Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
LBIE/PWC CREDITOR UPDATE LINK
http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/issues/lehmans_joint_administrators_progress_report_140409.html
Here is a link to the actual information released by PWC on the creditors update from September. This information just posted to the website.
As usual, the media posted the most disturbing news about an additional 90B that LBIE was going to claim against LBHI. When you look at the Executive Summary in Section 2, refer to area titled "Key Achievements" and "Progress".
Under "Key Achievements" you will see the following claims...
$38.4B against LBHI Controlled Entities
$80B Gross Claims against Non-LBHI Controlled Entities LBI, LBJ (Japan), LBF (Switzerland)
You will see under "Progress"
$90B "Guarantee" Claims against LBHI prior to guarantee claims bar date.
I believe that these two larger claims are protecting each other. If LBIE can't get paid by the claims it had filed under the Non-LBHI Controlled Claims, LBIE is covering themselves with the general guarantee claim that has to be filed soon...IMO these are the same claims. Read it for yourselves.
As always thoughts are welcome.
By the way, you know that LBHI is LBIE largest creditor RIGHT?
Enjoy, the truth will come out.
Coach T
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCED UNEARTHED THROUGH RULE 2004
DISCOVERY WARRANTS RELIEF FROM SALE ORDER UNDER RULE 60(B)
(Taken from the Unsecured Creditors Committee Motion LBHI Docket #5531)
Since the Court entered the Sale Order, myriad facts have been discovered that simply were not presented for the Court's consideration. These include, without limitation:
the implied $5 billion discount that was neither disclosed in the APA nor disclosed to the Court;
• the restructuring of the transaction that resulted in Barclays acquiring the brokerdealer business through the Barclays-LBI Repurchase Agreement (and not the APA),
including the "haircut" associated with the Fed Portfolio securities;
• the Lehman Seller's acquiescence to Barclays' last-minute demands for additional assets, and their efforts to find additional assets until Barclays was satisfied that there
was nothing left;
• the transfer of unencumbered securities in the non-actionable box which may have totaled $2.3 billion (not $1.9 billion); the OCC Accounts, which may have totaled between $2.3 billion and $5.0 billion and the 15c3 Securities (which may have totaled
$800 million);
• even though the haircut under the Fed Repurchase Agreement totaled between $4.4. billion and $5 billion, the haircut under the Barclays —LBI Repurchase Agreement was $5 billion (and possibly as high as $7.190 billion) -- a haircut that was retained by Barclays as part of the transaction; 129 and
• overstatement of the Cure and Compensation Liabilities, which were grossly overestimated at a purported $4.25 billion -- but instead totaled only $1.3-$1.7 billion. Each of these newly-discovered facts demonstrate the Sale Transaction that was consummated differed significantly from the transaction described to the Court.
I think that about sums it all up!
Enjoy the Ride !
Coach T
LBI DOCKET #1972...DECLARATION BY THE SIPA TRUSTEE THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE CHANGES IN THE SALE TO BARCLAYS!
Now the Trustee is getting his two cents in. Judge Peck is not going to have a choice.
I really don't think the Trustee has anything to gain by making these statements in his 7 page declaration.
The noose is getting tighter...
Coach T
Thanks coach.. waiting for the weekend to do some good research.. Your post gives us all a direction to head.. thanks for your post!!
After reading the entire 97 pages of the LBHI Docket #5514...I cannot imagine having a better position going into battle than the LEHMAN team has put together.
In addition, Docket #5531 was filed by the Unsecured Creditors committee and comes to virtually all of the same conclusions.
Suffice it to say, if you read anything this weekend...these two Dockets should be at the top of the list!
Do not take my opinion...read it for yourself. The presentation is masterful. I do not see any way that Barclays will not have to come up with $8-10B back to LEHMAN.
Furthermore, I believe that there will be some additional items added by Judge Peck that will increase the size of the money returned...because of the way everything was handled behind the courts back. It is all there emails, depositions, interviews, admissions, etc.
Read for yourself!
Enjoy the Ride!
LBHI DOCKET #5514 HAS THE UNSEALED PAGES IN IT!
http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/docket/docketlist.aspx?pk=de7ced2b-52e7-4172-92e1-9ec425933bd0
Grab your favorite cocktail and let's see what all of the LEHMAN team wanted everyone to know about!
The Perfect Storm Continues!
Coach T
"Lehman and Barclays were in court on Thursday for a status conference over their dispute, in which they were discussing a schedule for evidentiary hearings."
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1524013020091015
UPDATE 1-Barclays owed $3 bln in assets from Lehman-lawyer
Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:30pm EDT
NEW YORK, Oct 15 (Reuters) - Barclays Capital (BARC.L) is still owed billions in assets from bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LEHMQ.PK), whose U.S. broker-dealer business it purchased last year, a Barclays lawyer told a federal judge on Thursday.
The British bank's lawyer, Hamish Hume, told Judge James Peck of federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan that Lehman, which is seeking to change the terms of the transaction, has not yet delivered $3 billion of assets he said is owed to Barclays. He did not disclose what that assets were.
Lehman said in court documents last month that Barclays Capital got an $8.2 billion "windfall profit" from excess assets it took in the fire sale of Lehman's U.S. brokerage business, a deal quickly assembled in September 2008 in the days following the Lehman bankruptcy.
Lehman claimed that "critical changes" were made to the sale in between the time the sale order was signed and the deal was closed, resulting in Barclays gaining control of assets that Lehman said were not supposed to be part of the purchase.
A lawyer for Lehman did not counter Barclays claim in court.
Barclays has said Lehman is making "an opportunistic claim" and trying to "re-trade the deal."
Enjoy,
Coach T
Waiting for something to come out as news from the courthouse.. The coming weeks are going to get interesting to say the least!!
PAULSON JUST BOUGHT 10% of CONSECO!
Has anyone seen the investment that Paulson & Co. has made in lowly Conseco (CNO).
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/paulson-to-own-almost-10-of-conseco-2009-10-13
This company is in the Financial Industry (Insurance) and was expected to have to raise capital according to analyst reports from March of this year.
This company in March of 2009 was trading on the NYSE at $0.26!
Currently trading in the after hours at $5.79!
Look at the balance sheet and numbers. Does it remind you of any other company?
Keep the Faith!
Coach T
Tight supply pushes U.K. house price balance higher: RICS
September annual same-store sales up 2.8%: British Retail Consortium
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- A growing majority of British surveyors saw house prices rise in September due to an ongoing lack of homes for sale, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors reported Tuesday.
The group's monthly survey found the net balance of surveyors reporting rises rather than falls in house prices rose to +22 in September, up from +10 in August and its highest reading since May 2007. The balance is calculated by subtracting the number surveyors who report a fall in price from the number who report a rise.
The South of England, which includes London, led the upturn in prices. The net balance in London rose to +79, while the Southeast rose to +52.
"A lack of supply is still underpinning the rise in house prices with new instructions to estate agents only edging up very gradually," said RICS spokesman Ian Perry.
"Meanwhile despite the problems first-time buyers are continuing to encounter in securing finance, the level of enquiries from potential purchasers is increasing. This imbalance between demand and supply suggests that house prices will move higher in the near term."
Other housing surveys have also pointed to rises in house prices amid tight supplies. British house prices have shown signs of stabilization after a sharp tumble that began in 2007 after several years of sharp price rises.
Enjoy the Ride!
Coach T
LEHCQ last .35, it needs to catch up and get into the .50's!
We should hold this level now.. .54 is a good number to see.. :)
The way things are going... the cap trusts and prefs seem to be the best hold for now.. they might just end up getting something soon!! The court date is just days away!!
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (Trustee) SUPPORTS LEHMAN!
On September 15, 2009, LBHI filed the instant LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion.2 Collectively, these Rule 60(b) Motions assert that certain Lehman representatives failed to disclose key components of the transaction to the Court and, even where information was disclosed, the Court and creditors were never informed of “critical changes” to the Sale that took
place both prior to the final Sale Hearing and after the Sale Hearing but prior to the closing on September 22, 2008. (LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at 1.)
As one of the few parties-in-interest with the ability to discover this critical information, LBHI has thus far estimated that Barclays received at least $8.2 billion in excess Lehman assets. (LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at ¶ 12.)
More troubling still is LBHI’s allegation that certain key employees responsible for negotiating a supposedly arms-length sale for the benefit of all the Debtors’ estates may have been complicit with Barclays in the misrepresentation of information regarding the Sale due to their competing allegiances and improper incentives as future Barclays employees. (See LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at ¶ 14.)
3. On September 24, 2009, the Committee filed the Committee Unsealing Motion. LBHI and the SIPA Trustee filed statements joining the Committee Unsealing Motion [Docket Nos. 5270 and 5271]. In the Committee Unsealing Motion, the Committee argues that Barclays improperly designated as confidential and highly confidential much of the information provided pursuant to the LBHI 2004 Motion.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
4. Even after hundreds of pages of redactions, the skeletal Motions (and their gutted exhibits) suggest that misrepresentations were made to the Court concerning the assets to be 2 Concurrent with the filing of the LBHI Rule 60(b), the Committee filed the Committee Rule 60(b) Motion. The
SIPA Trustee filed a Joinder to LBHI’s Rule 60(b) Motion stating that it would also file a similar motion in the
SIPA proceedings [Docket No. 5173]. transferred to Barclays upon the consummation of the Sale.
Absent granting the relief requested in the Committee Unsealing Motion, the Trustee, like other parties-in-interest, will be left to wonder about such improper transfers of LBHI (and potentially LBCS) estate assets. Such obfuscation of the truth, as underscored by the Committee, serves no valid or justifiable purpose.
Accordingly, the Trustee joins in the arguments raised in the Committee’s Unsealing Motion to further expose the facts of the Sale to the “sunlight” of public examination.
5. The Trustee also agrees with the arguments set forth in the Rule 60(b) Motions, and files this Statement in support of the Rule 60(b) Motions. However, the Trustee respectfully
requests that any Order of the Court granting the Rule 60(b) Motions should leave intact the representations made in the Clarification Letter concerning the exclusion of LBCS from the
Asset Purchase Agreement.
The world is getting smaller and the truth is coming out!
Coach T
EVERGREEN SOLAR NOW SEES THAT BARCLAY'S WAS TAKING ITS SHARES WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION...the Perfect Storm. LBHI Docket #5422
As this Court is aware, Evergreen is a plaintiff in that certain adversary proceeding
captioned Evergreen Solar, Inc. v. Barclays Capital, Inc., Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and
Lehman Brothers, Inc., Adv. Pro. No. 08-01633 (JMP) (the “Adversary Proceeding”), arising
from the unauthorized sale of certain shares of Evergreen Common Stock by Lehman Brothers
Inc. (“LBI”), agent under that certain Share Lending Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2008 (the
“SLA”).1 In that Adversary Proceeding, Evergreen alleged that LBI lacked authority to transfer
the loaned shares (the “Loaned Shares”) in its possession solely as agent to Barclays Capital, Inc.
1 Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the SLA, a copy of which has
been provided to this Court in connection with Adversary Proceeding (defined below).
3
(“Barclays”) at the time of the sale, LBI failed to provide Evergreen with notice of the sale
despite the fact that the SLA had terminated, and Evergreen, as a result of the defendants’
actions, was damaged through, among other things, the loss of the Loaned Shares and by a
corresponding and substantial dilution of its Common Stock. Now, LBI and Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”), together with the Committee, have moved to reconsider the Sale Order,
claiming that “mistakes, inadvertence, or misrepresentations” led to the approval of the Sale
Order and that assets that should not have been sold were transferred in secret to Barclays under
the guise of the Sale Order. This is the very same subject matter of Evergreen’s Adversary
Proceeding with respect to the Loaned Shares.
While Evergreen was naturally not alone in suffering a loss upon Lehman’s failure,
unlike the vast majority of unsecured creditors and customers of Lehman, a substantial portion of
Evergreen’s loss—approximately 12,304,187 shares—could have and should have been
prevented both as a matter of law and in the interests of equity. By the time the shares were
transferred, certain events of default had occurred under the SLA and LBIE was required to
return the shares through its agent, LBI, to Evergreen. Instead, those shares over which LBI did
not hold title, but merely held as an agent for LBIE (which itself had lost title to its holdings of
the Loaned Shares upon default), were swept up into a whirlwind sale (the “Sale”) to Barclays.
According to the Debtors, the Committee, and the SIPA Trusteee, it now appears that
Barclays—which throughout its dispute with Evergreen has consistently touted the fairness of
the Sale process—took advantage of the exigent circumstances surrounding the Sale by securing
for itself a windfall profit and by arguing that assets transferred outside the scope of the Sale
Order approved by this Court were validly “purchased.” Although much of what has been
uncovered by the Committee, the Debtors, and the SIPA Trustee remains under seal, and
4
therefore unavailable to Evergreen at the time of this pleading, the Committee Motion describes
in sufficient detail how Barclays managed to conceal the nature of the securities transferred to it
under the Sale Order and the related Repo Agreement. Because it is this element of the Sale that
directly affected Evergreen’s interests, Evergreen hereby joins in the Committee Motion and
asks this Court to reconsider the Sale Order.
They are all starting to see the true picture!
Coach T
Hope so. Hold 'em tight!
This will be good going into the weekend with this bid/ask.. Next week is going to be the most monstrous week yet for the LEHs IMO!!
The perfect storm building up and when its time, its going to bring in volume like no other storm.. It will probably put all the MOASS till now to shame and make everything else feel puny..
D's at .50. B/A .50/.54. Let's see if it holds....
STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
REGARDING MOTIONS TO UNSEAL MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM
SEPTEMBER 20, 2008 SALE ORDER (AND RELATED SIPA SALE ORDER)
TO: HON. JAMES M. PECK, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:
Diana G. Adams, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (the “United States Trustee”), by
and through her counsel, hereby files this Statement of the United States Trustee Regarding
Motions to Unseal Motions for Relief From September 28, 2008 Sale Order (and Related SIPA
Sale Order) (the “Motions to Unseal”).
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Before the Court are related Rule 60(b) Motions (defined at 3 below) and Motions to
Unseal filed by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“LBHI”) and certain of its direct and indirect
subsidiaries (collectively with LBHI, the “Debtors”), the Official Creditors’ Committee of the
Debtors (the “Creditors’ Committee”) and James W. Giddens, as trustee for the SIPA liquidation
of Lehman Bros. Inc. (the “SIPA Trustee”) with respect to the signature transaction in these cases
thus far – the sale of the assets from the North American broker dealer business of Lehman
Brothers Inc. to Barclays Capital, Inc. (“Barclays”) within four days of the commencement of
- 2 -
these bankruptcy cases. The Motions to Unseal should be granted, and the Rule 60(b) Motions
unsealed and adjudicated, to the extent of the fullest disclosure permitted under Bankruptcy Code
section 107.
The “open courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the American judicial system.”
Brown v. Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178 (6 Cir. th
1983). Particularly here, where there is widespread public interest in the Debtors’ bankruptcy
cases, and because the issues raised in the Motions to Unseal and their underlying Rule 60(b)
Motions are so significant to the cases, it is important that these specific proceedings be carried
out with as much transparency as is possible within the parameters of Bankruptcy Code section
107. Accordingly, the United States Trustee respectfully requests that the evidentiary basis upon
which the Rule 60(b) Motions are adjudicated – and the public conduct of the proceedings – be
as open as the statute allows.
Now if that doesn't give you a "warm and fuzzy" nothing will!
The Perfect Storm Continues!
Coach T
Yes sir. Be nice to see that .56 be hit, then establish a higher low in the .40's or higher. Steady climb, should get better in the days ahead. Won't let these go any time soon.
"Not from my cold dead hands..."
Could have closed better.. but I guess the volume will steadily increase as days go by!!
Yep, LEHCQ's are hard to come by with only 5M shares out.
I tried for a it a couple of days but never got filled at .2 Did not want to bid higher.. Have picked up enough Ds now.. trying to get more Cap trusts at this moment.. Some of them made a nice move today!! Oct 15th is coming closer :)
LEHCQ still showing a last of .20, if you can get any there that would be a steal! The LEHCQ ask is likely around .50 or so since it has a $50 face just like LEHDQ.
Coach T.. up 125% here.. The most of all the LEH prefs and cap trusts!! Woohoo.. Thats a high number on the bid too sitting there for a while.. Very bullish move by this today!!
LBI SIPA TRUSTEE GOING AFTER AN ADDITIONAL $4.9B that is "Known Shortfalls" LBI SIPA DOCKET #1866
EXHIBIT A
RULE 15C3-3 COMPLIANCE ISSUES
KNOWN SHORTFALLS AMOUNT ($)
Securities in FID Accounts Seized by Chase 629,545,623.00
Cash in FID Accounts Seized by Chase 257,862,000.00
Account Coding Errors (Woodlands) 533,847,208.90
Account Coding Errors (ADP/944), identified by SEC, Trustee, & Barclays 213,514,490.00
Assets Subject to LBIE Administration 438,916,777.07
OCC Deposit1 492,195,460.00
Customer Cash Claimed by LBIE 2,300,000,000.00
Cash Seized During Liquidation of Foreign Money Market Fund Positions 81,617,437.32
TOTAL IDENTIFIED SHORTFALLS $4,947,498,996.29
ITEMS UNDER INVESTIGATION
Overdraft in LBI’s Main Operating Account
Inclusion of Unsecured Debits in Reserve Formula
Customer Securities Included in the Barclays Repo
Assets Detained by Custodians Considered Good Control Locations
Other Reserve Computation Adjustments
Lots of legal wrangling yet to come on this.
Coach T
is this a good thing or a bad thing ????? ie will we land jelly side up ???
Read the AIG CDS objection to the LEH motion to compel them to pay about 8B to LEH. (LBHI Docket #5334)
AIG CDS wants to know two things in their objection, why haven't the premiums due AIG CDS been paid to AIG CDS from LEH, and does LEH have the ability to continue its position after AIG CDS pays LEH the $8B.
Once they get answers from the court on those questions they say they will pay immediately!
The Perfect Storm...
Coach T
Mortgage-Bond Prices Double From March Lows in Rally (Update1)
Share | Email | Print | A A A
By Jody Shenn
Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. home-loan bonds without government backing ended a third-quarter rally with a week of gains, leaving some securities at prices almost double their March lows.
Typical prices for the most-senior prime-jumbo securities rose 2 cents on the dollar last week to 84 cents, according to Barclays Capital data. Similar bonds backed by Alt-A loans with a few years of fixed rates increased 2 cents to 60 cents. The jumbo bonds are up from about 75 cents three months earlier, while the Alt-A bonds have climbed from 47 cents.
The debt has jumped from 63 cents for the jumbos and 35 cents for Alt-As in mid-March, as investors accept lower potential yields amid a rally across debt markets and traders anticipate demand from the U.S. Public-Private Investment Program. Investment funds, banks, insurers and Wall Street brokers have been among buyers, according to Scott Buchta, head of investment strategy at Guggenheim Capital Markets LLC in Chicago.
“There’s a ton of dollars sloshing around, and the people who are compensated to put those dollars to work have to do something,” David Castillo, a senior managing director at San Francisco-based broker Further Lane Securities, said in a telephone interview. “The great cushion which the market provided for errors in assumptions is almost entirely gone.”
Feeding the Rally
Home-loan securities in the almost $1.7 trillion non-agency market lack guarantees from government-supported Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or federal agency Ginnie Mae, and they have been among the largest sources of the $1.6 trillion of writedowns and credit losses reported by the world’s largest financial companies since the start of 2007.
The recent rally has reflected a combination of yield premiums over Treasury debt coming down across credit markets, anticipation of buying by PPIP funds and data suggesting housing is starting to stabilize, according to Tom Hamilton, the head of Barclays Capital’s securitized products trading in New York.
“All those things culminated at once and made for an unbelievable third quarter,” he said in a telephone interview last week.
Sectors benefiting from increased demand for debt also include high-yield, high-risk company loans. Standard & Poor’s/LSTA U.S. Leveraged Loan 100 index has climbed to 85.5 cents on the dollar, from a low of 59.2 cents in December. Investors are seeking higher yields than available in the money markets, accounting for about $300 billion of inflows this year into funds targeting debt such as corporate and municipal notes.
More of the article...http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aWZHVsw.oK90
Coach T
I never did see it, but will check it out,,TY GLTA
I dont think "they" will let it happen.. Did you also happen to see this http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ ??Good info in a lot of ways..
No foolin,,,most people dont know that the FEDERAL RESERVE is not part of any governmental agency or has no affliation with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Frankly, i would like to see them fold and see the TREASURY take control of our money. all IMHO OF COURSE
The federal reserve is sure in a big soup now.. Thats why they should never let the same person hold office for more than 2 years in a sensitive institution like the fed.. all IMHO of course.
Will Disclosure In Lehman Bankruptcy Case Lead To Lawsuit Against Federal Reserve?
By: Tyler Durden Friday, October 02, 2009 1:05 PM
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3523400
Reporters at the WSJ have uncovered something very intriguing while they were combing through the billing records of Jenner and Block, whose chairman, Anton Valukas is currently moonlighting as the examiner of the Lehman Bankruptcy Case. In J&B's August fee statement, the firm discloses information that as part of its estate recoupment process, it has been contemplating suing none other than the Federal Reserve.
During its final days Lehman was a revolving door for Fed cash coming in (and promptly leaving) as the situation demanded. Whether borrowing at the Fed's discount window against garbage collateral (no doubt consisting of worthless toxic commercial real estate - yet, we will never know: the Fed has just appealed the decision to disclose who/what/why got access to its processing of taxpayer bailout funding, which likely means that unless some Second Circuit/SCOTUS judge finds it deep in his/her soul that representing the American public is more important than siding with Wall Street as always, that information will never see the light of day), using the TAF program, or otherwise, Lehman ended up gobbling an ungodly amount of cash from the Fed which was subsequently imporperly yanked by the Chairman, instead of being used to satisfy pari passu creditor claims. According to the WSJ:
The New York Fed lent Lehman $46.2 billion in cash and Treasury securities for $50.6 billion in collateral, according to Federal Reserve affidavits filed in bankruptcy court. As a result of Lehman's sale to Barclays PLC following its bankruptcy, the New York Fed was later paid back in cash, with the Treasury securities returned. Lehman's broker-dealer also borrowed tens of billions of dollars from the Fed in the period from Sept. 11 through Sept. 15 last year.
This is all fine and great, however where the issue lies is whether there was an improper superposition of the Fed relative to all other creditors of the firm. If, in fact, the Fed recouped any money at a point after the bankruptcy process was initiated (and potentially even before the instant of filing), Jenner can file a preference claim against the Federal Reserve. The suit would, in theory imply that there was an action of "avoidance" by the Fed to be considered a preferred creditor without legal justification or reason.
It is obvious why the Fed would have wanted to avoid this: General Unsecured Claims and unsecured Notes issued by Lehman Brothers traded down from 90 cents on the dollar in the days prior to September 15 all the way to 10 cents on the dollar in the week following. Had the Fed's assets become commingled in the GUC pool, it would have seen a loss of nearly $40 billion of taxpayer money. However, the Fed's gain is other creditors' loss.
Which is why the revelations observed going thru J&B's billing statement are quite stunning, as they highlight that while Valukas has as yet not started any actual legal proceedings, which would claim there was a preference action by the Fed impairing other Lehman creditors, it is surely contemplating such.
Zero Hedge presents below relevant sections from the May Billing Statement filed by Jenner & Block in bankruptcy court. We hope Congressmen Ron Paul and Alan Grayson notice these potential legal overtures and promptly contact Mr. Valukas' office to determine what the process of any legal action may currently be and why it hasn't been made public yet, especially if the Fed has been found in breach of preference.
The Perfect Storm Continues...
Coach T
Here is a settlement and dispute resolution with Field Point IV.
Field Point IV also thought that they had the right to terminate. I guess they found out just like Metavante! LBHI DOCKET # 5329
On November 26, 2008, Field Point filed an objection to LCPI’s
assumption of the Field Point Trades based upon Field Point’s contention that Field Point had
terminated the Field Point Trades pre-petition by letters dated September 30, 2008 (the “Field
Point Objection”) [Docket No. 1841]. On December 15, 2008, the Debtors filed an omnibus
reply asserting, among other things, their position that the Field Point Trades had not been
effectively terminated prepetition because there had been no breach by LCPI [Docket No. 2208].
H. On January 14, 2009, the Court directed that the Debtors and Field Point
proceed with discovery to resolve the factual issues raised by the Field Point Objection and,
since that time, LCPI and Field Point have been participating in such discovery.
I. The Debtors and Field Point have now agreed to resolve this dispute
pursuant to the terms set forth in that certain letter agreement between LCPI and Field Point
dated October 1, 2009 (the “Letter Agreement”).
Every subsequent court decision makes the next one that much easier now!
Enjoy!
Coach T
yup.. looks like it. This should be atleast in the .4s now based on the other prefs but I guess as the Oct 15th date comes closer, we will see a lot more volume and buying in this!!
Looks like we are winding this thing up for some $.60-$.80 soon. IMO.
Trusts look like they are ready on the weekly charts for dollar land!
Coach T
Lehmanns assets steadily increasing with the real estate market and should finally end up having enough to pay the prefs and cap trusts a good % of their face value!!
U.K. House Prices Rose for Fifth Month in September (Update2)
Share | Email | Print | A A A
By Brian Swint
Oct. 2 (Bloomberg) -- U.K. house prices rose for a fifth month in September as a lack of homes for sale helped the property market to erase its losses of the past year, Nationwide Building Society said.
The average cost of a home increased 0.9 percent to 161,816 pounds ($258,000), the mortgage lender said in a statement today. Prices have now dropped 13 percent since the peak in October 2007 and they are at a level last seen at the time of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s collapse last year.
The report adds to signs that Britain is pulling out of its worst economic slump in at least a generation as consumer confidence improves and mortgage approvals pick up. The International Monetary Fund yesterday raised its forecast for U.K. economic growth next year, saying the housing market is now stabilizing.
“The most intense phase of the recession and financial crisis has probably passed,” Martin Gahbauer, chief economist at Nationwide, said in a statement. “The further increase in house prices is very much consistent with improvements in a broad range of economic and financial indicators.”
Prices were unchanged from a year earlier in September, the first time they haven’t shown an annual drop since March 2008, Nationwide said.
The number of houses being sold is still below normal and will probably take another 18 months to return to the level before the financial crisis, the report said. Rising unemployment and banks’ reluctance to lend money are still “headwinds,” Nationwide said.
Housing Forecast
“It would be surprising to see house prices continuing to increase at the very strong rate seen in recent months,” Gahbauer said.
Prices in all the 13 regions of the U.K. rose in the third quarter, led by the southwest and Northern Ireland, Nationwide said. Home values in greater London increased 3.8 percent from the second quarter.
Consumers added 7 billion pounds of equity to their homes in the three months through June, the fifth consecutive quarter when new investment in housing exceeded borrowings extended on mortgages, the Bank of England said today. That suggests consumer spending may be slow to recover from the recession.
The construction industry slump unexpectedly intensified in September, a separate report by Markit and the Chartered Institute of Purchasing & Supply showed. Its index of building activity fell to 46.7 from 47.7 in August. Economists predicted 48.1, according to the median of eight forecasts in a Bloomberg News survey. Results below 50 indicate contraction.
IMF Forecast
The IMF says the U.K. economy will expand 0.9 percent in 2010 after previously forecasting growth of 0.2 percent. Consumer confidence jumped the most since 1995 last month, GfK NOP says, and the Bank of England reported yesterday that lenders expect mortgage supply to rise in the fourth quarter.
At their Sept. 10 decision, policy makers said rising asset prices could create a “virtuous upward spiral” for the economy. Chief Economist Spencer Dale said last week that he favored limiting the increase in the bank’s bond purchase plan to 175 billion pounds because of the risk spending more might stoke asset prices too much.
The benchmark interest rate is at a record low of 0.5 percent. The next policy decision is due on Oct. 8.
To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Swint in London at bswint@bloomberg.net.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a02hUZhyg6zQ
Keep the Faith!
Coach T
Same topic different article, more details...
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_436806.html
Additionally, here is the offical press release.
MAS Welcomes the Receivers’ and Trustee’s Announcement of the Settlement Agreement for the Minibond Notes Singapore, 1 October 2009... The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) welcomes the announcement by the three partners of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP appointed as receivers for the Minibond notes, and HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Limited, the trustee for the notes, that they have reached a settlement agreement with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (LBSF), the swap counterparty for the notes. This is an important development which resolves the legal complexities that had prevented the earlier unwinding of the notes and gives noteholders greater certainty that they will be able to receive the remaining value of their notes. 2. The obligations of the trustee and the receivers in this situation are to act in the interest of noteholders. The trustee and receivers have kept MAS informed during the settlement negotiations. We understand that they have considered the matter thoroughly and are both satisfied that the settlement and liquidation of the underlying collateral are in the best interest of noteholders. 3. The settlement with LBSF does not affect any claims investors are making against the financial institutions (FIs) from which they bought the notes. Investors who accepted partial settlement offers as part of the dispute resolution process by the FI or the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre would have retained a portion of the notes, and will get to keep the residual value arising from those notes. Investors who accepted full settlement offers would have received 100% of their principal investment amount. These investors will not receive any residual value as they would have transferred the notes to the FI.
Coach T
By letting the Structured Minibond holders have the underlying assets direct, would be like letting the Preferred Trusts have the bonds that make up each Trust. IMO.
Generally, assets would be pooled and a percentage paid to all claimants.
Just don't believe the Creditors Committee allowed this UNLESS...UNLESS...there is more meat on the bone!
Any thoughts? Accountants out there...thoughts.
Coach T
Great work coach.. This is going in the best way possible for all of us.. Should get interesting as the Court dates come closer.. 15th October is not far away!!
Singaporeans to recover what's left of Lehman notes
LBSF just worked out a deal with PWC to hand over assets from the minibonds that have been in the news in Singapore and the Asian part of the world.
Not sure what to make of it other than A&M must feel pretty comfortable in doing it. Under any other circumstance I would think the Unsecured Creditors Committee would have put the handcuffs on it.
Why let assets go to one party when they would not go into a pool to get paid a % to all.
It must be a positive...definitely good PR.
"PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), acting on behalf of Singapore investors who had bought the so-called "Minibonds", said on Thursday it has reached a deal with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc, the swap counterparty for the Minibonds, to take over assets backing these notes."
PWC "can commence the process of realising the residual value of the notes without the risks and uncertainties of complex, costly litigation," it said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews/idUSSIN47989220091001
Keep the Faith!
Coach T
LOOKS LIKE LEHMAN IS IN THE BANKING BUSINESS AGAIN!
http://www.bankaholic.com/former-lehman-bank-tops-2-yr-cd-rates/
Aurora Bank, FSB is selling CD's again. This was a MAJOR goal of A&M and Mr. Marsal.
Former Lehman Bank Tops 2-Yr. CD Rates
Posted in CD Rates by RateRunner
September 30, 2009 09:20 AM
A year after Lehman Brothers spectacular collapse its former, federally-insured bank has risen to the top of our rankings of the best, nationally-available 24-month CD rates.
Lehman Brothers Bank was not part of its owner’s bankruptcy and is trying to get a fresh start by taking the name of the Roman goddess of the dawn.
Aurora Bank, as it’s now known, certainly made our morning by offering a 24-month certificate of deposit for 2.45% APY with a $1,000 minimum deposit.
Here we go!
Coach T
please put this all in layman terms .why this is a big deal TIA
EXAMINER SEEKING COURT ASSISTANCE TO COMPEL ABN AMRO TO PRODUCE INFORMATION PERTAINING TO FALSE RUMORS AND ASSISTING NAKED SHORT SELLING! (LBHI Docket #5306)
"The Examiner has requested documents from ABN AMRO to explore a false rumor concerning Lehman that may have been initiated, or at the very least repeated, by an ABN AMRO employee and that may have contributed to the naked short selling of Lehman stock. As set forth more fully below, the Examiner has gone to great lengths to obtain voluntary compliance from ABN AMRO, but has been met with evasion or worse. The Examiner therefore respectfully requests that this Court order ABN AMRO to produce within 5 days of this Court’s order: (1) a Rule 30(b)(6) witness who can testify under oath concerning ABN AMRO’sIT systems so that the Examiner has sworn testimony against which to evaluate ABN AMRO’s conflicting accounts; and (2) all documents responsive to the Examiner’s subpoena."
"Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully requests that this Court direct ABN AMRO to comply immediately with the Subpoena."
The Perfect Storm! Now we are getting to the "nitty gritty".
Coach T
$7.6 M owed to LEHMAN is only a FRACTION OF MONEY DOLLAR GENERAL OWES to LEHMAN!
According to court docket #5304 Dollar General thinks it terminated its derivative agreement with LEHMAN last October 30, 2008...for a PAYABLE AMOUNT TO LEHMAN FOR $7.6 MILLION...
LEHMAN is requesting the court make Dollar General provide additional information...says that the $7.6M amount is only a FRACTION of the amount owed to LEHMAN!
LEHMAN in its creditor meeting said it has been notified by hundreds/thousands of counterparties that agreements had been terminated due to the default by the BK.
Mr. Marsal also said LEHMAN would be calculating each transaction to make sure money was settled properly.
I think the court decisions as of the last three weeks are serving notice that MAYBE Counterparties did not properly terminate and calculate positions.
Where is the popcorn...sit back and enjoy the movie.
Just ask Metavante Corporation they ignored responding to LEHMAN and had to pay $7M+ on a trade that they owed to LEHMAN but thought the trade had been terminated due to the default by filing Chapter 11.
More MEAT ON THE BONE!
Coach T
Followers
|
19
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
234
|
Created
|
11/01/08
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
SECURITY DESCRIPTION: Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Depositary Shares, each representing 1/100 of a share of 5.67% Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series D, stated value $50.00 per depositary share, redeemable at the issuer's option on or after 8/31/2008 at $50 per depositary share plus accrued and unpaid dividends, with no stated maturity, and with distributions of 5.67% per annum paid quarterly on 2/28, 5/31, 8/31 & 11/30 to holders of record on the 15th day of the month in which that payment is made. In regards to payment of dividends and upon liquidation, the preferred shares rank equally with other preferreds and senior to the common shares of the company. See the IPO prospectus for further information on the preferred stock by clicking on the ‘Link to IPO Prospectus’ provided below. |
Stock Exchange | Cpn Rate Ann Amt | LiqPref CallPrice | Call Date Matur Date | Moodys/S&P Dated | Distribution Dates | 15% Tax Rate |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OTOTC Chart | 5.67% $2.835 | $50.00 $50.00 | 8/31/2008 None | WR / NR 1/25/09 | Suspended! 2/28, 5/31, 8/31 & 11/30 Click for Ex-Div Date | Yes |
NOTE: LBHGP last traded APRIL 9 2008 and has not traded since (As per Scottrade back room) (thanks to waman for info)
****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
*CHART*>>>
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |