1. Pearson and Woods have effectively unlimited funds to buy the best defence going. This could change if either ceases to be a director but there is no sign of that as yet.
2. The Kroll report would be important to a claimant, but the SFO may demand it is kept back in case it harms their investigation.
3. Pearson and Woods might win, if they can persuade the judge the steps they took were reasonable at the time. Assuming the documents they are relying on give every appearance of authenticity, their only failure is in not meeting a genuine BoB manager in his own office. That is, however, rather a major failure, and not just in hindsight; in the normal course of things you would meet in the manager's office as a matter of course.
4. In any event the case could take years and cost many tens of thousands.
5. If you lost, or at any stage wanted to discontinue the proceedings, you could wind up liable for Pearson's and Woods's costs.
And the potential benefits:
Let us say that Pearson and Woods have £10m between them, including insurance. There are roughly 90m shares, excluding those held by the thieves. I can't see the institutions getting involved, so that takes us to 70m. Then - the key thing - when it comes to actually putting hands in pockets, most will lose all interest. You could easily come down to 20m shares represented - which would mean a 50p a share payout. On such an assumption costs would be acceptable - say total costs were £100,000, split between 20m shares, would come to £100 for someone holding 20,000 shares.
Langbar Int stock quotes
Langbar Int stock charts
Follow this thread
