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

Interesting, from "the other place". someone claims the 41m was actually a buy, not a sell. Not sure either way personally, must admit it seemed strange that the sp didn't move much.

evening all. been ultra busy last few days so playing catch up .41 million shares?didnt ian balchin excersise some options in october selling roughly 41 million shares at 4p? who bought them? nice profit for whoever did? i found this quite interesting. why would cardinal continue to put money into ingel, seo's subsidiary that is directly affected by the court case.

Stanelco PLC

Re: InGel Technologies Limited

Stanelco plc, the RF (radio frequency) applications group, is pleased to
announce that it has agreed a modified deal with Cardinal Health in relation to
its investment in InGel Technologies Limited (InGel), the Stanelco subsidiary.
Cardinal Health will continue to invest further in InGel shares, in the near
term a sum of approximately 410,000, and depending upon certain criteria being
met within two years, a possible further investment of up to approximately
410,000. As a result of this transaction Cardinal's ownership in InGel would
increase in the near term from 5% to 7.6%, and if the further criteria are met,
to 10%.

Commenting, Ian Balchin, Chief Executive of Stanelco, said: 'This is good news
for Stanelco and we intend to apply the proceeds towards commercialising the
Company's RF sealing technology.

Stanelco's main focus at present is upon the commercialising of its RF
tray-lidding technology for food applications - which is completely unconnected
to the litigation with BioProgress. We have production trials commencing with
several large packhouses over then next few months and we look forward to the
results of these during the first quarter of 2005.'


why would a company like cardinal put more money into something that they might not be able to make use of if the final judgement goes against seo? anyways, going to bed now cos i am absolutely knackerd.

the 41m shares were sales but the market maker placed them immeidiately at 5p. My broker tried to buy some at 11:15am and the MM said they were already placed. As they were placed the price did not fall, but intresting to find out who the seller was? or were options taken up and sold?

If that was the case, then how come there was not another 41M trade reported?

Think you will find the answer in the trades reported ;)

Believe the result of cc is due today

Where did you get that from? I thought the companies would be written to (with no time scales give), I maybe wrong...

COURT 55
Before MR C FLOYD QC (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division)
Thursday, 9th December 2004
At 10 o'clock
Unrobed
For Judgment
PATENTS COURT
Application
Stanelo [sic] Fibre Optics Ltd v Bioprogress Technology Ltd

Let's hope it's a good one, would be good to get this out of the way before Christmas!

Time for the Director's to move on. They have a company to run and put some real value in my shares.

MS

Yep lets move on for Gods sake... Reading SEO RNS I think they are resigned to losing this but are having a great deal difficulty in admitting it, move on SEO...

LONDON (AFX) - BioProgress PLC said the UK Patents Court has rejected the attempt by Stanelco Fibre Optics Ltd to re-open the patent case, and has awarded the relevant legal costs to BioProgress.

However, Stanelco has been granted permission to appeal this latest decision but this will not hold up the process for assessing the damages to be paid to BioProgress' wholly owned subsidiary, BioProgress Technology Ltd.

In a statement, BioProgress said Stanelco must now comply with the court's previous order and disclose all material details relevant to the misuse of the information previously given to them in confidence by BioProgress.

These details will allow BioProgress to formulate its damages claim which will then be assessed by the court, it added.

In a separate statement, Stanelco's chief executive Ian Balchin said: 'There are a number of important issues yet to be resolved in this case including the extent of BioProgress's claim for damages and an application by Stanelco for leave to appeal the main judgement.

'We don't see this matter being finalised for a long time yet.'

Stanelco said it is focusing the majority of its efforts on

commercialising its food tray lidding technology in conjunction with strategic

partners and expects to be able to announce more on this in the near future.

"In a separate statement, Stanelco's chief executive Ian Balchin said: 'There are a number of important issues yet to be resolved in this case including the extent of BioProgress's claim for damages and an application by Stanelco for leave to appeal the main judgement.

'We don't see this matter being finalised for a long time yet.'"

sounds like a threat to me. maybe its a warning to bprg not to take the piss with its compensation claim or seo will drag this shit out for a long long time , doing neither company any good but to me it seems bprg need this sorted more than seo do. possibly a good buying opportunity as seos statement ends on a positive

"Stanelco said it is focusing the majority of its efforts on

commercialising its food tray lidding technology in conjunction with strategic

partners and expects to be able to announce more on this in the near future."

so more good news to come form our boys.

All thia is irrelevant. I notice that no one even mentioned the ingel deal with cardinal health. My brother pointed out to me that the investment represents over 10m by cardinal. Seo is showing great prospects and just winding bprg up. Its now just personal between them

I completely AGREE with you ///AS regards to the WINDFALL to BPRG I think that holders of bprg should NOT count on it/////

ssanebs. i did post the rns about ingel , with the question "why would cardinal continue to put money into ingel, seo's subsidiary that is directly affected by the court case?" nobody answered. if all was lost then cardinal's continued support does seems strange. anyways , back up today, so all's well that ends well........

I thought all SEO stock holders should read this post from JANUS on the BPRG thread.
............

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

That says it all. I got out last week thank goodness.

LOL

MS

You also hold in BPRG... I hold both and will continue to do so because I believe both will prove winners in the long term, SEO bounced back well on Friday and think this will continue, they have to realise that this is over and they should walk away now pay compensation (which I personally dont believe will be substantial)... Both have long term potential...

Another week, another wait and for what?
The CC to be completed asap please!!! and then the positive news flow from packaging trials that will drive this share forward.Q1 next year should be fun!!
To correct an earlier post, no future in packaging??? The whole point is this technology provides low cost solutions for reduced packaging.
Also interesting that BPRG folks start bantering again about loads of "Compo" and all funds from Cardinal being handed to BPRG and then Cardinal taking them over. "Clucking Bell"!!! Desperate for cash from SEO developed technology aren't they, some even think the packaging patent will be theirs!!! No chance.
Annoyed sp went down last week, just because I was out and couldn't top up at lower price, but will be waiting with my wallet for next exodus of headless chickens and buy again at low price.

Still holding and believe this has a good future regardless of cc.

Mickeyskint, if this does take off, I will change ny screenname to Andyloaded, if I'm wrong I will join you as Andyskint. Good Luck everyone.

I read the RNS from 16th July the other day and there are a couple of things in that that I think alot of people have missed and that is at the time they were already trialling with Anglo-Beef Processors and a "major retailer". You have to feel that something maybe very close on these if they were trialling the equipment 4 months ago! Here's hoping!