Please post Date, Time, Heading of any news released in any official format by Stanelco than you deem relevant to above proposed report.

Thanks in anticipation.

Greekman.

posted twice - 2nd removed

Is the FSA the correct body for any complaint? It isn't a financial service as such we are complining about. It is the misleading (maybe false) information put out in RNS's.

Isn't regulatory news put out to adhere to the rules of the Stock Exchange? If so wouldn't any complaint be made to them?

This from the Stock Exchange Rules -

'General conduct
Misleading acts, conduct and prohibited practices [3300]
G
3300
A member firm shall not, in respect of its on Exchange business:
3300.1 do any act or engage in any course of conduct which creates or is likely to create a false or misleading impression as to the market in, or the price or value of, any security;'

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/NR/rdonlyres/E715C337-8630-4D1C-A24F-7F5735C40AA7/0/RuleBook220307.pdf

Oblomov,

E Mail sent prior to reading this. I think you are right, will obviously find right authority to complain to. Good idea re you offer. I will do 2005/2007 if you can do 2006.
I have a solicitors firm on contact through a previous employers link (no charge re advice) so I will give them a call.

Greek

Greek, I'll do 2006.

Ta, I will keep in touch

Investment in SEO has been a bitter pill, but I feel there is more to this complaint than this thread shows - is it elsewhere for others to see?

SEO has been run by a bunch of duffers for so long they think it's the Norm - the latest fiasco being that their flagship product (starch boxes) was too expensive...er, isn't this one of the first questions ASDA would ask and any company asks of an inventor?
[Sure they can't know exactly the price as it depends on the process, World price for potato-peel and so on ]..... but to find out after years of development; it is a cringingly sad-ending for Execs ...who should repay their salaries as "Not Fit for Purpose."
yet, Being Incompetant isn't (yet) a crime - just what angle is this proposal taking?

Hi Hangon,

I agree being incompetent is not a crime. Shame, if it was SEO management would be the equal of any Mafia Family. ( Now who would be the Godfather).

But seriously, the way I am going is to look for misleading, statements.
Also at delays in publishing knowledge known to management.
For Example....Surely if a RNS is deemed requirement for a notification of a 12 months trial (greanseal/Asda) they can't go a total of 15 months without an RNS giving results or at least a reason why no results available.

If the first notice is SP sensitive then a second re result, or none result must also be SP sensitive.

greekman

If you request an investigation from FSA / LSE , it might help if you inform them that their findings may be used in a court of law.

Maybe a chat with your 'solicitors firm' as to how this 'may' help or hinder your request would be prudent.

Good Luck.

Patisear,

Thanks for the warning but if any legal action is taken it will be by the authoritive power (which I understand will be via the LSE).

Cheers Greek.

Greek - I've emailed you. Let me know if you dont get it.

Re: your post above on RNS's and SP sensitivity - that must apply to the letters of intent and contracts in the final stages of completion (at the time of the open offer) of which we heard no more.

Morning Oblomov,

Agree, that is one of the angles I am going for.

E-Mail received thanks (will still take me a couple of weeks my end) you must have been very busy last couple of days.
As you say some points stronger than others, with several points in my opinion, Very Strong with the rest as a sort of filling out.

Hope to break the back of it, so to speak this weekend.

A quick update.

I have almost finalized the report.

When completed I will compile a post that will contain all the references to those RNS releases I have used in the report contents.
I have already decided with advice to concentrate on certain time spans between releases such as the 12 month contract with Asda, and the first release that gave a hint to the progress (none progress) of the 12 month trial.
I will give facts but not opinions, except the reasons I will state to the appropriate authority why I am making the formal complaint.
The reason I will not repeat the opinions is that I am well aware of the laws of liable, and the fact that if the authorities decide to take any action, any opinions may if repeated in a public forum jeopardies any evidence presented by myself.

greekman
i sold a couple of weeks ago (had eneough) lies, untruths? good luck

Are you guys holders?
Surely if this report manages to do what you want it to then the shares will collapse yet further? Causing further loss of money?

Hi GD,

Yes I am a holder and I thought very hard before I decided to take action for the sole reason you have stated.
The dilemma was do I continue to allow the management to carry on keeping us in the dark, (we still have no idea why Greanseal failed, was it cost, weakness in the technology, problem with sales, a competitor, unable to deliver volume, or a mixture of all/some) or do I try to bring things to a head.
As a PI making the complaint I am sure if the market authorities decide that the complaint is worth looking into things will be kept well under wraps.
If an inquiry is launched and evidence is found of mismanagement then things will have reached such a stage that nothing will effect the sp as it will be too low to save.
After all how can it get much worse. Perhaps a cash shell buy out by a Private Equity group might even get a bottom line value increase.
I doubt if my effort to get to the bottom line of facts will get anywhere but someone must do something.
The institutions don't like complaining as the publicity that comes with the territory of buying into a bad sp, hurts them often more than the company they are complaining about.
Look at Banks/Building societies, if they are fraudulently misused they often try to keep things quiet. It's not good publicity.
Punters often complain that the market authorities have no backbone, but the more we push them to act, at least they have to respond one way or the other.
All I and I am sure others want is the answer to a very simple question.....What Went Wrong and Who was Responsible.
That's not a lot to ask.

I also thought about this and decided that any complaint would relate to the previous 'regime' and as such would be unlikely to affect the SP. If anything, it could improve it because the company would have to be more careful what it promised in the future if it thought it was under scrutiny officially.

Not that we have any reason to believe the current head has been anything but candid and open since he took over.

ok thanks for the replies.

Please see below a rough draft of my complaint re Stanelco to the London Stock Exchange.

Several posters have assisted me in my research for which I am grateful.
Some information is sensitive and I have given my word to these persons that I will not divulge any source or material without their express permission.
I have used some of this information to lead me in certain directions.

I will credit them on this thread for their valued assistance (username only).

I have limited my report to facts as I know them and although my report contains my viewpoints, I have not repeated them here as I am aware of the laws of liable.

In the many hours of research taken to formulate this report I have been continually hampered by the actual wordings of any news releases.

Innuendos are easily found if you look for them, but obviously I can only present the LSE with any repeated facts.
It will be up to the Regulating Authority, to consider if wordings in these releases were mis leading or not.
It is also for them to consider if any company has been negligent in releases or equally none release of sensitive news.

Please feel free to comment on the following contents baring the above in mind.

Subject.... Formal complaint re the management of Stanelco PLC (epic SEO), Listed on the London Stock Exchange.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to make a formal complaint against the management of the above listed company.

I consider that over the past 2 to 3 years (Opinion*************)

I feel that (Opinion************).

Continuing comments such as, Contracts in the process of being finalized, on the cusp of full commercialization, imminent have been used in many of the news releases.

The significant dates are 28.07.05 re Start date of exclusive trial period. Prior to this date all released were very upbeat. These upbeat releases continued from the 28.07.05 to the release dated 29.05.07.

This release (29.05.07) was the first giving a hint as to any problem 22 months after the 12 months trial period date concluded. Trial extensions were granted, release dated 10.08.06.

It is noted that following positive news releases from the company the Sp rose often significantly, followed by a steady decline at the lack of news as milestones, such as contract terms agreements dates were reached.

I consider that the company have not followed the London Stock Market rules in releasing all news within a reasonable time, that is deemed likely to effect the share price and in doing so have been selective in such releases.

On this date 16.06.07 the company are (opinion*********) re, What exactly were the reasons why Greenseal is what has obviously now been admitted a failure in it's present form.

Was it due to cost, weakness in the technology, problem with sales, a competitor, unable to deliver volume, or a mixture of all/some.
Depending why Greenseal was not taken up as presented would obviously effect the SP, to differing levels.
As a shareholders I feel Stanelco have an obligation to inform myself and the market of negative news with as much expediency as they have previously shown, when releasing positive news.


The following releases may assist you in this matter.

16.11.04.

States. Full scale commercial tray lidding trials with Asda, with a nominated supplier.
In addition an agreement to start commercial trials with another major food packing company.

23.12.04.

Update re trial with Asda. First trial commences.

01.03.05.

Update re trial with Asda. Now proceeding to actual use in product at manufacturing site. Asda product appearing on shelves from today. Asda are delighted.

24.03.05.

Signed 12 month contract with Asda, exclusive use of the application. The 12 months will commence from the first Monday following 2 week of further successful trials with 3 of Asda suppliers, expected to be in April.


10.05.05.

Update re Asda trials. No problems.


23.05.05.

Following extensive trials now entered into formal commercial agreement (Greenseal) dedicated Asda supplier.
The commercialization proceeding at an unusual fast pace.


22.06.05.

Update re trails with Asda. No problems.

29.06.05.

From Interim Results.

Chairman states. Enormous confidence in our technology.

Chief Executive states. We expect momentum to continue over the year ahead. Asda anticipates that several hundred machines will be adapted in the next 12 months.

28.07.05.

Update re Asda trials. Announce stability results of the 3rd and final commercial trial with 3rd supplier. The 12 months exclusive period now formally commences. Asda anticipate several hundred machine conversions.

30.08.05.

AGM.Business update. Commercial trials with Asda completed. Committed to several hundred machine conversions.

16.12.05.

Pre close update. Greenseal significant progress.

28.02.06

Significant strides forward in this time re Greenseal.
The message comes back from these companies is that we have the product ranges at the right price, engaging their attention at the highest level.

02.05.06

Greenseal and starpol. Both are on the cusp of full commercialization.
Stanelco is in the highest level negotiations, with some of the largest companies in the world.

We have a number of meetings in the US next week to finalize details regarding to vertical integration into their supply chain by establishing Micro Manufacturing Facilities.


17.08.06.

Letters of intent with two companies have been exchanged, and the company believes that these will lead to contracts in the short term.


08.09.06

Trading update.

Company continuing negotiations with the 2 parties with which it signed letters of intent and contracts are in the process of being finalized.

21.03.07.

Martin Wagner, Chief Exec,

Positive comments re the last 12 months.

Philip Lovegrove, Chief Exec,

We continue to be an active member of the Walmart Sustainable Value Network, and are developing close relationships with our fellow members. Two Starpol products are on Walmart shelves in the US with a third imminent.
As previously stated the time taken to to commercialize this technology and the ongoing hurdles have proved to be a major disappointment.

The trials continue.

My Comment. This appears to be the first official mention of a company official publiclly mentioning a disappointment in the process of commercialization.

29.05.07.

Trading Statement.

My Comment. This this trading statement is the first time a negative update has been issued re problems with Greenseal and several other products.

NOTE... The finished report will obviously be grammatically correct (with someones assistance) and hopefully read clearer.
At the moment I am suffering some kind of bug, so I am struggling somewhat, but I do not want to delay this report.

I'm a bit amazed here.

Investing in any company is inherently risky and every day you have 2 choices, to hold or to sell. There is always a time and a place to sell a holding. SEO has been going down for so long people should have been out long ago IMO.

On a legal footing, if there was anything to investigate, a body (FSA or whatever)would be doing so. For an RNS to paint a rosy picture is a given.

I have a certain amount of sympathy, but you cannot blame the company for your loss. It's that simple. You were the ones who held on and every time you find folk on a BB carrying heavy losses this always comes up. It's always somebody else's fault.

I'm afraid the fault is only ever to be laid at the door of the investor who put his/her money into the venture to begin with.

Al

Greek,

Personally I feel most of the points are unlikely to lead anywhere. On Greenseal, no promises were made on deals and it was actually ASDA who said they expected to convert several hundred machines - cant blame that on SEO. Things were generally hyped up, but no promises made.

However, the two points I feel could be justification for a complaint relate to:-

1) the MMF's - the letters of intent and contracts being finalised on which we heard nothing more!

2) The stated use of proceeds in the open offer document - i.e.

'Specifically, funds raised will be used for the following: - to ensure successful completion by either Biotec, or in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Venture Agreement, Stanelco of at least the first two manufacturing facilities in the USA, which will cost approximately 2.8m each, for the production of starch-based resins, including Starpol materials, developed by Biotec; '

The funds have not been put to the use for which they were raised from investors.

I would concentrate on that for starters.

Al,

The FSA or SE aren't going to investigate if no-one makes a complaint. I take your point about being responsible for holding on, but my complaint relates to the reasons why investors put more money into the company at the time of the open offer and has nothing to do with holding on.

I thought I was investing In two Micro Manufacturing plants in the U.S. for which the contracts were being finalised - thats what I put my money into. Where are they? It is the circumstances behind SEO saying they were building the plants, raising money on the strength of that but then not building them that I would like to see investigated.