Environ.Recycle Share Discussion Threads

[2jinxed] 10/4/2013 19:44

Relaxing.. I will respond to your post later, no I have not forgot nothing, just bidding my time, by the way, sold some more today at a hugh loss, but!!

EVERY DOG HAS IT'S DAY!! INCLUDING THE TIPSTER

[relaxing] 08/4/2013 19:08

Hi Jinxed,
I hated hearing about that Bedwas fiasco too. What you didn't mention though was even though ERT paid PA to take it off their hands (due to the liabilities attached), what was not made clear was the financial guarantee on the PIM line was not passed onto PA! ERT had to pay up some time after (a lot of money if I remember correctly) after PA walked away from it, presumably after realising he wasn't going to be commercially successful.
You and I have been around this share for a long time eh. I have now sold out completely after holding for something like 12 years. I did it a few months back and thought I was getting a criminally low price (averaging about 2p) but just lost confidence in the BOD to make a success of the business. Now the price I got looks good but I am not yet tempted back especially as the same old smoke and mirrors surround this company (e.g. the relation/governance over the US side, and I suspect some/much of this money to be raised will go to pay court costs that are likely to be awarded against ERT but this not made clear in the offer RNS, the fact that I doubt if the company could defend patent infringements to any degree especially if PA set up production over in Eastern Europe, etc.).
Wish I could have said adios to you in nicer circumstances but that's shares for you.

[2jinxed] 04/4/2013 20:15

And I thought my speling was bad?? good job am disleskick, we cant all be perfect!! you only need to look at KB, a prime exampile, you need him like A hemorroids and pickles sandwich!! the next day is fun.. so am told ??

I think this will go down like a tonn of merd, ( not sure) there will be, or could be, some RNS before you part with your dosh, to hood wink u into beleiving that every cloud has-not a silver linning.

all IMHO as always, imho don't touch it with a barge poll, but this of course could be the end of enrt, KB will, or could say I tried, but, you did not support me, crying now! yea yea yea yea
If you lot knew what I know and I don't know alot, but you would be horrified at thoes you thought were on your side, tipplessters for one, you know any ?? one day I will spill the beans on this lot, and who they it associate with,

the end is near on this!! unless of course you see big buys from now untill 2-3 weeks IMHO, 10 YEARS IS TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG TO LONG shame PA does not post here yea yea yea Bedwas you made a fistfull of dosh on that deal did you not ??

[cockneyrebel] 04/4/2013 19:21

What a complete sack of sh!te this co is.

CR

[rp] 04/4/2013 19:16

They will need to come up with some highly spectacular news if they are expecting me to throw good money after bad.

[2jinxed] 04/4/2013 11:35

Assuming one has the money to buy more, and the will to part with more of your money. No thanks! unless they release a nice RNS that they have this, that, and whatever..

[phoenixs] 03/4/2013 11:53

the new shares do qualify for EIS relief.

[2jinxed] 16/3/2013 19:51

BB long time. dare I ask a question or 2, what are your thoughts on ENRT, and given the accounts, but they are not accounts of 2K, but they are petty cash figures.

I just feel bail out now, and am very close to doing so, I just cannot see this turning around. and as for 2K if it does make it it will not happen until 2016 ish all IMHO of course.

2j and the we tow rag Damian he is now 17, bless.

[mark30] 10/3/2013 17:13

as always !

[monty panesar] 10/3/2013 16:28

The net conclusion of the court case is Protomax can't produce any product without a license from ENRT so while it will has cost both sides money you have to say ENRT were the real winners as they have protected their IP.

Obviously the lawyers were the biggest winners of all!

[mark30] 10/3/2013 16:24

oh, kinky !

[mrnakes] 10/3/2013 15:34

Both sides spinning their side of the story. So in these situations I always turn to Plastics and Rubber weekly

[gemstar2] 09/3/2013 11:02

All this is as clear as mud

[sandy foundation] 08/3/2013 16:55

Mirandaj,

I merely posted this information so that others could make up their own minds.

There is a link on their solicitors' website (Bird & Bird) to the full judgement. I don't believe ENRT chose to publicise this information, but I may be wrong.

Wary of your past readiness to delete/ban anyone who dares question the official line, I'll leave it at that. But your statement that "ERT... what they release by RNS has to be accurate" has me sorely tempted. Maybe a 'Premium Subscriber' might want to draw you up on this one?

Back to the wings. Good luck to all honest investors.

[mirandaj] 08/3/2013 16:27

Protomax/Upcycle/Stillwell, whichever hat Mr Stillwell is wearing, can post pretty much anything on the Protomax website as he/they want as are an unregulated business.

ERT, on the other hand, are regulated by the LSE and what they release by RNS has to be accurate. You might wish to bear that in mind.

[sandy foundation] 08/3/2013 12:49

Bird & Bird helps SME win major 'David and Goliath' patent case

05.02.13

Bird & Bird's London IP team has successfully represented small companies Upcycle Holdings and Protomax Plastics in their hard-fought patent rights battle with public limited company Environmental Recyling Technologies (ERT).

Somerset inventor Nick Stillwell, who owns Protomax Plastics, and his business partner Alfred Rodlsberger invented and patented a new process for moulding plastics, particularly waste plastic material. ERT sought to revoke the patent by starting proceedings in the UK High Court but Bird & Bird successfully secured the transfer of the case to the more appropriate Patents County Court. The Bird & Bird team, including partner Patrick Kelleher and associates Ewan Grist and Tasmina Goraya, then robustly defended the case via the PCC's streamlined procedure. In a judgment delivered on 5 February 2013, His Honour Judge Birss QC dismissed ERT's claim that the patent was invalid.
Speaking after the judgment, Mr Stillwell who likened the court's decision to David's victory over Goliath, said he welcomed the result which ended a long period of uncertainty affecting his ability to conduct his business on a day-to-day basis: "We were fortunate that Bird & Bird, who are usually only associated with companies the size of Microsoft, are interested in assisting more small companies through the PCC, and it is quite simply the fact that with a team like Bird & Bird on your side you can take on a much larger company on an even footing.
"From the moment Bird & Bird took control of our case we went from being on the back foot with the gun of litigation at our heads to confidently standing toe-to-toe with a plc. Being sued when you have done nothing wrong is stressful and confusing, and Bird & Bird stood with us and turned the case around from a possible defeat with huge costs liability, to a victory."
Patrick Kelleher commented: "It is particularly pleasing to represent a small company in litigation and to deal with an individual inventor like Nick Stillwell who has literally been losing sleep over this dispute. We often act for large multinationals in their global patent battles, and it's important not to forget that small and medium sized companies are the bedrock of the economy and that they too have IP rights which need to be protected and enforced. The Patents County court is a perfect venue for that and this result shows that Bird & Bird has the experience and the expertise to run PCC cases leanly, proportionately and highly effectively."

[sandy foundation] 08/3/2013 12:47

plc Cost Hearing - a word from the boss

ERT plc Cost Hearing - a word from the boss

8 March 2013

Just when we thought it was safe to get back in the water.....Contrary to their press release it seems ERT were not happy with the outcome of the trial and set about requesting an appeal. This u turn was pointed out by the defendant's lawyer who noted that under rule 397 of the FMSA which applies to a person who "makes a statement, promise or forecast which he knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular"

We have never understood why ERT were so intent to cause our small company as much damage as possible, perhaps they will be happy with the fact that we will only recover a portion of our costs. Perhaps by spending several hundred thousand pounds, and causing us to do so, they thought we would throw the towel in and win a pathetic victory. Fortunately our family and friends rallied and we won. The strange thing is that ERT could have made this easy and cheap by objecting to our patent at the UKIPO, rather than spending ridiculous sums in court, especially on, in their words, "a crazy solution to a non-existent problem." Their actions make no sense at all. If that is what they think of our system, then why worry about it?

In case anyone is confused by ERT's press release talking about their successful action, we beat ERT in the High Court, in the PCC and the EPO upheld our objection. ERT were not defending an action, they were bringing a revocation action, which they lost. ERT have never initiated any infringement action. ERT were refused permission to appeal.

The whole action has been a complete waste of time, money and energy. I suppose all we can take out of it is a cast iron patent that has stood the test of court.

Our position remains the same. We develop and build plastic processing machines. We concern ourselves with our own business and not that of others. We are not blind and can see that the ERT need a mechanized solution to their process, and believe their money would have been far better spent employing us to build one. Just to make it clear to ERT, we are not going to hand over our patent under the threat of litigation, but I guess they know this now.

I trust that ERT will now pay the costs and leave us alone.

For Clarity here are Judge Birss' comments from the Transcript, (the Claimant is ERT plc):

On Cost Order:

JUDGE BIRSS:

The essential order I will make is that the claimant pays the defendant's costs of these proceedings. That is the order I am making. That applies in this High Court and it applies in the PCC.

On Appeal:

JUDGE BIRSS: Dr. Lawrence, (ERT), I am afraid I am not going to give you permission to appeal. I am not satisfied that any of these grounds of disclosure have a prospect of success.

[bluebelle] 07/3/2013 16:53

Morning Hammy - hope all is well with you.

A fair, and, if I may say so, characteristically perceptive, point. I can't help but feel that it's the non-existent sales (and cash!) which is the greater worry here! (All IMHO and DYOR of course).

[teh hampster] 07/3/2013 16:44

Morning Bleu.

I thought crazy solutions to non-existent problems was teh basis of most AIM companies.