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.
Over a million in volume in 15 minutes... looking good.
Lehman Brothers is dead; long live Lehman
Signal firm of '08 meltdown still in business, working toward profitability.
http://www.statesman.com/business/lehman-brothers-is-dead-long-live-lehman-916377.html?cxtype=rss_business
NEW YORK — Lehman Brothers is supposed to be dead and gone, but if you step off the elevator at the 40th floor of one midtown Manhattan skyscraper, you might think you've seen a ghost.
Behind imposing glass doors stands a gleaming brown reception desk displaying, in silver letters, the name of the Wall Street giant that collapsed spectacularly in 2008 and filed for bankruptcy two years ago today , triggering the worst phase of the financial crisis.
Well-dressed Wall Street types buzz back and forth. On one floor, investment managers tend to billions of dollars' worth of real estate and other holdings. On another floor, young traders of derivatives — the complex securities that took much of the blame for Lehman's downfall — sit at computer screens, keeping tabs on thousands of contracts that Lehman entered into and that remain in force.
All told, the operation has about 500 employees, most of whom worked for Lehman before the downfall.
"There are always some strange looks when I say I work here," said Michael Lascher, who helps manage the real estate assets, just as he did pre-Chapter 11. "But we're doing business."
After Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. entered bankruptcy proceedings on Sept. 15, 2008, its main operations were sold within days or weeks to rival firms. Most of the remaining assets appeared headed for quick liquidation. Instead, the team brought in to manage the portfolio for the benefit of Lehman's creditors plans to emerge as a profitable, functional company.
But Lehman's unexpected afterlife pales compared to its life as the country's fourth-largest investment bank, with more than $600 billion in assets, 26,000 employees and myriad lines of business.
For one thing, it's still operating under the watchful eye of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and is likely to for several more years.
The company's location — four floors of the Time & Life Building on the edge of Rockefeller Center — used to be a Lehman back office.
From his office, with boxes piled in a corner and nothing on the walls but a white board, Lehman's current president, John Suckow, can see the firm's old marquee headquarters down the block on 50th Street. That mammoth structure now displays the name of British-owned Barclays Capital, which snapped up the building along with Lehman's North American investment bank.
Lehman's top executives actually work for Alvarez & Marsal, which has been running the company in bankruptcy.
Bryan Marsal, the corporate turnaround firm's co-CEO, also serves as Lehman's chief executive. About 140 other members of Lehman's staff, including Suckow, are Alvarez & Marsal employees.
Soon after the bulk of Lehman's operations was sold, Marsal and Suckow decided that liquidating the remaining assets — including derivatives, real estate and private equity holdings — during the financial crisis was not the best course of action. To manage the portfolio, the firm hired back hundreds of Lehman employees facing an uncertain future at Barclays.
As financial markets have rebounded, so has the portfolio, now valued at about $50 billion, up from the estimated $33 billion it would have brought had it been liquidated within a year.
As a result, the firm estimates that creditors will get back more than 14 cents for each dollar of confirmed claims against Lehman.
But Alvarez & Marsal has become a focus of controversy because of the fees the firm has charged to manage the case. Through July, fees had totaled $917 million, with $326 million of that going to Alvarez & Marsal.
In perhaps its most unusual move, the Lehman team has formed a new asset-management firm staffed with many of the employees now at the company. The plan is for the new firm, named Lamco, to keep managing Lehman's assets in Chapter 11 and seek new business from other institutional investors.
The main argument for creating Lamco was that it would allow Lehman to retain good employees by giving them long-term job prospects. Also, Lehman's creditors stand to gain if Lamco becomes profitable.
Barry Adler, a bankruptcy expert at New York University Law School, called the move to form Lamco "creative, innovative and, at least in theory, productive."
"To take the leftover pieces of a company, the shards of the collapse, and turn that into something new — that seems very novel to me," Adler said.
Around the office in the Time & Life Building, Lehman's name is being replaced slowly by Lamco's. Every employee recently got a green hat with a Lamco logo.
Just in... Lehman Sues Bank Association Over Claim Priorities at Two-Year Deadline
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-15/lehman-sues-bank-association-over-claim-priorities-at-two-year-deadline.html
Tasked with tidying up Lehman
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7bb87cd0-bf60-11df-965a-00144feab49a.html
Go Lehman!!!
Lehman Judge Lets Experts Stay In Barclays Deal Trial
Law360, New York (September 10, 2010) -- The judge overseeing the bankruptcy of Lehman Brother Holdings Inc. has denied Barclays PLC’s request to bar several experts from testifying in a trial over the British bank’s now-disputed takeover of the fallen investment giant’s broker-dealer business.
Judge James M. Peck issued a ruling from the bench Friday in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, denying so-called Daubert motions filed by Barclays...
http://www.law360.com/registrations/user_registration?article_id=192871&concurrency_check=false
SEC Homes In on Lehman, 'Funds of Funds'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703960004575482222876580094.html
The Securities and Exchange Commission's investigation into the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. is zeroing in on an accounting maneuver used to give the appearance that the company had reduced its debt levels, according to people familiar with the situation.
Agency officials also are probing whether former Lehman executives failed to adequately mark down the value of the huge real-estate portfolio acquired in the securities firm's takeover of apartment developer Archstone-Smith Trust or to disclose the resulting losses to investors, these people said.
The narrowing probe could move the SEC closer to bringing civil charges related to Lehman's collapse in September 2008, though a decision doesn't appear imminent.
In recent weeks, SEC officials have questioned a number of former Lehman employees, according to a person familiar with the situation. Additional interviews have been scheduled for this fall, but the agency hasn't indicated whether its probe will result in formal charges, according to people familiar with the matter. The U.S. attorney's office also is investigating Lehman's demise.
In another sign that the investigation is revving up, former Lehman executives have hired armies of lawyers, including some of New York's best-known criminal-defense lawyers, to fight off potential regulatory charges and related civil lawsuits. Those lawyers include Lewis Liman, a specialist in white-collar defense at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, representing Ian Lowitt, a former finance chief at Lehman.
Mr. Lowitt is one of the former Lehman executives being scrutinized over their roles in the accounting move known as Repo 105, which allowed the company to shift as much as $50 billion in assets off its balance sheet. Other former executives being probed over the technique include Chief Executive Richard Fuld Jr. and finance chiefs Erin Callan and Christopher O'Meara, people familiar with the matter said.
An SEC spokesman declined to comment. Lawyers for Messrs. Fuld, O'Meara and Lowitt and for Ms. Callan couldn't be reached for comment Thursday.
The accounting sleight-of-hand was denounced in March as "misleading" by a court-appointed examiner. Repo 105 enabled Lehman to paint "a misleading picture of its financial condition," examiner Anton R. Valukas concluded. The accounting transactions often were done in a financial quarter's final days, shortly before Lehman reported earnings.
More
* SEC Examines Funds of Hedge Funds
The examiner also cited an interview with Lehman's former global financial controller, who confirmed "the only purpose or motive for [Repo 105] transactions was reduction in the balance sheet." He added that "there was no substance to the transactions."
The Repo 105 transaction was never disclosed to Lehman's board, regulators or investors, according to Mr. Valukas. As part of its probe, the SEC also is investigating the role of Ernst & Young, Lehman's outside auditing firm. The examiner concluded that Ernst & Young "took virtually no action to investigate the Repo 105 allegations." A representative for the firm declined to comment Thursday.
Lawyers for the former Lehman executives have previously denied any wrongdoing related to the accounting moves, while Ernst & Young said it complied with generally accepted accounting principles.
The SEC and other U.S. regulators are under pressure from lawmakers who want to know why more individuals haven't been severely punished for their culpability in the financial crisis. At an April hearing, Rep. Al Green (D., Texas) said: "My concern is that no one to date has been arrested....It's about as close as you can get to fraud."
In his March report, Mr. Valukas wrote that the Repo 105 bookkeeping would yield more evidence of outright wrongdoing than the Archstone transaction if charges were brought. While Lehman's valuation of one Archstone position was "unreasonable" in the first, second and third quarters of 2008, for example, the examiner said he "did not find sufficient evidence to support a colorable claim for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with any of Lehman's valuations."
According to a recent court filing, the cost to defend the former Lehman executives is expected to reach $55 million by October. The expense has caused Lehman to tap liability insurance from four insurers so far, and an additional $15 million likely will come from a fifth insurer.
Write to Kara Scannell at kara.scannell@wsj.com and Carrick Mollenkamp at carrick.mollenkamp@wsj.com
Court Agenda for tomorrow @ 10am
NOTICE OF AGENDA OF HEARING ON MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH RULE
60(b) AND RELATED MOTIONS AND ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS
SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 AT 10:00 A.M.
Location of Hearing: United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York,
Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House, before the Honorable, James
M. Peck, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Room 601, One Bowling
Green, New York, NY 10004-1408
I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE / MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE:
1. Motion in Limine of Movants for an Order Excluding the Expert Testimony of
Professor Paul Pfleiderer [Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 8015; Case No. 08-
1420, Docket No. 2957]
Responses Received:
A. Opposition of BCI to the Motion in Limine [Case No. 08-13555,
Docket No. 8467; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No. 3146]
Related Documents:
B. Reply Memorandum in Support of the Motion in Limine [Case No. 08-
13555, Docket No. 10354; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No. 3501]
Status: This matter is going forward.
2. Motion in Limine of BCI for an Order Excluding the Expert Testimony of John P.
Garvey, Mark E. Slattery, Joseph Schwaba, John J. Schneider, John J. Olvany,
Harrison J. Goldin, and Professor Mark E. Zmijewski [Case No. 08-13555,
Docket No. 8510; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No. 3162]
Responses Received:
A. Memorandum of Movants in Opposition to the Motion in Limine [Case
No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10351; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No.
3498]
B. Declaration of Jayant W. Tambe in Support of Memorandum of
Movants in Opposition to the Motion in Limine [Case No. 08-13555,
Docket No. 10352; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No. 3499]
Related Documents:
C. Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion in Limine [Case No.
08-13555, Docket No. 10806; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No. 3564]
3
D. Declaration of Hamish Hume in Support of Reply Memorandum in
Further Support of Motion in Limine [Case No. 08-13555, Docket No.
10807; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No. 3565]
Status: This matter is going forward.
3. Motion in Limine of BCI for an Order Excluding the Expert Testimony of Daniel
McIsaac Regarding LBI’s Obligations Under SEC Rules 15c3-1, 15c3-3 and/or
the Securities Investor Protection Act [Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 8482;
Case No. 08-1420, Docket No. 3156]
Responses Received:
A. Memorandum of Movants in Opposition to the Motion in Limine [Case
No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10270; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No.
3484]
B. Declaration of Neil J. Oxford in Support of the Memorandum of
Movants in Opposition to the Motion in Limine [Case No. 08-13555,
Docket No. 10271; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No. 3485]
Related Documents:
C. Proposed Order Granting BCI’s Motion in Limine [Case No. 08-13555,
Docket No. 8486]
D. Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion in Limine [Case No.
08-13555, Docket No. 10803; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No. 3563]
Status: This matter is going forward.
4. Motion in Limine of BCI for an Order Excluding the Expert Testimony of Daniel
McIsaac Relating to Exchange-Traded Derivatives ("ETDs") and ETD Margin
[Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 8481; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No. 3155]
Responses Received:
A. Memorandum of Movants in Opposition to the Motion in Limine [Case
No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10268; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No.
3482]
B. Declaration of Neil J. Oxford in Support of the Memorandum of
Movants in Opposition to the Motion in Limine [Case No. 08-13555,
Docket No. 10269; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No. 3483]
4
Related Documents:
C. Exhibit 1 to the Motion in Limine - Expert Report of Daniel McIsaac
[Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 8483]
D. Exhibit 2 to the Motion in Limine - McIsaac Dep. Tr. (Apr. 6, 2010)
(REDACTED) [Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 8484]
E. Proposed Order Granting BCI’s Motion in Limine [Case No. 08-13555,
Docket No. 8485]
F. Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion in Limine [Case No.
08-13555, Docket No. 10801; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No. 3561]
G. Declaration of Hamish Hume in Support of Reply Memorandum in
Further Support of Motion in Limine [Case No. 08-13555, Docket No.
10802; Case No. 08-1420, Docket No. 3562]
Status: This matter is going forward.
Dated: New York, New York
September 9, 2010
JONES DAY
/s/ William J. Hine
Robert W. Gaffey
Jayant W. Tambe
William J. Hine
222 East 41st Street
New York, New York 10017
Telephone: (212) 326-3939
Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
Attorneys for Debtors
and Debtors in Possession
5
Dated: New York, New York
September 9, 2010
HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP
/s/ Neil J. Oxford
William R. Maguire
Seth D. Rothman
Neil J. Oxford
One Battery Park Plaza
New York, New York 10004
Telephone: (212) 837-6000
Facsimile: (212) 422-4726
Attorneys for James W. Giddens, Trustee for
the SIPA Liquidation of Lehman Brothers Inc
BLUE LIGHT SPECIAL!!! 1.00 ASK!!! What a steal!!!
I do.... I still have some from 8.00. I didn't touch anything higher... still holding them... they will be long term gains (taxes) instead of short term gains. I hope :)
Holding 15,000 shares till the end.
No worries. Thought we were all getting different quotes :)
It wouldn't surprise me :)
I see 1.02 on the ask with no bid on ScottTurd and Zecco.
1.02 LMAO... The MMs are on a fishing expedition... The Ps will fly when the time is right....
Go Lehman!!!
Thanks Jersey... Go Lehman!!!
Lehman, when are you going to pull the rabbit out of the hat... I know it's in there...
I know who is making all of the money... Bryan Marshal and his cronies...
The government is so full of ****. Bernanke cites 'sadness' in letting Lehman fail... Well Bernanke now that they have failed what are you doing to help them get back on their feet... NOTHING AS USUAL!!!
How is this related to Lehman. I don't see the connection since PWC has their own C and D preferreds.
Please advise.
How is this related to Lehman? I don't see the connection.
As of today I'm worth .017 cents :(
LMAO... Barclays Consultant Michael Klein Will Not Get Into Bed for $5 Million A Week
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/barclays_paid_michael_klein_10.html
The wind is starting to blow north.... GO LEHMAN!!!!
Look at LEHGQ (G) up 27,900% on 5,000 shares.... LMAO!!!!
Regarding J shares.... Lehman Brothers Class Action Lawsuit Filed
This is an old article but worth reading...
http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/lehman-brothers-class-action-1180/
In February 2008, 76 million of the preferred shares were sold at $25 each, for $1.9 billion offering. Following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the shares have fallen to under 10 cents, which has resulted in huge losses for investors.
The suit seeks class action status on behalf of all investors who purchased the Lehman Preferred Series “J” stock shares.
The lawsuit alleges that the prospectus issued prior to the offering failed to reveal Lehman’s large exposure to the sub-prime mortgage market and contained various false and misleading statements about the financial strength of the company.
09/01/2010 @ 02:00 PM Hearing
(a) Motion of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code for Enforcement of the Automatic Stay with Respect to UK Pension Proceedings (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10834) [Objections are due by August 30, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(b) Debtors’ Twenty-Eighth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Valued Derivative Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 9983) [Responses were due by August 3, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(c) Debtors’ Twenty-Ninth Omnibus Objection to Claims (No Blocking Number LPS Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10280) [Responses were due by August 19, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(d) Debtors’ Thirtieth Omnibus Objection to Claims (No Debtor Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10281) [Responses were due by August 19, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(e) Debtors’ Thirty-First Omnibus Objection to Claims (Insufficient Documentation Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10282) [Responses were due by August 19, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(f) Debtors’ Thirty-Second Omnibus Objection to Claims (Amended and Superseded Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10283) [Responses were due by August 19, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(g) Debtors’ Thirty-Third Omnibus Objection to Claims (Duplicative Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10284) [Responses were due by August 19, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(h) Debtors’ Thirty-Fourth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Misclassified Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10286) [Responses were due by August 19, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(i) Debtors’ Fifth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Amended and Superseded Claims) [Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 8006) (Adjourned) [Objections were due by May 3, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(j) Debtors’ Sixth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Amended and Superseded Claims) [Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 8007) (Adjourned) [Objections were due by May 3, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(k) Debtors’ Eighteenth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Duplicative of Indenture Trustee Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 9656) (Adjourned re: Response of Howard Terry and the Terry Foundation) [Responses were due by August 4, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.]
(l) Debtors’ Twentieth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Duplicative of Indenture Trustee Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 9658) (Adjourned re: Response of Mathew Gulrich, Jr.) [Responses are due by August 4, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.]
(m) Debtors’ Objection to Proof of Claim filed by David Schwartzman (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 5951) (Adjourned) [Objections are due by August 25, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(n) Motion of GLG Credit Fund to Permit it to File a Late Proof of Claim Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b)(1) (Case No. 08-135555, Docket No. 9537) (Adjourned) [Objections were due by August 20, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(o) Motion of Mark Glasser for an Order Pursuant to Rule 9006(b)(1) Seeking Permission to File a Late Claim (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 6386) (Adjourned) [Objections were due by April 15, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(p) Motion of Jeffrey Soffer and Fontainebleau Resorts, LLC to Dismiss Count IV of the Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief may be Granted (Adv. Proc. No. 10-02821, Docket No. 15) [Replies are due by August 23, 2010]
(q) Motion of Jeffrey Soffer and Fontainebleau Resorts, LLC to Dismiss Count IV of the Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief may be Granted (Adv. Proc. No. 10-02823, Docket No. 15) [Replies are due by August 23, 2010]
Former Citi Exec Got $10M to Advise Barclays on Lehman Deal
http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2010/08/27/former-citi-exec-got-10m-to-advise-barclays-on-lehman-deal/
In September 2008, Michael Klein got a killer gig just two months after leaving Citigroup: advising Barclays Group PLC on its acquisition of freefalling Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s broker-dealer business. He also got a killer fee.
Klein got $10 million for his work, a job opportunity made possible only after Citi agreed to waive a non-compete agreement he had signed as part of leaving his job as head of the bank’s institutional clients group.
This all came out Friday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, where Lehman is suing Barclays for allegedly getting a discount for Lehman’s broker-dealer business that wasn’t disclosed to the court. Lawyers for Barclays, who called Klein to the stand, objected to Lehman’s questioning Klein on his fee. So did Klein’s personal counsel. They said it’s fine to disclose the fee to the court, just not publicly, since that would put Klein at a competitive disadvantage in his independent consulting business.
But Judge James Peck, who presided over both the bankruptcy case and the trial, said Klein’s fee is “not only of great interest but it goes to the heart of his credibility as a witness.”
With that, Klein told the court his rate was a flat fee of $10 million, contingent on Barclays closing its deal to buy Lehman’s broker-dealer business.
By taking the post advising Barclays, Peck said, Klein “agreed to open his kimono that far.”
Meanwhile, the total cost of unwinding Lehman in bankruptcy is approaching $1 billion. Through July, the army of bankruptcy lawyers, consultants and financial advisers working on the Chapter 11 case raked in a total of $890 million.
Lehman, Liquidation Trustee to Launch Fraudulent Transfer Suits
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-25/lehman-liquidation-trustee-to-launch-fraudulent-transfer-suits.html
It looks like shorts are trying to cover to me. They are selling at the bid and not the ask which typically displays shorts trying to cover at the lowest price possible.
Barclays exec defends deal as Lehman trial resumes "There was nothing new in his testimony that disputes our case," Lehman spokeswoman Kimberly Macleod said in an emailed statement. "The court was not informed about crucial changes to the asset purchase agreement when it approved the sale, and therefore the court approved a sale that was very different than the one that was consummated."
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world-news/barclays-exec-defends-deal-as-lehman-trial-resumes_480629.html
Good point... and if the sale is reversed it would make the 11 billion lawsuit look like chump change. We are talking 50+ billion and I think we should also be rewarded damages on the money made up to the time it was reversed. Talk about a SERIOUS game changer.
Lehman's $11 Billion Barclays Bankruptcy Trial Returns From Summer Break
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-23/lehman-s-11-billion-barclays-bankruptcy-trial-returns-from-summer-break.html
Barclays Plc is set to defend itself against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s claim that it should pay as much as $11 billion after allegedly making an undisclosed “windfall” on its purchase of bankrupt Lehman’s brokerage.
The bench trial resuming today before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck in Manhattan after a summer holiday pits the U.K.’s third-biggest bank, represented by lawyer David Boies, against Lehman, which filed the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history in September 2008 and wants money from Barclays to pay creditors.
The money would help Lehman creditors, who may recoup only 15 cents to 44 cents on the dollar, Lehman has said, and hurt Barclays, which made 2.4 billion pounds ($3.7 billion) in the first half. The judge may encourage a settlement to avoid undoing a sale he approved, with Barclays paying less than it risks in a court-ordered judgment, contract experts said.
“Peck might signal to Lehman and Barclays that he very much wants this settled,” said bankruptcy-law professor Lynn LoPucki, who teaches at Harvard Law School. “Judges have ways of pressuring lawyers and litigants to settle.”
Under U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez, Enron Corp. creditors seeking $20 billion from Citigroup Inc. settled for $1.7 billion in 2008; Citigroup also waived claims on Enron.
Peck approved the brokerage deal within a week of Lehman’s Sept. 15, 2008, Chapter 11 filing as the subprime meltdown threatened credit markets. Lehman, its creditors and the brokerage trustee James Giddens sued Barclays last November as markets rebounded.
Previous Testimony
Lawyers for Lehman spent three weeks questioning witnesses including Barclays Chief Executive Officer John Varley in an effort to show that the bank raided Lehman’s assets before the deal closed and didn’t tell the judge.
Lehman said Barclays made $5 billion of “secret” profit on a portfolio of securities it took on with the brokerage, and another $6 billion by writing up business assets, skimping on promised payments and “grabbing” money in margin accounts and clearance boxes.
Barclays said Lehman’s advisers signed all the documents disclosing the transfers and didn’t object at the time. The trial broke off June 25.
Barclays will call witnesses who worked on the Lehman deal: Mark Shapiro, a Lehman restructuring expert now with Barclays; Stephen King, a former Barclays trading executive; Gary Romain, an accounting specialist at Barclays, and lawyers from Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.
If Lehman needs prodding to settle, Peck might “signal” to its lawyers that their fees might not all be approved, LoPucki said. Lehman paid its lawyers, advisers and managers $44.5 million in July, bringing the total fees to $917.6 million for 22 1/2 months in bankruptcy, a regulatory filing shows.
More Than Enron
That topped the $757 million that energy trader Enron’s three years of bankruptcy cost, according to data compiled by LoPucki.
To pressure Barclays to settle, LoPucki said Peck might “make things difficult” for the bank’s lawyers or for key witnesses.
Peck has sometimes done that. When Boies said it was up to Lehman’s advisers to disclose details of the deal, as his client had no “speaking role” at the 2008 sale hearing, Peck said, “I was here and you weren’t. Barclays had very much of a speaking role.”
Peck called Barclays President Robert Diamond “evasive,” telling a Lehman lawyer, “This is a witness that needs to be kept on a very tight leash.”
Paid to Review
Boies showed in May that the brokerage trustee charged $12,600 for reviewing documents detailing assets Barclays would get when it bought the brokerage, including a $4 billion margin account.
“I don’t know if we knew it was in there when we signed it,” Giddens’s lawyer said.
Lehman CEO Bryan Marsal testified that he hadn’t seen e- mails and documents sent to him or his firm, or hadn’t focused on them or had been confused by them.
So-called 363 bankruptcy sales, used by Lehman to save brokerage customers and by General Motors to rescue its best assets, are final under law. If Peck undoes the sale, future potential buyers of distressed assets might offer to pay less because of the risk the deal would be unwound, said George Kuney, a University of Tennessee College of Law professor who teaches bankruptcy and contract law.
“Especially in a large transaction, a judge would be reticent to overturn the sale order absent a clear showing of fraud or other impermissible action,” he said.
The cases are In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08- 13555, and Giddens v. Barclays Capital Inc., 09-01732, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Our Anniversary is coming up in a few weeks...shorties will start pulling out and we should start moving up. We should start seeing more news regarding the Barclays trial on Monday and charges against former Lehman executives.
Bring on the MOMO!!!
Barclays To Make Its Case In Lehman Lawsuit
Judge James Peck is expected to hear testimony in the case every day next week but Thursday.
I agree... that is proof that they have millions/billions of dollars in their portfolio just waiting to be sold or held and of course you won't see those in the MOR or balance sheets.
Lehman, the diamond in the ruff.
Add another half a billion to the kitty...
http://www.myiris.com/newsCentre/storyShow.php?fileR=20100819105102198&dir=2010/08/19&secID=livenews
On the other hand, Lehman Brothers Investment Management Co sold 2,798,950 shares or 9.65% stake in a deal valued at Rs 492.87 million at the price of Rs 176.09 a share.
Lehman Brothers Back From Dead With New Real Estate Operation
http://www.housingwatch.com/2010/08/18/lehman-brothers-back-from-the-dead-with-new-real-estate-operatio/
If there is one financial firm that remains inseparable from the real estate calamity of the last two years, it's Lehman Brothers. Today's shocker? Lehman's back in business, as an aggressive player in the post-crisis commercial real estate market. Remember that Lehman filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on September 15, 2008, marking the largest bankruptcy -- with $600 billion in assets -- in U.S. history. The firm's failure precipitated a stock market free fall and the Great Recession. After a restructuring, Lehman fired its senior banks and relegated its portfolio to mid- and junior-level employees. Now, thanks to its deep institutional knowledge and unique bankruptcy status, the new Lehman manages $14.4 billion in real estate securities.
back to back court dates. Hope something good comes out of them...
Good luck to all on this board.
Lehman Creditors' Committee -- Calendar
08/18/2010 @ 10:00 AM
Omnibus Hearing
Location:
Courtroom 601, United States Bankruptcy Court, Alexander Custom House, One Bowling Green, New York, New York 10004
(a) Motion of the Debtors Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 9019(b) for Authorization and Approval of the Settlement Between Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Mortgage Lenders Network Liquidating Trust (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10445) [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(b) Motion of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019 to Enter into the Release and Termination of Loan Agreement and other Documents with TS Boston Core Holdings, L.P.; 125 High Junior Mezz, L.P.; One Federal Intermediate Mezz, L.P.; One Federal Junior Mezz, L.P.; and Other Borrower Affiliates (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10462) [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(c) Debtors’ Motion, Pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, for an Order Modifying the Automatic Stay to Allow Advancement Under Directors and Officers Insurance Policies by Continental Casualty Company, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10463) [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(d) Motion of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. Pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code to Amend the RACERS Transaction Documents and Terminate Certain RACERS Transaction Documents (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10464) [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m]
(e) Motion of Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. Pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code for Authority to (i) Consent to its Non-Debtor Affiliate Lehman ALI Inc.’s (a) Entry into the Plan Support Agreement Related to the Restructuring of Innkeepers USA Trust; and (b) Consummation of the Transactions Set Forth in the Plan Term Sheet; and (ii) Provide Funds to Solar Finance Inc., a Non-Debtor Affiliate, to Provide Debtor-in-Possession Financing (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10465) [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(f) Motion of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. Pursuant to Sections 105(a) and 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h), for Authorization to Guarantee Payment of the Fees and Related Charges of Lazard Freres & Co. LLC, as Investment Banker to Lehman ALI, Inc., Incurred in Connection with the Innkeepers Restructuring (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10466) [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(g) Debtors’ Motion Pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code for an Order (i) Allowing LCPI to Acquire Certain Loans through a Joint Venture and (ii) Authorizing LCPI and LBHI to Provide Gap Funding through a Term Loan, Revolver, and Preferred Equity Investment (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10467) [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(h) Joint Motion Pursuant to Sections 105(a) and 363(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code and Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Authorizing Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and James W. Giddens, as Trustee for the SIPA Liquidation of the Business of Lehman Brothers Inc. to Enter into (i) Cost Sharing Agreement and (ii) Transfer Agreement (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10515; Adv. Proc. No. 08-01420, Docket No. 3520 [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(i) Motion of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code and Rule 6004(h) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure for Authority to Amend Participation Agreements and to Purchase Additional Participation Interests Related to Heritage Fields Property (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10516) [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(j) LBHI’s Motion, Pursuant to Sections 105(a), 363 and 554 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules 6004 and 6007, for (i) Approval of Surrender Agreement in Connection with Surrender of Real Property Lease and (ii) Authorization to Abandon Certain Personal Property (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10517) [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(k) Debtors’ Motion, Pursuant to Section 1121(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, Requesting Extensions of Exclusive Periods for the Filing of and Solicitation of Acceptances for Chapter 11 Plans of LB Somerset LLC and LB Preferred Somerset LLC (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 7966) (Adjourned) [Objections were due by May 7, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(l) Motion of Debtors and Debtors in Possession for Entry of an Order to Consolidate Certain Proceedings and Establish Related Procedures (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 8614) (Adjourned re: Nomura Global Financial Products) [Objections were due by June 9, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(m) Motion for Relief from Stay to Allow Advancement Under Insurance Policy by Lloyd’s of London (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10279) [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(n) Motion of Claimants Palmyra Capital Fund, L.P., Palmyra Capital Institutional Fund, L.P., and Palmyra Capital Offshore Fund, L.P. to Permit Late Filing of Their Guarantee Claims Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b)(1) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 10370) [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(o) Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Objections to Debtors’ Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated April 10, 2010 (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 9382)
(p) Motion by Factiva, Inc., Factiva Limited and Dow Jones & Company, Inc. for an Order (A) Compelling Immediate Payment of Post-Petition Administrative Expense Claims and (B) Compelling the Debtors to Assume or Reject Executory Contracts or Alternatively Modifying the Automatic Stay to Permit Movants to Terminate the Executory Contracts (Case No. 08-13555, Docket Nos. 7102, 7834) (Adjourned) [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(q) Motion of Capital One, N.A. for Relief from Stay (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 8425) (Adjourned) [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(r) Motion of Rosslyn Investors I, LLC for Leave to Conduct Rule 2004 Discovery of Debtor Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. and Other Entities (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 8221) (Adjourned) [Objections were due by May 7, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(s) Unclaimed Property Recovery Service, Inc.’s Motion to Deposit Funds into Court Registry (Adv. Proc. No. 08-01420, Docket No. 3363) [Objections are due by August 11, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(t) Motion of Newport Global Opportunities Fund LP, Newport Global Credit Fund (Master) L.P., PEP Credit Investor L.P. and Providence TMT Special Situations Fund L.P. for Leave to Conduct Rule 2004 Discovery of Lehman Brothers, Inc. and SIPA Trustee (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 435; Adv. Proc. No. 08-01420, Docket No. 123) (Adjourned) [Objections are due by August 13, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(u) Pretrial Conference (Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. United States Of America, Adv. Proc. No. 10-03211)
(v) Pretrial Conference (Turnberry, et al. v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, Adv. Proc. No. 09-01062)
(w) Pretrial Conference (Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. J. Soffer, Fontainebleau Resorts, LLC) (Adv. Proc. No. 10-02821)
(x) Pretrial Conference (Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. J. Soffer, Fontainebleau Resorts, LLC) (Adv. Proc. No. 10-02823)
One thing I can say about the latest MOR is the mention of the stockholders equity. I don't remember them ever mentioning this in any of the other MORs.
That is a good thing.