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.
The question is do they have a subordinated guarantee? If they do, it is protected by Bankruptcy Code 510(a).
Most CTs are held my insitutional owners hence, the low volume each day. Institutions don't day trade.
Lol. No one reads the top of the board info. Maybe we should. I just reread it. There are some good info there.
Thanks man, I just learned something new.
Those Ks are the most illiquid. Atleast its still in the mid 30s. Lets hope we can break 50 by the end of the week for the other 3 CTs.
Garret Fail lied to Judge Englemayar and then "doctored" his evidence!!! And the 4 Horsemen proved it with Garret Fail's signature too. Wow
Independent disciplinary action is needed here. Wu should file something with the SDNY and the Bar.
Good point. Not too many people see that. The subordinated guarantee covers both affiliates and subsidiaries. The Important Covenants of LBH are powerful on its own. You combine that with the parity to form the subordinated guarantee and the right for shareholders to sue.
And the no discharge unless they reissue us our sub debt back on a major exchange. That is in the guarantee too and protected by bk code 510a
So you are saying the CTs are also on on parity with any guarantee after the issue date also? On top of being on parity with the most senior preference shares of LBHI and its affiliates. That is what is I am reading.
I have to ask Wu that.
THE WORDS IN FRONT OF IT ALL IS "ON PARITY" and the multiple "or"s you forgot to bold those.
You just made the arguments stronger for me. We are in parity with any guarantees after the issue date also. V
The CTs are in parity with the most senior preference shares of LBHI or its affiliates. That means all of them.
The CTs are in parity with the most senior preference shares of LBHI or its affiliates. That means all of them.
Cottonisking, I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain further? Thanks.
Did Maverick's long positions include LBHI CTs' or ECAPs' preferred securities or Preferred Stock?
It seems odd. Wu usually responds in a timely manner. I did not have any issues sending my shares in. I also email the guy regularly. He always responds within a reasonable amount of time. I find that he will answer what he feels is appropriate and ignore what he feels is not. I sent him 5 questions once and he only answered 2. That is my experience with Wu. I also contacted one of the other WWWs and got a mixed experience. He responded 2/4 times. Food for thought.
Maybe double check the email address? I do not think they would turn down participants.
Thanks for the info. So, its about 150 million US. Cool.
That caught me by surprise too. It would suck if they didn't. Imagine you are holding the CT that is not being sued!!!
How much is that 14.3% worth? Thanks.
It seems like they need 50 shareholders for each CT. A shareholder can own up to 4 CTs. A shareholder can qualify up to 4 class action lawsuits? I need clarification on the response. I will send Wu a follow up email.
Lol. Ok.
Good answer but, that is what is currently being challenged by www. The challenge is violation of the subordinated guarantee and that there should have been recognition of the parity rights and the obligation of LBHI to file the annual subordinted certificates which are protected by Bankruptcy Code 510(a). That is my interpretation.
Isn't this a Bankruptcy Code 510(a) violation in relations to our subordinated guarantee? Any paymemts to preference shares of our affiliates are a violation of our subordinated guarantee and bankruptcy code 510(a).
Just let it go. It is just another toogood post. He doesn't understand the Notice of Errata. Thats all.
toogood, please do some DD. I have no idea what you are talking about. We will just leave it at that. V
Look at Docket #61173. Its a Notice.
Maybe this is why the Plan Admin on his tardy objection to the Motion to Compel don't want to respond anymore. The more he responds, the more trouble he will be in because any denial of the subordinate guarantee rights from here is an automatic misrepresentation which www can use for disciplinary actions. The BK court better watch out too. They can't rule any action out that www may or may not pursue. Its getting personal for everyone now. The Plan Admin made that mistake by going personal. This is getting interesting for all parties in the bk.
Don't you get a feeling this is where its heading?
You're welcome. I am just sharing information either I get from www or see from the dockets.
Check out docket 61172 and 61168
But, I joined. I am one of the 50.
@25k per CT class, we get nothing. If our Trustee takes that deal, I will sue them myself just for the principle of it
Did you check your junk folder? I write the guy a few times a day since that motion came out. He always responded within reasonable time. He answered most of my questions.
Our Trustee the BNYM can opt us all in. For 25000x4CT series=$100000 and have us all be all done with. That will mean we get nothing. The threat of the class action probably saved all the CT shareholders from getting 0.
We can't opt in individually and get 25k each. That is not how it works.
I will let www know. Thanks
I wonder how many of us joined and where the shareholder count is?
That is true. Never give your personal info away to people who are unknown on the internet. But, with the class action not all information is unknown. I submitted my CT info because of the replies I got.
Although, not all my questions were answered, the person replying to me have enough credibility to carry this through.
Its RW. If you have any questions, just ask. I did. I did for the past 18 months on here and talking to WWW.
There are many people who won lawsuits relating to fannie and freddie and made lots of money. A good example is similar to here where they did not sue fnf themselves but other culprits. They sued the auditors and insurers.
Now that you got me thinking, most of those wins against other parties were class actions. I know of one individual cases was in the Illinois Federal Courts. That gets me thinking. Could that be one of the WWWs?
As to what happened lately, keep in mind the Scotus ruling does not really impact the case before Lamberth. That is my take on it.
What does CLBL mean? Thanks
I noticed there are many lurkers here. They might not post much but are here nonetheless.
Edit: we have 200 pages of members equaling a possible 200 shareholders. Nice. 50 should be a drop in the bucket.
Bankruptcy code 510 A
The wossilek filing is also about these certificates.
Lol. Maybe LBHI is trying to get the CT holders off their backs and direct them to sue the trustee bnym instead.
Didn't cottonisking say they hinted to waske to sue Barclays?
Can you imagine what this class action will look like if www wins any of their lawsuits? Wossilek is sitting on a summary judgement. It is taking forever for Judge Chapman to rule on that. I like the objection by the plan administrator. Even though its invalid, its a funny rant. Lol