Langbar International

OK I've spoken with various people today about the shorting and we have made some headway.

Firstly, could everyone that wrote to the FSA be patient with the replies. Although some have received letters from Callum McCarthy and John Tiner, most of the letters are being fed through Jo Riley, who therefore has twice as many to reply to. She will get around to it, but you should not expect an immediate reply.

The FSA is not the lead agency in this case. The SFO is taking the lead, but the FSA is monitoring certain aspects, such as the share transactions. If you feel that any particular company has been abusing their (FSA) license, such as pushing long positions in Langbar prior to suspension, then you should communicate this to the FSA. They might want to discuss this with the party concerned.

Next - We've discussed the situation regarding the unsettled transactions with Edwin Coe. The lawyers are quite happy that a failure to settle could be grounds to have a contract to buy cancelled on non-performance of contract.

I've heard that the CREST ISIN numbers were frozen on 2 December. I don't who by yet, but suspect that it was the Registrar themselves. It makes no difference if it was them or the Police, but the point is that there was significant gap in which the MMs had the opportunity to settle.

Even if you had the misfortune to buy your shares on 11 October 2005 on T-25, the MMs should have delivered before CREST was frozen. As most people purchased on T-3, they are well over 2 months since settlement date.

Therefore the MMs have absolutely no excuse for not settling. Suspension in itself is not a valid reason for non-settlement or contract frustration as they might put it. The Courts would consider that they had an absolute obligation to settle and should do so by any and all reasonable means. This includes borrowing stock if necessary. The fact that they have not done so is inexcusable and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to ask for the contract to be voided by a Judge.

Let's be clear about this. If you decide to cancel your contract and have your money refunded, then if the Peruvian assets turn out to be as valuable as suggested, then you would not be able to reverse your position. If the Court grants your request and rescinds the contract, then you would not be able to receive the shares and if the price soars when the suspension is lifted, you would not benefit.

However, given the current circumstance, many of you will probably prefer to reduce your risk of loss and accept/forgoe any possible gain.

The procedure, as it stands at the moment is on the website. Please confirm that your share has not been delivered (and get it in writing if possible) before you contact the Action Group to say that you want to be on the list for cancellation.

The lawyers will make the necessary telephone calls and ask the MMs if they want to save themselves the legal fees and cancel of their own accord. If they fight, then the lawyers will issue writs. You may have to pay a legal fee, but it may be possible to group everyone together in a class action, which may reduce costs.

Given the current precedents and the recent judgement (Tumber Vs Shore Capital), the MMs would be silly to fight, because the Judge will probably regard the contract as voided by non-performance of the MMs and award costs to the claimants.

We've been on the CRESTCO website and checked for the report and found this:



The file is huge and I didn't locate the Langbar transactions. If you check the rest of the site they migth have something there or they might be able to tell you where to look.


I'm sorry for the people who have confirmed a settlement, because you are all stuck with the share for the meanwhile. It's only the shorted people that have a recourse. Also, if you are trying to convert to certificated form, you will not be able to for the meanwhile. The CREST numbers being frozen does prevent certain parties from claiming their money for share sales prior to suspension. The parties that are resident in Monaco. So it might be better to wait and leave the shares where they are.

Lastly, the FSA pointed out that they are really not responsible for the actions of the Nomads. They may license the Nomads, but the Nomads are responsible to the LSE.

So we know who to blame for allowing this mess to occurr and when the court action begins in the early New Year, everyone will have a chance to stand up and lay the blame for allowing Langbar to list on the AIM squarely at their door.

We are still on final countdown and at the moment it appears that you will get your chance to tell the press what you think of the LSE.....