Individual Investor
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.
Part of my joinder is about a cram down of a Holding Company that is not allowed to recapitalize by "funneling up" balances from profitable subsidiaries.
This particularly affects Tier-1 Capital.
So, the LBHI BK was forced by legislating against the US Holding Company for activities in the US that were widely practiced.
Furthermore, Legislators wanted the change or over rule covenants in Capital Trust offerings after billions of shares had been issued in the market.
IMO, Congress was "moving the goal posts."
The fact is, rights of a minority can be obscured, if not avoided, based on the agenda and public relations of a majority, even with misconstrued facts or false findings.
None of that means the impairment of the CT shares should stand.
IMO, there should be restitution for CTs.
mojo
And, Nella, WAMU & Lehman are very different companies.
FWIW.
I hope Mr. Wu & Mr. Gregory are onto something.
It isn't my intent to muddy the waters and give people excuses to avoid a fair, reasonable settlement.
But, our rights in the prospectus have been delayed and our shares have not been clearly classified, IMHO.
And, many have sat on the sidelines and have done nothing for the CTs.
Etc., etc., . . .
Good luck.
mojo
Ok.
His work for JPM is one of the reasons I never filed for the share split.
He is a Swamp Creature of the worst kind.
He misrepresented default rates and Corporate cash balances in proceedings that were later corrected by the Court.
He participated in endless PR games making ridiculous claims. It was all fair game to him.
How can he not be disciplined?
How can there not be restitution for WAMU shares that were impaired by his Court claims?
But, this is why I'm the Bad A$$: I think we need to hold people accountable.
As for LBHI, grievances could have been filed with the Board about management and voted on.
But, they didn't, taking it straight to BK.
mojo
Nella,
BR? What's "BR"?
By the way, my joinder is about 25 pages now.
I could edit it and file it.
I'm working with people who have resources to make it constructive but I don't know if they will contribute much or want me to divulge their identity.
If I file it, they'll all think, "Who's the Bad A$$? Mr. Wu & Mr. Gregory are so nice!"
But why should I care?
mojo
Who knows anything about "Ghost Writing"?
Anyone?
What Court has a hearing for "Ghost Writers"?
So what?
Is Demi Moore and Patrick Swayze going to write and file something next?
Monday-eth?
mojo
I'm glad to see cotton in on it and have spoken with both cotton & Mr. Wu.
If we all jump on will it "muddy the waters?"
Frankly, it has been abuse and I'm offended it has taken this long.
What is done cannot be undone.
That is why there are penalties, even if they're capped.
As per my post #83795:
<<I'm pretty sure they don't want to hear someone "too long in the tooth" to bring up questions of fraud, looting and claw backs while they confess they've permitted the CTs to trade so the Estate is eligible for NOL tax credits.>>
I'm working on a document that will address and itemize potential abuse in the case against the CT shareholders.
However, I would like to think the Court will bring our interests to bear and make restitution in all fairness.
If they needed time and accommodations in what both Mr. Miller & Judge Peck termed "the most complicated bankruptcy in history" then make restitution.
They know how.
They know the FOMC rates.
They know how much the Counter-Parties and Trustees have been using to their advantage.
They have the resources.
They have forensic accountants if necessary.
What do they need to do it now?
The SEC is hanging over their backs.
If they want a settlement without more contests, they need to resolve the issue thoroughly and correctly acknowledging the advantages and disadvantages taken of all parties at all opportunities.
mojo
Could it be Jamestown, California, jersey?
Johnstown, California is outside of El Cajon, CA near San Diego.
Jamestown is one of my favorite towns in the Sierra foothills.
Gold Country-eth.
mojo
The Nor-store, Swissy.
About 90 degrees today.
And, not a cloud in the sky.
Don't think for a minute I couldn't use treble damages.
mojo-eth.
Good luck, jersey.
We have so many dumb heads out here in Cali, they make Nadler look civil in comparison.
I know it's a shame.
jers in Nadler-dom,
I think it would be nice if they will begin to address the CT settlement with Mr. Wu's motion.
I'm pretty sure they don't want to hear someone "too long in the tooth" to bring up questions of fraud, looting and claw backs while they confess they've permitted the CTs to trade so the Estate is eligible for NOL tax credits.
Let's just get everyone on the same page-eth.
mojo
Aye!
Here, here!
Get them in Court, sitting on their woo Wu!
mojo-eth
He's making a good point.
Hopefully, it works.
mojo-eth
Who do you report to, Joe?
I should call management.
mojo
d,
"§ 533.2 Definition of covered agreement.
(a)General definition of covered agreement. A covered agreement is any contract, arrangement, or understanding that meets all of the following criteria -
(1) The agreement is in writing.
(2) The parties to the agreement include -
(i) One or more insured depository institutions or affiliates of an insured depository institution; and
(ii) One or more NGEPs.
(3) The agreement provides for the insured depository institution or any affiliate to -
(i) Provide to one or more individuals or entities (whether or not parties to the agreement) cash payments, grants, or other consideration (except loans) that have an aggregate value of more than $10,000 in any calendar year; or
(ii) Make to one or more individuals or entities (whether or not parties to the agreement) loans that have an aggregate principal amount of more than $50,000 in any calendar year.
(4) The agreement is made pursuant to, or in connection with, the fulfillment of the CRA, as defined in § 533.4 of this part.
(5) The agreement is with a NGEP that has had a CRA communication as described in § 533.3 of this part prior to entering into the agreement."
So, we have a "covered contract".
What classification should they be in?
What about the guarantee isn't covering it?
mojo
What Trustee do you speaketh?
mojo-eth
John checked the box for interest and other charges which were supposed to be listed if they were a part of a derivatives contract or guarantee.
That's cool. Do you feel a breeze?
So, now $126B of distributions have been paid out, without identifying the principle or interest paid down, mind you, but none to the CTs from the Estate that has "no money" and $679B in assets at time of filing.
Did you find the 5-year deferment period helpful?
Were the additional stays of assistance?
What other interests must be addressed before re-instituting the CTs?
mojo
jers,
Re-read Joe's #83655 post about Guarantee boxes. He thinks the right "guarantee box" was checked.
I still think the box representing a claim secured by a guarantee should have been checked and a copy of the guarantee provided.
The Capital Trust was not secured on a derivatives or other contract or product.
They were general unsecured tier-1 Capital.
I have not found a copy of the Corporate guarantee in the claim paperwork but have it from an RSM filing mentioned by cotton.
In some way, it may speak to the CTs' unconditional obligation nature of LBHI for repayment.
I digress.
Good luck.
mojo
The guarantee box wasn't checked that should have been checked, Joe.
How else are we to interpret it?
Furthermore, Section 1405 identifies the obligation as unconditional and absolute for repayment.
LEHKQ Claim Filing Pg. 18/296.
Good luck.
mojo
Good eye, ana.
I've read over the claim and the guarantee box is not checked as you say.
Even with the Guarantee, I think there was a misclassification issue based on Subordinated Guaranteed General Creditor Claims which are different than the most Senior Preferreds.
If they chose not to classify the claims correctly because a box wasn't checked, that continues to open up more potential fraud.
However, they were also deemed impaired in 2013.
It doesn't make sense that the classification issue has not been resolved prior to the 2013 POR with all boxes checked.
The truth is the claim was filed and accepted. The paperwork wasn't perfect. It doesn't help.
The fact people are enforcing the Guarantee now is good.
mojo
You know what also works, Joe?
Filing complaints with the SEC.
Calling the Southern District about the fraud you've perpetrated, sitting on your thumbs for 10 years.
And, why stop there?
That's how you get it in the woo.
mojo
jers,
I don't know either.
Made the call.
LBHI attorneys doubt new claim filings will go anywhere.
I'm glad the Pro Se filings were made to the Court with the Guarantee.
It seems there is a clear differentiator: Guaranteed Claims, Guaranteed Claims with Subordination and Non-Guaranteed Claims without Subordination.
How can Guaranteed Claims with Subordination be classified with Claims without the Guarantee?
Does anyone have a clean answer for that?
Hasn't it rendered the 5-year deferment obsolete?
It pre-empted any effort to re-instate the Trust and they piled on with the stay.
So, pay treble damages.
All the attorneys have been paid while they've used the legal system to over look CT prospectus and Guarantee.
And, the Bankers sit at the Discount Window for 0.0% money.
Have you determined how much 0.0% money Banks can get while not re-instating ~$75M yearly debt service on a $1.2B Trust?
Figure it out at 0.25%.
mojo
I was referred to an attorney involved with the case today.
I'll reach out to him tomorrow and ask about the pro se filings.
If it is about their own settlement and not the Trust settlement, could they be taking less?
How will anyone know until it is all solved?
mojo
joe,
<<The guarantee is what obligated LBHI to make payments on the debenture.>>
What happened to those payments?
mojo
jersey,
Joe could easily work in a Bank as trustee for the CTs.
They think it costs them nothing to delay re-instatement of the CT shares.
They assume Lehman is paying whomever needs to be paid while standing at the Discount Window for 0% money for the last 10 years.
They don't know if there is looting or when it started.
They don't know if there is fraud or when it started.
They use subordination as an excuse to sit on their thumbs.
Aren't they complicit in the fraud?
Aren't they complicit in the looting?
They had a 5-year deferment period after which the Capital Trusts were to be paid.
All interests have been addressed.
They failed and continue to fail.
mojo
Lehman is a much different business charter and much different business cache than WAMU.
More than 2x the balance sheet, also.
mojo
Retailer?
I think they need to recapitalize.
Either the debtholders and creditors will help do it or they'll lose everything but the $126B that's been paid out.
Could there be claw backs?
Depends on the mistakes.
jw, maybe you know what can be offered and priced without further debt reduction agreements.
I don't.
mojo
jw,
In your opinion (IYO), what does "monetize the newco" mean?
It is a looted Estate.
mojo
sidesy,
It <$.02/$1.00 on $10.5B of $34B+ for LBT Treasury claims in Europe.
That likely isn't the debt service on the notes. Might cover payments for the quarter.
I posted this last week.
LBT distributed payments to noteholders but were shutdown upon BK filing.
They administer other notes, too.
So what, LBHI or successor now wants someone to distribute payments on $10.5B in claims if they buy the rights for a couple hundred million.
Where's it going?
mojo
Looting.
Actually, treble damages would likely be settled for <$4.8B.
Someone might have different accounting.
Anyone?
jersey,
Have you thought about how easy it is for "The Powers that Be" to settle the CT claim?
48M shares trading for pennies 99% of the time?
How many shares do the trustees own? The Subsidiaries? Affiliates? LBHI itself?
How many of these shares could be exchanged by JPM itself if they wanted a treble damages settlement?
$6B - $7B max to secure the charter and cache. Capitalize ops with Tier 1?
Then, they'd just be paying themselves.
How many are owned pre-2013?
JPM could push the bid to $0.25 - $0.50 tomorrow and acquire millions.
Same with BNY.
They have the FED keeping the rates low for at least 6 months, too.
They haven't had the inclination to settle yet.
Not in their purview.
Can you say why?
mojo
I understand, jersey.
Anger at all the misrepresentation and self-dealing.
Maybe more.
We can't turn back the clock.
I wish we could.
But, how were we to know?
If we sell now, we're all out with little to show for it.
A real estate operator once told me, "Common sense prevails."
If the attorneys required egregious accommodations to assess all interests, they should pay for infringing on shareholder rights in the prospectus and misrepresentation in the marketplace.
Whether or not they believe the market is or isn't efficient.
What else can I say?
mojo
You two, Jersey & cotton, are great!
Personally, I think both WAMU & LBHI can't be settled without treble damages.
If the FED needs lower rates to do it, they should.
If Dimon is smart, he'd want this wrapped up soon.
Even if it requires JPM stock in exchange.
Good luck!
mojo
I think you fat fingered your phone, a little.
Just don't butt dial us on the Board.
Thanks.
Did you get the pre-order at $58 - $62?
Then, it opens to the public at $88 and closes at $78.
Probably couldn't have timed it much better after the Fed backed off rate increases and the 10 year inverted.
Lyft lost $1B last year.
If you made money, good for you.
BTC is going higher now, too.
These are closely held deals among Banks, VC & ETFs for the tech.
Tech is risky for a reason: The high PE multiples snap the stock price first on economic weakness.
Lehman:
What do you think of my 2 Class Proposal: 1. <2013 & 2. >2013 = .5x Treble?
It's the only way this thing makes sense to me knowing what I know about the Global Guarantee, misclassification & the 5-year deferment obstruction in the 2013 POR.
What other way could be as reasonable?
What percentage of the 48M float are held before 2013?
Half treble damages for impaired shares is a great deal to trade for especially at these levels.
If you can get them.
mojo
Remaining cases open - 5
(LBHI, LBSF, LOTC, LCPI, BNC)
1 Case (BNC) has not participated in distributions.
So, BNC may receive 100%.
With the 3 Cases (other than LBHI), it looks like they have been paid an average of 72.89% of claims.
Without LBHI & BNC, the 3 have been paid 63.85%.
LBHI has been paid 30.9% from distributions other than the Classes 10+.
Docket #59599:
<<On September 19, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered the Order Pursuant to
Sections 105(a) and 1142(b) of the Bankruptcy Code Establishing Procedures for Distributions on Account of Guarantee Claims Corresponding to Certain Primary Claims Against Lehman Brothers Treasury Co. B.V. (ECF No. 56274) (the “Order”) authorizing the Plan Administrator to withhold Distributions on account of certain ISIN Guarantee Claims (as such term is used in the Order) corresponding to Primary Claims against Lehman Brothers Treasury Co. B.V. (“LBT”).>>
Why are these LBT Distributions withheld?
Does it have to do with the recent $10B+ sale? Buyer ID not divulged.
Anyone?
Lastly, how are $126B in claims distributed in this BK over 10 years and there isn't any debt matching programs from debtholders or other debt concessions?
Is it all looting?
Anyone?
mojo
LOL!
What are you arguing about, Joe?
CTs are general unsecured creditor claims of the LBHI Holding Company.
Good luck.
mojo
<<They do not hold equity in anything. You, as a CT shareholder, hold equity in the trust.>>
$600M Subordinated bonds + $600M LBHI Credit = $1.2B in CT Equity for CT shareholders with a Global Guarantee.
You know this, Joe.
Good luck.
mojo