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.
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.
Hi, sorry for the dumb question but what has this got to do with LBHI TruPs?
Here is my receipt for the 1$ gift to the art farm:
*************
Thank You for Your Donation!
From:
receipts@qgiv.com
Thank you for your support of Rockdale Art Farm! Your donation details have been provided below.
Date: September 25, 2022
Trans ID: 17184833
Name: Serge XXXXXXXXXX
Amount: $1.00
Payment Type: MasterCard
Swiss, this looks very promising! Thanks so much for all the research you do and all of your posts that have substance. You're my favorite read on this board sir.
I use CIBC Investor's edge in Canada and they told me that I need to pass the order through
an agent only. Cannot place the buy order online for the CTs.
Hope this helps someone.
Awesome post Swiss. Always appreciate your posts.
Cheers!
Good riddence is all I have to say!
CAN'T BE SOON ENOUGH & GOOD RIDDENCE!!!
Thanks Cotton, point #3 appears very interesting. I wonder why if there was a decision by the SCOTUS in 2019 that our CT interests have been funneled up to the other classes. Technically we should have received our interest payments as per this supreme court decision. At least I think....
Thanks for the link DJN. I never received any offer to get a distribution let alone an option to opt-out of this final distribution. It says I had until Feb 5th to opt out but I never was told there was a final distribution and never received any documents. I guess I'm fecked.
hi dade, where did you take that info from please?
and thanks for posting!
Thanks Jersey
Hi everyone, I apologize if I may have caused some confusion with my earlier post. I most probably had misread the post # 98382.
There was a mention by Cotton that the SCOTUS had spoken in our favor, so I got a bit confused and thought that Rex woo had managed to win his appeal.
It is not in my habits to spread B.S. on this board and again I do apologize for my error.
Hi Swiss, what I am seeing in the document posted by Cotton, is the case request to supreme court judge Ronnie Abrams to statute over a decision from the NY Bankruptcy court which was a motion to reconsider submitted at the time by Rex Wu and was denied by the NY judge Chapman. & related exibits.
If I am correct, Cotton posted yesterday the decision from the Supreme court of the US which ordered the Bankruptcy court judge Chapman to reconsider her judgment as it was incorrect.
Also a fan of Cheezie. read all of your precious research and thank you for posting sir.
Thanks for posting newflow, this was an interesting read.
@JOE STOCKS>: I would like to know Joe, since you've mentioned so many times that you are here on the board to help us out so that we don't get fooled and lose our money and that you do all of this pro bono, why is it that you are advising us to sell our shares?
If I sell my shares, this means that I would be unloading my shares onto an unsuspecting buyer which would in turn become a bagholder as you say. If Lehman doesn't continue as a going concern this would mean that this person who would buy my shares would become exactly what you are telling us not to become right?
I have a tough time understanding why I would do something like this after having help my shares of CTs since 2009 and make someone else lose their money. Wouldn't you try to save these unsuspecting buyers too by advising us to hold our shares to avoid making another person be a bagholder?
I am just trying to understand your position in all of this Joe. Can you explain to me please?
Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide sir.
Hi camaro, I am canadian you think I can join?
Happy New Year!
Short position as of 08/21
3664524 shares
https://www.iiroc.ca/industry/marketmonitoringanalysis/Pages/consolidated-short-position-report.aspx
Thanks for your valued input. I bought my shared in 2009 at a very low cost. Am sitting on my stash and waiting for payday. Some I guess are late to the party.
All the best
Especially on a bankrupt company stock because what will influence the momentum will not be from the regular avenues.
I thought that once the POR is closed, any debt owed to the creditors is cancelled. No? Isn't this how bankruptcy works? Where the debtor pays the creditors until the POR is closed then if anything is left there are no more distributions and the company can
once againt do business as a reorganized entity or reverse merge into another company ?
So why would there be any monies owed to creditors once the POR is closed? This makes absolutely no sense to me and is not logical at all or else why file for a chapter 11 ? Which in fact5 is a Reorganisation plan?
Thanks for any light...
Yes 600k but I think that if the court would have granted his motion it would perhaps have created a precedant for all of the other CT holders, no? This would have opened the floodgates mayb e and this is what the court was trying to avoid.
all IMO though, I am no wall street lawyer
Maybe Waske should have a chat with Cotton. As I recall, a few years back Cotton tried to bring his issue to another judge outside of the BK court and that judge just got stopped dead in his tracks. For me , too many things happened in this bankruptcy to deem it as fair and equitable by the BK court of NY.
I remember Judge Peck removing himself from this case stating some whatever family issue.I think he just didn't want to play the puppet for the MOB anymore and didn't want to dirty his nose in this BS rotten BKcase anymore. So they replaced him with another puppet that was willing to play the game for them.
This BK stinks so far that I can even smell the decay here in Canada.
IMHO & GLTA
Also, I thought that there were some funds withheld by JPMCB to cover the face value of the CTs. At one point I think I read that JPMCB was holding well over 7 billion and I haven't read anything about whatever happened to that money.
Maybe someone knows?
Hi Jersey,
I agree that we may not get in cash unless the CT's get just left alone after there is a reverse merger done and Lehman continues under a new name. This could be what is in the cards for the CT's as they can't be discharged.
If this occurs then we'll see the price climb back to market value of these shares that will be yielding approx 6% interest per year on a 25$ face value. At the current interest rates that the FED has put on, these will be like gold for some investors.At the same time would be a big interest cost for the newco and maybe they would offer a buy back to get some sort of cheaper financing.
The other solutions would be shares or other sort of offer .. At this point I'll just take anything worthwhile for my wait.
IMHO and all the best my friend.
Satisfied in full means that there was at one point an agreement upon what would be the percentage of recovery for the creditors.
Paid in full means that their whole claim must be paid off.
There is a difference between both of these terms. Now, this being said, what was the original percentage that the creditors had agreed? If I recall it was lower than what they have now been distributed.
So, I can't figure out why the court just keeps on giving them a higher percentage than what the original POR was offering. Plus , why are the CT's interest payments being halted for more than the 20 quarters that were mentioned in the prospectus? Isn't this a breach of the covenant?
I find it strange that when the POR was adopted, if I recall correctly, the creditors were supposed to receive a certain percentage which was agreed upon and later on , we can see that they received alot more than what had been agreed with the POR.
Any clue of what happened with that BS" ?
I agree to what you are saying , but why write in the prospectus that even in bankruptcy the CTs cannot be discharged if the BK court can do whatever it wants?
All I am saying is that there are clauses and garanties in the prospectus that state amongst other things that:
1- CTs cannot be discharged, even in a bankruptcy.
2- The interests cannot be witheld for more than 20 quarters.
It has been many more than 20 quarters that the interests have not been paid to the CTs which is a disrespect of the covenant.
If on top of that they discharge the CTs then this would be a total breach of the contrat. I just cannot understand why these facts are just being ignored and that we are sitting in class 10-B and that our distributions are being funneled up to the higher classes.
If I may, when the Bank of New York Mellon trustee filed the original claim for the CTs, there was a box to be checked to enforce or include the guarantee clause from the prospectus and this box was not checked by the trustee. Either by an honest error or intentionally. This is why my belief is that if the CTs do not get to be made whole, we all might have a case againt the BNYM for their fk up.
Perhaps someone can confirm if I understood the CTs correctly.
From what I gather, the CTs are subordinate debt and as per the prospectus they cannot be discharged. This tells me that when the POR gets shut down and if Lehman starts a newco, then the CTs will still be alive and to make them go away the company must buy them back at the debenture face value. This would sound logical for them to buy the CTs because of the high interest rate which they will cost. At today's interest rates, the newco could raise the same amount of cash by issuing new Trups at a lower rate offering.
If they decide not to buy the CTs back, then they will be paying the interests as mentioned on the prospectus and automatically the value of the CTs will be adjusted to their face value on the open market. I think many investors would want to purchase these shares at the rates which are offered from the prospectus.
Lastly, if we do end up with nothing, the only entity that should be taken to court is the Bank of New York Mellon who entered the CT claims without enforcing the guarantee offered by the prospectus. Whether this was done intentionally (fraudulently ) or not, This is an error which the trustee who filed the claim is responsible and liable for.
Any thoughts are welcome ..
Short position on WFSTF / WEF:TO
https://www.iiroc.ca/industry/marketmonitoringanalysis/Pages/consolidated-short-position-report.aspx
As of june 19th 2020 there is over 4 million shares short on this stock.
Question for toogood:
Thanks for posting Fritz... this is quite interesting
I disagree, I feel Trump takes the pole in that department.
Hey Mates ! Look at the bright side .. CTs are recession proof !
The most important aspect of this article Joe is that all the income generated for the estate from these 6200 entities which will probably be sued by Lehmans will indeed have to at one point be distributed to creditors or will be a part of a new company that will see Lehman rise from its ashes.Either way, I see a strong possibility of CTs getting a piece of that cake. Whether it be because CTs get converted into common shares and then transferred into the OBS and a re-launch of a new company or a merger of some kind etc.. OR some distributions to CTs to buy them off, maybe at face value +interests.