Sharesmagazine
 Home   Log In   Register   Our Services   My Account   Contact   Help 
 Stockwatch   Level 2   Portfolio   Charts   Share Price   Awards   Market Scan   Videos   Broker Notes   Director Deals   Traders' Room 
 Funds   Trades   Terminal   Alerts   Heatmaps   News   Indices   Forward Diary   Forex Prices   Shares Magazine   Investors' Room 
 CFDs   Shares   SIPPs   ISAs   Forex   ETFs   Comparison Tables   Spread Betting 
You are NOT currently logged in
 
Register now or login to post to this thread.

Info required for report to FSA re Stanelco (SEO)     

greekman - 07 Jun 2007 07:28

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.

Oilywag - 07 Jun 2007 08:32 - 2 of 101

greekman

I have some info to send to you via e-mail which I hope yuo in your task. Will do this later today.

The oily onw

greekman - 07 Jun 2007 08:40 - 3 of 101

Oily,

Thanks, look forward to it.

Greek.

oblomov - 07 Jun 2007 08:45 - 4 of 101


greek,

if you need any help doing this please let me know - I'm happy to join forces.

I'll send you my personal email address and would appreciate it if you let me know what you have so far, or maybe we could split the work - e.g. you do the 2005 RNS's and I'll do the 2006? Whatever you think may ease the burden on you.

When we come up with something I would have thought the best impact would be for individual complaints to be made, sharing the core list of complaints.

oblomov - 07 Jun 2007 08:45 - 5 of 101

posted twice - 2nd removed

oblomov - 07 Jun 2007 09:26 - 6 of 101



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

greekman - 07 Jun 2007 13:43 - 7 of 101

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

oblomov - 07 Jun 2007 13:52 - 8 of 101


Greek, I'll do 2006.

greekman - 07 Jun 2007 14:10 - 9 of 101

Ta, I will keep in touch

hangon - 07 Jun 2007 14:34 - 10 of 101

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?

greekman - 07 Jun 2007 17:27 - 11 of 101

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.

PATISEAR - 07 Jun 2007 17:49 - 12 of 101

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.

greekman - 07 Jun 2007 18:03 - 13 of 101

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.

oblomov - 07 Jun 2007 23:13 - 14 of 101


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.

greekman - 08 Jun 2007 07:48 - 15 of 101

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.

greekman - 11 Jun 2007 18:48 - 16 of 101

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.

automatic - 11 Jun 2007 20:39 - 17 of 101

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

G D Potts - 12 Jun 2007 11:43 - 18 of 101

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?

greekman - 12 Jun 2007 19:11 - 19 of 101

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.

oblomov - 13 Jun 2007 14:39 - 20 of 101


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.

G D Potts - 13 Jun 2007 17:58 - 21 of 101

ok thanks for the replies.
Register now or login to post to this thread.