is not just continual pressure being put on the supermarkets, it shows that this pressure is intensifying. All parties know that the green issue is there to win customers (supermarkets) and votes (politicians).

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,,1947184,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

Too much packaging? Dump it at checkout, urges minister

Shoppers were urged yesterday to take direct action to force supermarkets to cut the excessive and wasteful packaging that goes direct from the shop shelf to the household bin. The environment minister Ben Bradshaw advised food shoppers to leave excessive wrapping at the tills and to report the stores to trading standards in an attempt to cut the amount of unnecessary plastic sent to landfill sites.

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/money/news/buisness/supermarkets-urged-cut-waste-$457569.htm

The government has warned the UK's supermarkets that they must do more to reduce the amount of waste that is generated from "unnecessary and excessive packaging".

Following a meeting with the country's top grocery chains today,local environment minister Ben Bradshaw said that while efforts by retailers to reduce waste were welcome, further action was needed to encourage consumers to follow their lead.

Tony,
Sorry but I don't understand what that has to do with the less than 3% issue.
Those that did take up the placing ( as you say not us PI's ) could have increased their holdings via a normal open market purchase, so even allowing for dilution could with the increase purchases remain plus 3%.
As I understand it shares held via nominee accounts do not have to declare their holdings amount. So no RNS required from either LR Nominees and TDWaterhouse Nominees accounts.

G
I assumed that those holdings listed were the total of all PIs shares under those brokers nominee 'umbrella' and not just a single investor. I didn't know that composite nominee holdings were outside the requirement. Thanks.

Tony,

I am almost 100% sure I am right, but if anyone knows different could they clarify, re the composite point.

If your own holding in a nominee account go above 3% or your total holding meant you became a majority holder then the RNS would be required.
I think my total holdings are around .00000000000003% of the total, so no worries there then.

Looks like UBS have offloaded a few (2,531,782 to be precise) from their UBS AG London Branch holding.

Curiously, this is exactly the same number already held and which continues to be held by their Global Asset Management Life fund.

Their total notifiable interest has changed by that magic positive integer, in this case, 4.something to 3.something - hence the alert.

Stanelco PLC
14 November 2006

Stanelco plc ('the Company')



Notifiable Interest



The Company was notified by a letter dated 13 November 2006 that UBS AG, acting
through its business group and legal entities detailed below, has an interest in
118,342,093 ordinary shares of 0.1p each in the Company. This represents a
total of 3.97 per cent. of the issued share capital of the Company.


UBS AG London Branch 115,810,311
UBS Global Asset Management Life Limited 2,531,782

TOTAL 118,342,093

With regard to rules on disclosure etc....

taken from: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp06_04.pdf

"the thresholds that are currently used in the UK under the CA1985, namely 3% and every percentage point above for material nterests, and 10% and every percentage point above for any interest"

"Under the CA1985, a shareholder must notify the company within two days following the day on which the obligation to notify arose. Under the Listing Rules, the listed company must then notify a RIS as soon as possible and not later than the end of the business day following receipt of the information"

CA1985 = Companies Act 1985

The above was taken from the "FSA Implementation Of The Transparency Directive.... March 2006"

So UBS moving from 4.07% to 3.97% breached the 4.0% line and hence triggered the RNS.

Gary. Thanks.

This isn't turning out to be the best day we have had in the last couple of weeks!!