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% !!!!!

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.

ALL,

insider-outside is a total W@NKER ! he gets a kick out of de-ramping and spreading lies to scare-monger investors. See for yourself by visiting the SEO BB's on AD_FN..his got his own de-ramping thread.

Total T@sser ! hope he really gets fried when the shares start trading again

I don't think it's going to be long now and the shares when trading begins will almost certainly go thro the roof if everything's as previously reported, it's stirrring a lot of interest.

not for another 4 weeks

katcenka

?????

Please elaborate

regards

no-one knows how long this extension is going to be because Padley/Pearson don't know themselves.

hopefully it'll be nearer 4weeks than 1 which would mean there is more chance of full property valuation from DTZ and other bolt-on acquisitions being announced at same time...

http://www.redmayne.co.uk/about_us/hitchin.htm

Redmayne Bentley Stockbrokers recent consultation with Pearson, sums it all up and i believe it is Pearsons way of keeping small investors at ease and a warning to ignore the vast majority of bulletin board comments.

Enjoy!!!!

Andyeds, yes indeed! Many thanks for that.

Ditto BOOBOO

Thanks Andyeds. Must admit to going through a larger than normal change of underwear on this one but that does help to ease concerns.....I hope Christmas comes early. Many thanks for the post. Obe

very strong rumours from 3 seperate sources that we will get an RNS late this week/early next week.

i trust these sources but cannot guarantee 100% obviously...