Previously Crown Corp, CCO. Institutional interest now and the Co has changed it's name for a fresh beginning. Still very speculative, but what isn't? but just a case of investing the huge amount of Cash sitting in a Brazilian bank a/c. There's no real difference here to an emerging markets investment fund apart from the obvious and very attractive discount to NAV of approx 75% !!!!!

Hellooooooooo......Anybody in the house ?
It`s awful quiet in here. Still I`d rather that than the posters condeming all us holders to a watery grave. Anybody spoken to anybody in the know recently ? I have had more than enough time to decide how to spend all the money !!!!! :) Obe

This bb's not a main source of debate for LGB, suggest you look over on iii and ADVFN.

no thx. happt to keep on this BB....

drunk again......................

Buffin - 25 Oct'05 - 08:35 - 23097 of 23129

I asked Langbar, "Are you able to say why the Euroclear platform was used, rather than cash just being left with ABN Amro?"

Michael Padley has replied, "The Euroclear platform allows other authorised persons to see the deposit."

I don't fully understand this, but reproduce it fwiw.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

i understand this! if you look at the DTCC/NSCC platform website and search for 'langbar international' you will find an entry for Langbar from 24/8/5 (ring any bells) which is only accessible with a password that authorised people can use to verify the funds are there in ABN.

why would they do this? i'll tell you! we know they're using that cash for acquisitions, hence putting it on DTCC/Euroclear platform..

it's there alright in ABN, and it's on Eurclear so that target company advisors can check LGB have the funds in cash (earning 3.5%)

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Padley [mailtoichael.padley@bankside.com]
Sent: 25 October 2005 08:23
To:
Subject: RE: Good Morning Michael.

Dear Sir,

As stated at the time the monies were transfered and earn 3.5% interest and are subject to tax being paid.

Regards

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: 24 October 2005 08:23
To: 'Michael Padley'
Cc: 'langbarcapital@o2email.co.uk'
Subject: Good Morning Michael.
Importance: High

Good Morning Michael.

At a guess I reckon you probably have a couple of hundred emails to get through.

When you get around to this one, can I ask just a simple question.

When the percentage of monies were transferred via Euroclear, I was of the understanding that that money was now in a LGB account.
However, reading the Euroclear website, there are terms used such as "Maturity" date etc.

The simple question..
Is that money in an LGB account? (ie: Is it cleared funds which belong to LGB)
Or, is it still subject to delays, clearance, time delay etc or any other delay before it actually becomes LGB's.?

Andyeds,

Ok-can you explain that to a lay person who is well confused?!!!!!

Show me the money.....louder....SHOW ME THE MONEY ....louder....SHOW ME THE ***k*** money !!!! I`m not getting worried, honest :) Obe

monopoly money?

Has anyone asked and got a response for how long it'll take to get verification?

bugz,

i means that Padley (bankside) has confirmed the $294m cash was transferred to ABN Amro as stated in the RNS and the only reason it was put on Euroclear/NSCC is so other authorised people can validate the cash (ie, during an acquisition).

the money was never the problem, it was Rybak selling that caused the suspension.

now it looks like the property deal is the 'assets' being verified because this will affect/increase the NAV of LGB which will, in turn, affect the RAF deal because it's a paper deal not cash...

ok?

ps. there was no way that RAF shareholders could vote for a paper deal if they didn't know the value of it...

Thanks Andyeds for sharing the above e-mails

regards

"As stated at the time the monies were transfered and earn 3.5% interest and are subject to tax being paid."

What a crap answer.

Go ask him to try and withdraw it . Companies don't ask to be suspended just because one of the directors sell a stash.

This whole story stinks.

Cheers Andy

dil,

it's there, ask himself yourself sunshine, the only reason it was admitted to Euroclear/NSCC is 'so other authorised persons' could validate it.

Pearson will 'withdraw' a good chunk of it when the acquisition goes through.

if you want to believe there's money missing then that's up to you, the FACTS say otherwise. PLEASE ASK PADLEY!!!!!!

a post from me - copied here -

Brindy - the RNS states - verification of certain assets of the company - if is to verify - assets - plural - and assets of the company - at the date of suspension - so stop ramping property deal everyone - that was not and is not a company asset - it is a proposed deal - not an asset - and is not being verified - only the questionable assets are being verified to be real or not - this is BOB deposits - Euroclear deposits - are the bits of paper that back these up - really worth anything - and have cash at the end of the rainbow - presently - nobody can find the cash at the end of the rainbow - what assets do you think they are looking at Brindy - SPs office - the computers - A4 paper and pen stocks - its BOB and Euroclear - where is the cash that the paper says its worth -

The proposed - supposed - property deal - is hot air - and not an asset of the company - so it is not being verified - some dumb people around - if they think suspension is to verify the property deal -



Brindy - 25 Oct'05 - 18:11 - 23310 of 23428
The Company announces today that it has requested the suspension of trading in
its common shares of Euro 0.001 each in the capital of the Company with
immediate effect pending independent verification of CERTAIN of the assets of
the Company.
12 October 2005
It doesn't say they are checking the money in the bank in Holland.

a good post - by Erismeur - why are the annual returns - not submitted ????


Esrimeur - 25 Oct'05 - 21:43 - 23401 of 23428

Ah, yes, Kalingalinga.

That will be because the item referred to as "cash" by LGB has been variously described as:

Cash assets
Deposits
Investments
Monies
Cash

It is cash Jim, but not as we know it. Or rather it could be.

It could be cash, at one extreme (well not even that exactly, as even a current account requires physical withdrawal) or, at the other extreme it could be a bearer certificate of deposit no longer in the ownership of LGB.

One thing is abundantly clear and VERIFIABLE by anyone curious enough right now:

G S Pearson is no respecter of the law or the rights of others.

The annual return of Langbar Capital (USA) Limited is well over three months overdue, as a search of Companies House's register today will reveal.

Not only is this an offence, but it deprives those with a right to know what the return should contain of that right. This from a Chartered Accountant, whom I have seen described as unbelievably squeaky clean. Not only will several reminders already have been issued, but he runs the risk of disciplinary proceedings from the Institute. Is he bothered?

So what is it that prevents him fulfilling this routine task of delivery of the return?

After all, it is merely a snapshot of ownership (principally) on the "made up to" date.

Now he cannot change that retrospectively, can he? So why the delay, the breach of the legislsation and the risk-taking?

I got tired of the crap of speculation on this board so i emailed Stuart Pearson to ask some questions and received a response within the hour, here is his response which should put some minds at rest:

From: "Stuart Pearson" Add to Address Book

Subject: RE: To Mr Padley
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:15:52 +0100


Dear Sir



Capital Merchant Bank is a private bank looking after South American high net worth individuals businesses and private interests.



Langbar does not have a relationship with Capital Merchant Bank since the Promissory Note guaranteed by the Capital Merchant Bank was satisfied in May 2005, before the change in management at Langbar.



Shares were offered to acquire Real Affinity because approx 50% of the shareholders are key managers in Real Affinity itself and in a peoples business where the client relationships are the essence of the business, the board felt it was better to tie in these key people with shares in their parent company (duly locked in) than give them cash. It is part of the recovery programme at Real Affinity that includes the provision of long term motivation to the key personnel. The shares to be issued represent less than 2% of the enlarged share capital



The Board together with its advisers are working as hard as possible to re-list the shares; the Board are very conscious of the inconvenience this causes and are working as quickly as possible to rectify the situation.



G Stuart Pearson

Chief Executive

Langbar International Limited

thanks robstuff, it just goes to show that Pearson and Padley are quite happy to communicate, it's just a shame people like 'insiderinside' and 'erismeur' choose not to contact them, maybe they're just in denial because of the well documented large short positions they took out and will have to close.