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.
SAF Financial, Inc., et al paid $6.5 million on 3/23/12.
Cash and cash equivilents were $107,119,236 at 3/31/12. Total assets were $107,568,462.
BofA account held proceeds from Servicing Portfolio sale.
The account balance of $95,859,548.23 was transferred to SunTrust Bank on 3/12/12.
Monthly Operating Report Mar. 31, 2012
Docket # Docket Date
1569 04/26/2012 Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period March 1, 2012 through March 31, 2012 on behalf of Joel I. Sher Filed by Joel I. Sher.
http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/TMI/docket/Default.aspx?rc=1
Thanks for the link. I had been using the FINRA site but for some reason had trouble accessing that table on my phone.
ZD is geared for retail customers.
TMA.GB is still changing hands.
FINRA is a better source to see actual trades:
http://cxa.gtm.idmanagedsolutions.com/finra/BondCenter/BondTradeActivitySearchResult.aspx?StartDate=04/01/2012&EndDate=04/26/2012&SelectionOption=2&TradeSize=&SortBy=0&ID=ODg1MjE4QUIz
Hey Chevy, I know you use Zion Direct as well. Does it seem to you that the volume has dried up? Doesn't seem like any of these are ever up readily for sale and wondered if larger amounts have already been tucked away by others for the future. Wanted to re-balance the portfolio some and maybe average down but doesn't look like that is possible!
Thornburg Trustee Can Proceed With Suit Against RBC Capital (3/28/12)
--Judge says trustee can sue RBC Capital for improperly seizing assets
--Judge dismisses trustee's claim that bank's margin calls were improper or that it acted in bad faith.
By Patrick Fitzgerald
Of DOW JONES DAILY BANKRUPTCY REVIEW
A federal judge ruled the court-appointed trustee overseeing the liquidation of Thornburg Mortgage Inc. (THMRQ) can move forward with a lawsuit against RBC Capital Markets LLC alleging the bank shortchanged the mortgage lender when it seized and subsequently sold some of its assets.
Judge Benson Everett Legg of the U.S. District Court in Baltimore said the trustee can sue RBC Capital, the investment-banking arm of Royal Bank of Canada (RY, RY.T), for improperly seizing the assets backing repurchase agreements the mortgage lender had used to fund its business. The judge dismissed, however, the trustee's claim that the bank's margin calls were improper or that it acted in bad faith.
Joel I. Sher, the bankruptcy trustee overseeing Thornburg's liquidation, sued RBC Capital Markets in a breach-of-contract lawsuit over what he alleges were improper margin calls and the subsequent seizure and sale of $573 million in mortgage-backed securities Thornburg financed through RBC.
"RBC ultimately settled on a number that was significantly lower than the value it had assigned to the MBS when it issued its August 14th margin call," Legg wrote in a ruling Friday. "Whether this process was proper under the terms of the [repurchase agreement] is a valid subject for discovery."
Sher said in court filings the securities firm credited Thornburg "with an amount, at minimum, $35 million less than the actual value" of the 27 mortgage-backed securities at issue.
Sher and a spokesman for RBC Capital couldn't be reached for comment.
Prior to its collapse, Thornburg financed its business, including its purchase of mortgage-backed securities, through a series of repurchase, or repo, agreements and swaps deals with banks and securities firms like RBC. Those mortgage-backed securities were typically then pledged as collateral in the deals.
Sher claimed RBC breached the provisions of their repo deal by improperly valuing Thornburg's collateral to create deficits that justified its inflated margin calls.
The trustee has filed similar lawsuits against Barclays Capital Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), alleging the firms made improper margin calls that helped drive the mortgage lender into bankruptcy.
Last year, another federal judge dismissed part of the suit against BarCap, the investment-banking division of British bank Barclays PLC (BCS, BARC.LN), alleging the bank acted in bad faith but said Sher could sue over margin calls and subsequent sales. Barclays and Goldman have denied wrongdoing.
Sher also is suing some of the biggest players in Wall Street's mortgage-finance assembly line for nearly $2 billion, claiming a number of banks--including J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Citigroup Inc. (C) and Credit Suisse Group (CS, CSGN.VX)--engaged in a series of "collusive" and "predatory" schemes that resulted in Thornburg's demise. The banks, in court papers, have denied wrongdoing and have moved to have the suit dismissed.
The suits allege Thornburg, once the nation's second-largest independent mortgage company, was undone by a series of unlawful acts taken by investment banks during the mortgage crisis in 2007 and 2008.
Bankruptcy law allows a trustee to unwind certain transfers as fraudulent transactions if they rendered the company insolvent and provided no benefit to the estate.
Sher was named the Chapter 11 trustee of Thornburg, now named TMST Inc., in 2009 after it was discovered former managers had used the lender's employees and assets to launch a new company.
Earlier this month, the Securities & Exchange Commission charged three former Thornburg executives--ex-CEO Larry Goldstone, ex-CFO Clarence Simmons, onetime accounting chief Jane Starrett--with civil accounting fraud. Faced with $300 million in margin calls in early 2008, the SEC said the three overstated Thornburg's quarterly income by more than $420 million.
A lawyer for Goldstone and Simmons said the SEC action "is wholly without merit." A lawyer for Starrett couldn't be reached for comment.
Thornburg, based in Santa Fe, N.M., filed for Chapter 11 protection in May 2009, listing assets of $24.4 billion and debts of $24.7 billion. The bulk of those assets--some $19.7 billion--were held in securitization trusts. Sher is winding down the company and selling its assets for the benefit of creditors.
(Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review covers news about distressed companies and those under bankruptcy protection.)
-By Patrick Fitzgerald, Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review; 202-862-3544; patrick.fitzgerald@dowjones.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120328-715460.html
Joel Sher vs RBC Capital Markets LLC (3/23/12)
RBC's Motion to Dismiss was Granted in Part and Denied in Part.
Source: PACER [Docket 37]
SEC vs Goldstone et al (3/13/12)
http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2012/comp22287.pdf
In plain English (for those over here)...
Common shareholders and preferred shareholders will go to bed one night and wake up the next morning holding stock they can no longer trade. All Senior Note holders have to do is wait for all the litigation to run its course.
Order Approving Submission Of Trustees Offer Of Settlement to SEC in Anticipation of a Consent Order in an Administrative Proceeding (3/13/12)
Source: Epiq Systems [Docket 1544]
From the Motion:
De-registration of TMST’s common stock and preferred stock by the Commission means that such stock will no longer be publicly registered and no member of a national securities exchange, broker, or dealer may make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce to effect any transaction in, or to induce the purchase or sale of, TMST’s common stock or preferred stock. Each equity holder, however, shall continue as a common or preferred stockholder and, if any distribution were ever made to the equity interest holders, they would be entitled (in accordance with and if provided by TMST’s corporate charter and applicable law) to share in any such distribution. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the holders of equity interest rights under the Bankruptcy Code will not be affected by de-registration of TMST’s securities by the Commission.
Order Approving Settlement And Compromise Of Controversy (3/05/12)
Source: Epiq Systems [Docket 1539]
Great question. I am afraid to look!
Seriously, it is something I have thought about doing. I just have not had the time. Once officially settled and cash is in hand, I will do the math.
Any idea how much of the professional fees are strictly legal? Then how much relates to the cost of recovery litigation? I'm just concerned that the net recovery rate may not be worth the effort.
2011 Financial Review
Total Assets ended the year at $104,788,655, a drop of $10,291,390.
Cash and cash equivilents were reduced by $10,507,094 to $103,209,028.
The primary expense during 2011 was Legal and Professional Fees totaling $8,483,172. Operating Expenses were $2,290,065.
Monthly Operating Report Jan. 31, 2012
Docket # Docket Date Docket Text
1533 2/23/2012 Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period January 1, 2012 - January 31, 2012 on behalf of Joel I. Sher Filed by Joel I. Sher.
http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/TMI/docket/Default.aspx?rc=1
so one lawsuit settled and 5 to go :)
Orrick will waive $686,506.30 in fees and expenses.
Form 2-E of the December MOR details $449,718 owned to the firm. The difference is probably fees and expenses never billed to TMST.
Notice of Trustee's Motion for Approval of Settlement and Compromise (2/13/12)
Joel Sher v. SAF Financial, Inc., et al ("Bad Actors" case)
The Trustee and the Defendants together with the UST have agreed, subject to approval of this Court, to enter into a global settlement of the above-referenced litigation on the terms and conditions set forth in a Settlement Agreement attached to the Motion as Exhibit A (the “Settlement Agreement”). The material terms of the Settlement Agreement provide as follows: (a) the Defendants will pay the Trustee the sum of $6.5 million (the “Settlement Payment”), which includes therein the return by Orrick of (i) $334,533.44 that remains in Orrick’s trust account as a retainer previously paid by the Debtors and (ii) $163,817.89 that TMST paid to Orrick for post-petition services in full satisfaction of the claims asserted in the Complaint; (b) Orrick will waive an award for any additional fees and expenses it incurred post-petition for which it was not paid, which Orrick advises is in the amount of $686,506.30; (c) mutual general releases by and among all parties, including releases to certain current and former directors, officers, partners, associates, employees, attorneys and agents of the parties as more fully set forth in detail in the Settlement Agreement; (d) the Trustee and the Defendants will execute and file a stipulation dismissing the Complaints, Crossclaims and Counterclaims with prejudice upon approval by the Bankruptcy Court of the Settlement Agreement and the payment of $6.5 million to the Trustee; and (e) the Defendants shall withdraw with prejudice all proofs of claims that they have filed in any of the Debtors’ bankruptcy cases and they shall not file at any point in the future any proofs of claims against any of the Debtors or their bankruptcy estates.
Objections due by 3/05/12
Hearing scheduled for 3/07/12 at 09:30
Source: Epiq Systems [Docket 1525]
Judge Blake Submits Memorandum to Counsel (2/07/12)
After receiving responses from counsel and consultation with her colleagues, they decided that the cases should remain individually assigned and not be transferred to one judge.
Source: PACER [Docket 46]
SEC sent “Wells Notice” letter on 12/13/11.
The SEC provided written notice of its intention to recommend that the Commission institute a public administrative proceeding against TMST to revoke the registration of its securities under Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act based on TMST’s failure to comply with Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. Sher has been working towards reaching a settlement in which registration is revoked while avoiding expensive litigation.
Source: Epiq Systems [Docket 1519]
that makes alot of sense. i wish i would of had these from the get go i would of already made money lol
thanks again
Regarding priority, consider that the TMA.GB 8% Senior Notes have allready had a partial recovery (explained below in italics). How could this happen if other claims have any priority over them? The answer is - they don't.
Adfitech was a Non-Debtor subsidiary. Senior Note Holders, who had a claim of $304.7 million, received a package of Adfitech securities and cash valued at $38.6 million. For each $1000 in principal amount of TMA.GB, holders received $121.88 in value comprised of $78.26 in Adfitech Inc 8% Sr Secured Notes due 3/05/20 (ADFT.AA), $37.60 (20 shares) in Adfitech common stock (ADFT) and $6.02 in cash. This lowered the remaining claim to $878.12 per $1000 principal amount. The remaining claim is $266.1 million.
That partial recovery is the reason the bonds will be considered "whole" at $878.12 today ...instead of $1,000 each.
The other unsecured creditor(s) on that list of top 20 you cite would not have stood by and let this partial recovery happen if it was legally theirs.
Judge Blake Submits Memorandum to Counsel (1/23/12)
The judge believes the Goldman Sachs case is also related to Civil Nos. ELH-11-1982 (Barclays Capital Inc) and BEL-11-1998 (RBC Capital Markets LLC). She wants a status report by 1/27/12 addressing the extent of the relationship and whether they believe the cases should be coordinated and/or handled by one judge, so that I may discuss this further with my colleagues.
Source: PACER [Docket 8]
Case consolidation appears likely. It will be interesting to see how the others respond.
Judge Blake Grants Motion To Withdraw Reference (1/23/12)
Sher v. Goldman Sachs & Co.
Civil Action Number CCB-11-2796
Signed on 1/20/2012
It was Before the bk ? Isnt that the reason for there bk filing. Does before or after change the apr?
Thanks!
You're referring to Doc #3 filed the same day Thornburg Mortgage filed for BK protection May 1, 2009.
You're question is concerning absolute priority but to determine that we have to work through some things first.
Homework assignment romang: When did those parties seize collateral from TMA - was it before TMA filed BK ...or shortly after?
If after then their claims would be listed on the unsecured creditor list. No?
i was looking at the 20 unsecured creditors and i see a few claims from jpm ,credit suise etc but they are disputed unliquidated and contingent master repurchase agreement? for almost $2 billion
any way they could they be ahead of us?
when something looks to good to be true i get nervous lol
Thanks in advance 56chevy and EI
Makes sense thanks both of you guys for the fast response
I see that my friend and partner EI has allready given the best answer. Keep in mind we're in the Ch 7 liquidation mode. To add to the advantages I see that that $95M dollar asset is real cash (regardless of the low interest rate it earns currently) if that asset for example were buildings or inventory or property it could be years getting it monetized..and that could cost holders far more in recovery time and money (if properties sold for lower than expected..etc) than the low interest it earns. I see that $95M in cash as a very good thing.
Make sense?
Service charge began in October 2011.
It is a demand deposit account and earned $98,181.61 in 2010. The interest rate earned in December 2010 was only .12 percent.
The only way to earn 1 percent in today's interest environment would be a longer-term CD. The funds be kept liquid.
what makes no sense to me we have 95 million sitting in a bank of america account earning zero interest and we are getting charged 5000 a month fee for the account
even 1% on that money would be almost a million a year in interest and no 60k a year in fees
Visit the Bond Store at Zions Direct.
https://www.zionsdirect.com/products-and-services/products/bond-store.php
You wouldnt have any info on the senior sub bonds was looking on etrade and i could not find them. maybe pick up a couple on a lotto ticket
Mostly cash. A little cash equivilents.
Looking at the mor i was wondering is the 104 mill all cash? I saw a bank of america account with 95 mill in it. Thanks in advance!
Monthly Operating Report Dec. 31,2011
Docket # Docket Date
1502 1/19/2012 Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period December 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 on behalf of Joel I. Sher Filed by Joel I. Sher. (Attachments: # (1) Attachment) (Sher, Joel)
http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/TMI/docket/Default.aspx?rc=1
thank you for all the help i think i got confused when i looked at the por from 2009 it had 1.1% recovery as this was not the plan for tma.gb rookie mistake lol
thank you for all the help
Your questions are welcomed on the board for sure romang. Unlike WAMU with thousands of postings to have to plow thru making it nearly impossible to get up to speed the Thornburg boards are mostly clutter free making it much much easier for anyone to go back and read some of what's been posted to date. You'll find alot of Senior Note info posted on the THMRQ equity board before we opened a separate Senior Note board of it's own. Both intro's on the boards have good information/links to court doc sites. etc.
Not much has really changed the past 9 months so past postings are still relevent. I would focus on postings by EI this past year ;)
Correction re: post-petition liabilities:
Not paid 100%. Legal will have a 20 percent holdback. There will always be accrued AP.
Paid. The lions' share of the post-petition liabilities are professional fees (known as the' burn rate') and are paid monthly. TMST had approx $110 Million in cash assets at filing. You'll notice that that cash amount has decreased each month as the post-petition professional fee invoices come in. There may be some smaller amounts that have no been paid yet.
What do I think of the drop to 10 on the ask?
This could go on for another year+...doubtful but very possible.
I also think WAMU has taken alot of prisoners the last couple of years. The Thornburg BK is a forgotten/ignored situation by the retail crowd in many respects.
Represents the Liquidation Analysis for ADFT Plan.
Distribution of Adfitech assets to TMA.GB holders.
For each $1000 in principal amount of TMA.GB, holders received $121.88 in value:
$78.26 in Adfitech Inc 8% Sr Secured Notes due 3/05/20 (ADFT.AA)
$37.60 (20 shares) in Adfitech common stock (ADFT)
$6.02 in cash
*first day closing price of $1.88 on 3/19/10
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=48813780
No plan has been developed for THMRQ.
looking at the disclosure statement page 85 it says 1.1% recovery for tma.gb????
has the 9.5 mill total post petition liabilities been already deducted or would this come ahead of us?
what do u think of the drop to 10 on the ask?
thank you
is it me or am a i just paranoid what is the trick lol this seems like a sure play?
anyway i can find a mor on this?
thanks for the email i picked up 5 at 100 today
One of the first questions asked re: TMA.GB Senior Notes is where they stand in terms of Priority.
The Senior Subordinated Notes and the guarantees are secured on a second-priority basis, equally and ratably with all of our obligations under any future Note Lien Debt (as defined herein), by the Note Lien Collateral (as defined herein), which includes, among other things, the stock of certain of our subsidiaries, the mortgage servicing rights owned by our subsidiary Thornburg Mortgage Home Loans, Inc., and interest payment from the mortgage-backed securities underlying the Override Agreement (as defined herein). The Senior Subordinated Notes and the guarantees are effectively subordinated, to the extent that the value of the Note Lien Collateral, to our obligations under the Senior Notes, which are secured on a first-priority basis by the Note Lien Collateral.
http://edgar.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtmlSection1?SectionID=6068999-3376-11495&SessionID=OaqjHeDu1WZboP7
Followers
|
12
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
386
|
Created
|
09/15/11
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Sr Subordinated Note holders have a claim of $1.3 billion, while Jr Subordinated Note claims are $213.8 million.
All claim amounts listed above do not take into account any post-petition interest payable from the filing date forward.
Court - Case Numbers- Defendant(s)
USBC Maryland | Docket Date | USDC Maryland | Defendant(s) | Damages | Recovery |
10-00137 | 3/2/2010 | 10-01895 | SAF Financial et al | $22 Million | Settled for $6.5 Million |
11-00329 | 4/28/2011 | 11-01982 | Barclays Capital Inc | $94 Million | Settled for $23 Million |
11-00337 | 4/29/2011 | 11-03192 | Countrywide Home Loans | / | Settled for $3.1 Million |
11-00338 | 4/30/2011 | 11-02796 | Goldman Sachs | $71 Million | Undisclosed |
4/30/2011 | 11-01998 | RBC Capital Markets LLC | $35 Million | Settled $31.125 Million | |
11-00340 | 4/30/2011 | JP Morgan Chase et al | $1.3 Billion | RBS Settled for $23.5M |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |