Anomalous, thank you for your 39079. There are still some small misunderstandings - I was asking about legal advice, not legal action - but I think I now see exactly where you're coming from. Is this a fair summary:
1. Buchler and Deloittes must confirm or refute Kroll, in view of doubts about Kroll's standing in Brazil.
2. If Kroll is wrong and there are assets, of any kind whatsoever, Buchler should take appropriate steps to realize them.
3. If Kroll is right, the company was a total sham from the outset and proceedings can be taken under S150 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 against some or all of Nabarro Wells, Insinger Townsley, Arden Partners, LSE. Such a course is better than proceeding against Pearson and Woods for two reasons: a) it is relatively straightforward under statute, compared to a relatively unclear case under the common law of torts; b) these defendants and their insurers will have deeper pockets than Pearson and Woods and their insurers.
If that is fair, there is not much for the LAG to do until the company reports on Deloittes findings, or the FSA reports; winding up is a side issue; proceedings against Pearson and Woods can wait.
I can leave it at that reasonably happily.
I should still like to know the current status of the LAG, though. Do you have a functioning committee, or is it just you? Clond gives strong indications of having lost all interest, and Redagen hasn't had much to say on iii either. Would it not be a good idea for the whole committee to meet David Greene; e-mail all members to give the gist of the meeting, and confirm that no action is to be taken until one of the reports is issued; and in due course e-mail all members with a proposed action plan of the sort I outlined in 38994?
Langbar Int stock quotes
Langbar Int stock charts
Follow this thread
