Langbar International

Let some things be clear:

1 If the RA does not succeed in it's claim, as per the header, then it is
effectively a dead duck, as an entity, as it's "raison d'etre" will have
vanished.

2 Unless and until the RA succeeds, then no RA claimant is a creditor of
LGB, or, moreover, of Rybak or Regli.

3 Given the terms of the RA claim, it must be heard first, because:

A) The success or failure of LGB's claim depends on LGB's solvency. It is
being temporarily propped up by contingent assets; and


B) The basis of the RA claim is almost exactly the same as LGB's claim
against Rybak & Regli; so, if the first fails, so is the second likely so
to do.

C) If the RA claim fails, then DBA will have no reason to continue.

So - the RA holds the whip-hand.

I am biased, because I do not believe that the frozen assets are really worth what Buchler claims. Is he not just another Pearson, who is transmitting to others what he is told?

I mean to say, why cannot Buchler say even what type of assets they are? One might imagine that stockholders in a company which held fake assets may want to know such a thing.

Does anyone seriously imagine those assets to be unencumbered cash?

No, away with the fairies, Buchler, you know they are not. Take the piss from whomever you like, David, but don't bother with me.

The Ancoats Irish