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% !!!!!

No, just said that they were progressing the matter as quickly as they could.

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/article326879.ece

Hi akel44
A recent write-up it might be, but it doesn`t say anymore than anybody already knows from the start of the suspension. I hope this isn`t the first time the Independent have caught up with this or someone in the business section should be linched ! Lets just wait and see. Obe

i hope it all turns out for the good.

It better turn out for the good akel44
As a small time private investor who was hoping to make this a profitable hobby / living, this will set me back a long way. I`ve got 10k tied up in these, that money is borrowed money, thankfully on a really low interest rate.
I know the saying is "don`t gamble what you can`t afford", but I have and I really would like a ******* update on this. After all, Christmas is coming !
Hope you`re in a better situation than me on these. Obe

Hi robstuff

Have you had any more contact with Mr Pearson or heard anything new on the grape vine ? Would be grateful for an update if you have one. Obe

Copied from iii

From iii

12:31 Why did Rybak sell? fileyep

The current suspension is basically due to the questions and doubts raised as a result of Rybak selling shares at the begining of October. The suggestion by many (shorters) is that he knew something that the rest of us didn't and was therefore dumping his shares while he could. People have suggested that 'the money isn't there' amongst other things, all of it speculation. The fact remains though that Rybak was selling shares and he hasn't told us why. Prior to selling he had c. 38,000,000 shares (c. 22% of the total shares in issue), and he now has just under 20%. Now, if he knew something really bad that we didn't, then he might want to sell as many of his shares as possible for as much as he could get. But if this is what he wanted to do then the best way to do this would be very quietly and discretely without anyone noticing, not by selling dribs and drabs of shares while the company is in an offer pepriod and he will have to make his sales public via RNS.

According to previous RNSs, the NAV of the shares is 2.05 so his 38million shares should be worth up to 76m in his mind. Yet following the RNS announcing the transfer of cash to Amsterdam, the shares spiked at less than 1, doubts were raised about the funds still remaining in Brazil and shorters scented an opportunity. When the RAF takeover was announced with the interims at the end of September, the company entered an offer period and was thus less able to defend itself against shorters by issuing positive RNSs. This was the green light for the shorters and they went into overdrive. The share price went into freefall as a result. In the meantime Pearson had been going round the City making presentations and had successfuly begun to get institiutions to buy into the shares. Rybak must have been dismayed by the falling share price considering his huge stake, but what could he do? He was no longer an officer of the company and there was nothing the comany could do as it was in an offer period. The only thing he could do was exactly what he did do. By selling shares during an offer period, he would have to disclose this and he would know what the result would be - suspension. The share price was already in freefall before he started to sell. So who would a suspension benefit? Assuming all is well with the company, it would benefit shareholders and screw the shorters, exactly the result he wanted. If there was something terribly wrong and the cash was missing or there were liabilities arising from the PFI contract (specifically denied in RNS) or something else that meant the shares were worthless, then he could have got rid of his shareholding for a lot more in total by selling before or after the offer period, rather than right in the middle of it. The fact that he didn't suggests therefore that he knows that everything is OK, that he sold to protect the value of his remaining large shareholding and to stop the shorters in their tracks. It's the logical thing to do, his only option, and in his position, having thought about it, I would have done exactly the same. He will feel confident now that his remaining shares will be worth say 1.50 each when the suspension is lifted and all assets etc confirmed rather than drifting along sub 1 each and at the continual mercy of the shorters. If rumours are to be believed, he and Pearson had already rebuffed an offer from Elliots which they knew to be totally inadequate (because they KNEW what the shares were really worth).

Rybak's selling of his shares has been nagging away at me for a while, but now I've thought about it logically, it all starts to make sense. Tied in with all the RNSs stating that the CASH is there, confirmed by the BdB, and that there are no outstanding liabilities arising from the PFI contracts, I'm feeling a lot more relaxed and optimistic. Let's hope there is an RNS asap!

R33

an interesting post but not 1 personally i give much credence to - ultimately bar 1 or 2 individuals no one knows what is going on and ultimately wont until the suspension is lifted (if it even is).

I have read some of your posts across the way and respect a lot of what you say but ultimately feel that if this was ultimately worth what a lot of people seem to think then why were so few institutions interested at 1/4 of supposed NAV.

Surely the more feasible answer is that Rybak was simply getting out what he could before it went belly up.

Hopefully i am wrong on this because ultimately nearly all the exposure is with small private investors ( i have no probs with seeing the institutions shafted!!!) - i have no position mainly because it just felt too good to be true

PS good luck with the champ investor comp - slightly frustrating seeing you and polaris ahead of me knowing that most of your gains are also coming from SKP (as are mine)

forensic accountants named in below Kroll

Small Talk: Revealed... colourful past of the Baltic Barracuda
By Michael Jivkov and Stephen Foley
Published: 21 November 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/article328257.ece

After last week's piece about Langbar International, AIM's biggest cash shell, Small Talk was inundated with calls asking for more information on the company's founder Mariusz Rybak. It was his 2.5m share sale that prompted Langbar stock to be suspended last month and a team of forensic accountants called in from Kroll to find out once and for all just how much cash the company really has.

The latest hoohah at Langbar started when Mr Rybak sold shares at prices between 55p and 65p. This unsettled many investors as the company claims to have more than 220p a share of cash in bank accounts in Brazil and the Netherlands. Although Small Talk could not get in contact with Mr Rybak, former colleagues revealed a colourful business past. The 52-year-old former executive chairman and founder of Langbar is a Canadian citizen who lives in Monaco.

It emerged that his one and a half years at the helm of the group, originally called Crown Corporation, were characterised by a series of disputes with the company's shareholders. The largest of these investors was Lambert Financial, an investment company for some 2,000 Jewish families from all over the world. Led by Dr Abraham Arad, a former adviser to the Israeli Prime Minister's Office, Lambert quickly became dissatisfied with Mr Rybak. An early dispute came over Crown's failure to issue it with the 41 million shares it had bought at the float. This entitled Lambert to a 59 per cent stake in the company.

Lambert, along with the majority of other investors, also became impatient with the lack of action at the company. Although Lambert helped Crown win a series of construction deals in Argentina and Brazil, Mr Rybak never visited the region on the company's behalf. Investors also became concerned at the expenses being run up by the businessman. The most substantial of these was the private jet Mr Rybak had hired on the company's account. Given Crown was still a mere cash shell, it is no surprise that its shareholders viewed such an arrangement as excessive.

In the words of one shareholder: "It was not long after the float that we and others became concerned about the way Mr Rybak ran the company." A further dispute followed when, after one year at Crown's helm, the businessman tried to award himself a significant management fee in addition to the 180,000 per annum salary he received as executive chairman. This request came at a time when Crown still had no operating assets. It was over this issue that the company's broker, Insinger Townsley, resigned in 2004.

Small Talk has been told that Lambert Financial became so concerned about Mr Rybak's activities that it compiled a dossier detailing his actions in the company's name with the help of international authorities.

Mr Rybak settled in Canada during the early 1980s but is originally from the seaport of Gdynia on Poland's Baltic coast. He trained as a scientist, securing a doctorate in environmental engineering from a technology institute near Gdansk. After a number of teaching posts in Canada, he built up a technology firm in Ottawa during the 1990s where he became known as the Baltic Barracuda for his aggressive business style.

After a slew of acquisitions, he floated IDS Intelligent Detection Systems, which specialised in chemical detection technologies, on the Toronto Stock Exchange in 1997. However, he was forced to resign as chief executive of IDS in May 2000 amid mounting losses at the company, which a year later went into receivership. Strangely enough, Crown's 2003 IPO prospectus failed to mention Mr Rybak's stewardship of IDS.


Regards

How hard can it be to verify the money is there ???

May I suggest it aint !

dil,

you can suggest what you like...

find out soon enough :-)

I suppose if it wasnt there, then they are taking a long time not finding it??????

How long could it possibly take to confirm it or at least issue a message to shareholders. They must have an idea of where it is and how much exists. It does not take six weeks to work it out. I could have rowed to Brazil and rowed back with it in my holdall in six weeks.

"I suppose if it wasnt there, then they are taking a long time not finding it?????? "

That's odd logic, if it was there, they should issue an RNS saying don't worry everthing is in hand. They haven't. Look at Enron such a complicated set of affairs to shield the fact that nothing existed.

Andyeds , next you'll be telling me its all in coins and its taking a while to count it !

If it were there they would have said so straight away .... if it aint then they need time to cook up a story.

Place your bets.

Read the RNS!

Good call Dil. What is that saying about if something looks too good to be true......

Another case of the small investor being shafted.
I think holders may have to write this one off.
I'm gathering a posse to look for Rybak

Mono

Langbar International Limited
25 November 2005


Langbar International Limited (the 'Company')

On 12 October 2005 trading in the common shares of the Company was suspended on
AIM pending independent verification of certain of the assets of the Company at
a market capitalisation of approximately 87 million. Following the suspension
the Company appointed Kroll Associates UK Limited ('Kroll'), the international
risk consulting firm, to undertake verification of the Company's cash deposits
('the relevant assets') with Banco do Brasil and ABN Amro BV aggregating some
365 million.

365 million of term cash deposits with Banco do Brasil were included in the
unaudited interim financial statements as at 30 June 2005 as investments. On 6
September 2005, it was announced that USD 294 million of the cash deposits had
been transferred to ABN Amro BV.

Kroll has reported to the Board that, following its initial investigations, it
appears likely that the Company has been subject to a serious fraud affecting
the relevant assets. Kroll has not been able to establish the existence of, nor
verify the Company's entitlement to, any of the relevant assets at any time in
the Company's history.

The Board has informed the police and other relevant authorities of the
circumstances and intends to co-operate to the fullest extent practicable in the
pursuit of those responsible for the events which appear to have occurred.
The Board has instructed the Company's lawyers to explore every avenue available
for the recovery of its assets and to pursue vigorously any parties who may have
been involved in unlawful or improper activity in relation to the Company or its
assets. The Directors believe that the Company has sufficient cash reserves to
commence this action. The Board is not, however, able at this stage to give any
meaningful indication of the prospects for success or the likely timing of these
endeavours.

Due to the continuing uncertainties and investigations the Board consider that
for the time being the Company's shares should remain suspended from trading on
AIM.

Subject to any applicable legal restrictions, the Board will, as appropriate,
make further announcements as to the progress of the investigations and the
actions being taken to recover the Company's assets.

25 November 2005

A few people posting on ADVFN have indicated that they have lost 6 figure sums on this. One has lost 250k.

This is another example of a highly ramped stock where any negative views were shouted down. This always looked too good. In theory punters were buying huge assets in a cash shell for hardly anything.

Even Institutions were taken in. It is always a mistake to think that an investment is safe just because there are institutional holdings.