A good and pertinent question nellum. At the meeting with the 'lawyer,' did he ask the name of the bank official dealing with the account? Did he write a routine follow-up letter to that official (enjoyable meeting with your representative Dr X...confirmed $665m...projects...Spain etc).
Such a letter really would be routine; there's no question of benefit of hindsight there.
Or did Pearson deal, throughout a 3 month period from June to September, solely with this 'lawyer,' with correspondence going to the 'lawyer's' address?
The BoB man's statement fleshes out some areas where detail has been lacking: might Kroll have skimped the job, might they have asked about the wrong company, might there be a misunderstanding owing to language difficulties. He says there was no contact of any kind between BoB and Langbar, Crown, call it what you will (incidentally, confirming Kroll).
Unless you believe the representative of one of Latin America's top banks has been lying - far-fetched by any standards - the negligence case against Pearson and Woods has hardened considerably.
Langbar Int stock quotes
Langbar Int stock charts
Follow this thread
