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

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!

I hate to think this is a jam tomorrow company but the fact that I hold a few even worries me.

Tipton...You should only be unhappy that you own a few...Buy some more and you will be happier.

Why do AdieH and others beleive that the compensation sum will be small. I suspect it will be less if they agree out of court. The suggestion injohngtudor's post is that the judge could make an example of SEO. Balanced opinion please!

Eric

I have always held the belief that share buying should be investing, imho this share is a pure gamble whilst the court action with BPRG continues. This management continue to disregard the fact that they have lost this battle and will fritter away shareholders funds in vain attempts to keep their jobs. The shareholders need to make their feelings known to management that they are not prepared to stand by and watch the value of their company destroyed in futile attempts by these people to waste more of their money.

Sheny24, I agree this could have been handled better, but if the packaging materialises no holder will care a jot.
Tipton11, I am no rich man, just trying to get richer with the few grand I can afford to risk and I am happy as the jam is on the knife ready for the bread!! I will buy again when the sell on panic inevitably happens.
I have always said to my friends, I could lose a few quid on this one or be a very happy man over the next few years. When the cc is finally over it will be the best buying opportunity ever if the sellers panic.

hi ANDY,, i agree with your point the company has got the tray lidding technology to continue in a very profitable business. However the point i am trying to make is, that if they continue to fight this court case with BPRG they are putting your company in jeopardy. If the court were to award substantial damages to BPRG , SEO might find it difficult to find that amount of cash. They may be then forced to mortgage any future revenue or even part of SEO to meet those requirements. IMHO this judge is no fool and has i suspect a far better understanding of events than the stubborn and posturing MR BALCHIN , he, BALCHIN , that is, seems intent on continuing this ruinous strategy with little or no regard for where it is taking SEO and more importantly its shareholders. As a potential investor in SEO i would certainly want to see a completely NEW MANAGEMENT at the helm and so i suspect would the companies who are trialling the traylidding technology, after all they need to know that the company SEO will have adequate financial resources to continue in business. Also since the latest court ruling they SEO surely must have a legal duty to conserve what financial resources....if any or they may find themselves in contempt of court.They IMO have been sailing close to the wind ..of late and i don't believe this judge will allow them any more rope ....that is however unless they want to hang themselves....BEST OF LUCK S30

Totally agree that the company should accept verdict and get on with other technology.

I said I thought the compensation would be small based on the revenue SEO have so far got from using this patent (minimal) as I understand it the case was based on the use of patents that BPRG claimed were wholly theirs to use and develop.

This is not a criminal case as far as I am aware so the compensation should based on revenues or future potential revenue (BPRG will have the advantage of taking these already signed contracts anyway). I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, I am no lawyer).

The general consensus here seems to be walk away now pay the compensation before the board does serious damage to the future of this potentially very profitable company... I am a share holder in both BPRG and SEO so I want to see both companies profitable.

Regards AdieH.

evening all. to start, there really isnt any point in trying to guess one way or the other how much bprg will claim in damages. nobody knows for sure. its just a case of lets wait and see. next point i wish to make is , back off the board . its this board that has developed seo into this point. this board that asda , reckitt beckinser, grampian and other companies wish to do deals with . are they really such imbecilles? sheny24,you wish to see new management BEFORE you invest? how much research have you done on seo? yes, this whole case with bprg could have been handled better, but this current board has done very well to develope the the technology to take seo into a very profitable future.companies like asda or reckitt would not do business unless they felt balchin and the rest could deliver . imo the judge has basically said he wants this sorted out quickly. bprg are going to submit a claim now that they have access to all material facts concerning the confidentiality claim. he also said seo can appeal.to me this says that bprg's claim has to be reasonable or seo will drag this thing on and on. that would suit nobody but i think bprg would be more affected by it than seo . i dont think an out of court settlement is likely as they had a chance before hte september court case and bprg declined then .

nice 10% rise today. is something brewing ? seems to be holding well and showing ocassional rises and strength , even when its bad news. would like to see what it does now when some good news is announced.

bosley

also some regular 500k trades, looks like someone is accumalating.....imo

looking that way, dibbles, price is holding up well. looks like the bad news really is already in the share price.an announcement was promised in the near future ,so all we can do is sit and wait .........

hope this wasnt the promised announcement. its good news but i was hoping for something a little bigger than "trials are going ok"

Stanelco PLC

Tray-lidding Trial Update

Stanelco is pleased to announce that the first trial for Asda commenced last
week at a dedicated Asda packing site. This is the first of many trials for
Asda, the rest of which will be commencing early in the New Year.

Tony Ruane of Asda commented:

'The first trial is progressing satisfactorily and I anticipate encouraging
progress in the New Year on several fronts.'

In addition to this trial the other previously announced trials will be
commencing in early January 2005. These have been scheduled at this time so as
not to disrupt production during the busiest production period of the year.

still, its positive and at this time positive is better than nowt.price seems steady , another good thing.

'The first trial is progressing satisfactorily and I anticipate encouraging
progress in the New Year on several fronts.'

Several fronts sounds like several trials with several(a few) companies to me?
Any thoughts?

wilbs