You have no proof that Dr Rybak has done anything wrong, let alone that he was "the chief perpetrator of the fraud". I believe that Dr Rybak is mounting a vigorous defence against the claim that he was one of the fraudsters. As I and one or two others (notably Esrimeur) have pointed out, it is entirely possible that Dr Rybak was outside the loop of a fraud committed by other parties (I think you can guess who). Why for instance is it any clearer that Dr Rybak is guilty of fraud (as opposed to ineffective due diligence) than Mr Pearson?
As it stands, Dr Rybak was the largest shareholder at suspension, and therefore is as much at liberty to take any action against the company as you are.
Your other points continue to be moot. I am no expert in respect of the law of Representative Actions, especially in connection with bermudean registered companies. I suspect you are not either. Time will tell.
Langbar Int stock quotes
Langbar Int stock charts
Follow this thread
