Member Info for Feeks

Https://inside-sustainability.com/zotefoams/

Zotefoams, in partnership with Refresco, expects to conduct in-market trials of ReZorce for a major European retailer in the coming months, as a precursor to full commercialisation.

Neil Court-Johnston, President of Zotefoams’ MuCell Extrusion business unit, said:

“ Our team’s mission has been to develop a more sustainable, circular beverage carton as an alternative to the existing composite material and we are absolutely delighted that the judges of the German Packaging Award have recognised this.

“Achieving circularity – where products are recycled back into the same or similar items – is key to the sustainability of consumer packaging and we have been able to demonstrate that this is achievable at scale with ReZorce.”

The German Packaging Award is an international, cross-industry and cross-material competition and widely hailed one of the top awards of the packaging industry.

Every year, the German Packaging Institute (dvi) honours innovative and creative packaging ideas, via a jury of experts from business, research, education and the media. The award ceremony and announcement of the Gold Award winners will take place at Fachpack on 24 September 2024.

Hxxps://zote.info/4dJ5mJ9

Zotefoams’ ReZorce® Circular Packaging beverage carton wins prestigious German Packaging Award

14 Aug 2024

The judges described ReZorce fully recyclable HDPE mono-material barrier packaging range as a ‘sustainable alternative to beverage cartons.’

Beverage cartons produced from Zotefoams’ innovative ReZorce barrier material have been named a winner in the Sustainability (Overall Concept) category of the highly regarded German Packaging Award.

Announcing their decision, the judges said: “The packaging is made of mono-material HDPE. A patented technology enables a layer to be created during extrusion, which provides barrier properties that can even allow the use of 30-70% mechanically recycled HDPE. ReZorce has been proven to reduce environmental impacts such as water and energy consumption by around 50% compared to conventional composite beverage cartons. This makes this new packaging worthy of an award in the area of sustainability.”

Oliver Berndt, Head of Organisation of the German Packaging Award, reports: “We see that the traditional core functions of packaging are constantly being innovated and improved. At the same time, added value is created and new functions are added. This always happens with the customer’s requirements in mind and with remarkable gains in efficiency, safety, ecology, value for money, branding and convenience.”

The news comes in the same week that ReZorce is shortlisted in the Product Innovation Award category at the Reuters Sustainability Awards 2024, the winners of which will be announced at a ceremony in London on 1 October.

ReZorce beverage cartons, currently the subject of a Joint Development Agreement between Zotefoams and Refresco, perform the same as, or better than, standard composite liquid packaging board cartons, with the added distinction of delivering a significantly lower environmental impact.

The judges described ReZorce fully recyclable HDPE mono-material barrier packaging range as a ‘sustainable alternative to beverage cartons.’

Announcing their decision, the judges said: “The packaging is made of mono-material HDPE. A patented technology enables a layer to be created during extrusion, which provides barrier properties that can even allow the use of 30-70% mechanically recycled HDPE. ReZorce has been proven to reduce environmental impacts such as water and energy consumption by around 50% compared to conventional composite beverage cartons. This makes this new packaging worthy of an award in the area of sustainability.”

To ensure a straightforward transition for retailers, brand owners, manufacturers and consumers, it is compatible with all existing infrastructure in packaging technology, waste collection and sorting. Further, its patented multi-layer structure enables recycled plastic to be incorporated within its core, in line with targets set out in the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulations (EU PPWR).

Zotefo

Link to judgment

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/665f5d41445ee2217bfa4448?utm_source=amp&target=amp_jtext

LOL that old NigWit post is a classic.

BTW read para. 14. LOAM was impressed by Hamoodi's superior knowledge and yet he too got it so badly wrong? The explanation for that lies in his grounds of claim.

I suggest we all keep a close monitor of progress on

this case.

Https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AwdE4xAf6xY

@37:59 to 39:12.

Nanoco's publicly stated policy on only commenting on the"MATERIAL RISKS" to the litigation outcome.

According to the Hamoodi judgment it is the claimant's case (para 29(a)(ii)(iii)) that already by June 2022 the company was having doubts about the strength of its expert evidence at trial and was prepared to accept a lower offer than it had indicated to the market.

That would, if proven, indicate retail investors have been misled.

The company could have retained a 10-year cash runway whilst also distributing a bumper special dividend to loyal shareholders vastly in excess of what it has done if only it had remained faithful to its publicly stated litigation strategy (and to its retail shareholders!!).

Incidentally, having now for the first time listened to the EGM broadcast at the time of the boardroom shake up proposed by Hamoodi, the main reason for not changing was the risk to the current business and lack of PLC boardroom experience of the challengers. I am not sure what experience would have been required given there is no actual business. It remains a R&D lab company.

Let's see whether Hamoodi is proven right about insiders having traded on privileged information

There is there nothing about long nonsense posts. You must be a relieved man, Terry!

Terry you are behaving like someone who has been fed the company line. There is no question the public statements on value, and settlement value in particulary, were grossly inflated and misleading. You said one legal judgment changed the Board's attitude to risk and value. But Nanoco did not inform the market of this change, and the initial settlement RNS was so poor they had to reissue it, but when they did they left a message that was unclear and open to differing interpretations given BT's over inflated pronouncements on value and publicly stated preconditions to a settlement. You cannot answer that.

NGR , no BT pinned the grounds for settlement on the specific factors I've mentioned, and by reference to significant shareholder value and transformational outcomes. Even at the lower end of forecasts.

NGR I relied on the company to issue correct statements and to create a level playing field for investors.

No sensible claimant settles litigation on terms that are equivalent to defeat. Litigants have a free choice BUT in this case Nanoco aired its laundry in public as to what aspect of the case it would choose to report on, and as I've pointed out below, BT said the company would notify the market on matters which affected its view of risk and fair value. Evidently it failed to do so!

"That "benchmark" was based on a historical contract with Apple for a handset that was subsequently cancelled. Until it's replaced with a supply contract that is of similar potential it's not relevant."

BT and the Board did not agree with you.

NGR you keep missing the point. You are either a xcompany stooge or too simple for me to other arguing with, but this exchange does at least help to show others reading this board why BT and Nanoco are in such a weak position.

I shall say it again:

SETTLEMENT = a beneficial litigation outcome. If you don't believe me have a close look at a litigation finding agreement.

NGR - I don't have to take my advice from you as I have a much better source!

Nanoco's PREFERRED outcome, i.e. agreement to Samsung's offer of settlement was CONDITIONAL upon the aforementioned FAIR VALUE. What persuaded Nannoco to settle for a result that was, in share price terms, equivalent to defeat. It was because the public messaging was askew and NOT corrected, and only retail investors were left in the dark. That much will be even more obvious to a court if Hamoodi is successful in his pursuit of LOAM.

NGR read my words:

".... in the context of the company's own pronouncements on litigation value."

You seem desperate this morning. No doubt the 50-55p benchmark has you worried.

$150m IS an insignificant sum in the context of the company's own pronouncements on litigation value - that is precisely why the share price crashed. The size of the final award was akin to Nanoco having LOST the case, when they didn't. It was not a punt at the point the case was effectively settled on terms that were deemed by the Nanoco board to represent FAIR VALUE for its GLOBAL PATENTS BOTH PAST AND FUTURE. Both parties agreed to settle, rather than risk losing, and yet Nanoco had indicated to the market that they would only SETTLE on terms that they considered to be"fair value" for a global market bigger than the US litigation.

I don't think I have ever seen anyone before now quote BT's comment on the 50-55p benchmark value. That's base value for valuing a beneficial outcome to the litigation.

Retail investors have lost money and you lot defending the company have no answer to this.

@1:02.15

There's your benchmarlk -

BT values Nanoco at 50-55p or bigger from an organic point of view WITHOUT a successful litigatiion result

ttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BDWwHZFFWFY