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.
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.
Here's another example of a BK company TAKING OFF... I believe it will happen here too... just a matter of time.
.75 to 14.00
Tribune Co
TRBCQ
I submitted a complaint to the SEC about the 230,000 shares traded of LEHCQ well below the bid. I'm sure they will continue to sit on their hands, but I felt it couldn't hurt to report it.
http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml
Enforcement Complaint Form
Thank you for your submission to the Division of Enforcement at the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. We appreciate your taking the time to contact us. This automated response confirms that you have successfully submitted information to the Division of Enforcement. You can rest assured that an attorney in the Office of Internet Enforcement will review your information promptly.
We are always interested in hearing from members of the public, and you may be assured that the matter you have raised is being given careful consideration in view of the Commission's overall enforcement responsibilities under the federal securities laws. It is, however, the Commission's policy to conduct its inquiries on a non-public basis -- so this may be the only response that you receive. If your complaint is more in the nature of a consumer complaint (such as a dispute with your broker or a problem with your brokerage or retirement account), you should contact our Office of Investor Education and Assistance -- they may be able to help you. You may reach the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy via telephone at (202) 551-6551 or through the Web at HYPERLINK "http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml ".
The Commission conducts its investigations on a non-public basis to preserve the integrity of its investigative process as well as to protect persons against whom unfounded charges may be made or against whom the Commission determines that enforcement action is not necessary or appropriate. Subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, we cannot disclose to you any information which we may gather and we cannot confirm to you the existence or non-existence of an investigation, unless made a matter of public record in proceedings brought before the Commission or in the courts.
If you are unsure where you should direct your inquiry or you want to learn more about how the SEC handles inquiries and complaints, please visit the SEC Complaint Center at HYPERLINK "http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml".
We appreciate your interest in the work of the Commission and its Division of Enforcement.
Hey Jersey... I haven't seen anything regarding an objection to the disclosure from Linda.
Can you provide us with the details. I will definitely send my objection.
Thanks.
NOL: Still waiting on a juicy press release regarding Lehman's 47+ billion NOL.
MAY MOR: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806085/000110465910024387/a10-9141_1ex99d2.htm
Taxes
Due to the uncertainties of future taxable profits, the deferred tax assets recorded by the Company prior to the bankruptcy filings have been entirely offset through valuation allowances. Deferred tax assets have not been recorded for 2008 or 2009. LBHI and its subsidiaries filed their 2008 federal tax return reflecting a net operating loss (“NOL”) of approximately $47 billion and subsequently filed a federal income tax refund claim of approximately $350 million for the two-year carryback of the 2008 NOL.
In addition to the 2008 NOL carryback claim, LBHI is due a refund from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the tax years 1997 through 2000. The Company is also currently under IRS examination for 2001 through 2007. Although the IRS has not filed any proofs of claim against the Debtors, as the bar date for federal tax claims has been extended until June 30, 2010 (and may be extended further), the IRS has indicated it will apply refunds owed as offsets against its claims. LBHI also expects to make an election to carryback its 2008 NOL for up to five years under recently enacted legislation, which may further reduce any federal tax deficiency.
As described in the Disclosure Statement, the Company’s estimates approximately $2 billion for potential amounts owed to federal, state, and local taxing authorities, net of the refund claims referenced above and the anticipated five-year NOL carryback. Accordingly, such estimate is reflected in the Balance Sheet. The Company is negotiating significant issues with various taxing authorities and this amount could change at any time, which could be material. LBHI plans to allocate the estimated liability to other members of the federal consolidated group, including LBI, on a reasonable basis. Because certain taxes carry joint and/or several liability, LBHI may pay taxes relating to LBI. In such event, LBHI may have a claim against LBI.
Lehman Makes Its Next Property Gamble
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704499604575407582629730398.html
By piling more cash into these deals, executives at Alvarez & Marsal, the advisory firm overseeing Lehman's bankruptcy proceedings, are hoping to salvage the maximum amount from the $14.4 billion of commercial real estate on the bank's books.
Wednesday Calendar looks good. Go Lehman!!!
(a) Debtors’ Seventeenth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Settled Derivative Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 9325) [Responses were due by July 1, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(b) Debtors’ Eighteenth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Duplicative of Indenture Trustee Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket Nos. 9656, 9927) [Responses are due by July 20, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(c) Debtors’ Nineteenth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Duplicative of Indenture Trustee Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket Nos. 9657, 9963) [Responses are due by July 20, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(d) Debtors’ Twentieth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Duplicative of Indenture Trustee Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket Nos. 9658, 9964) [Responses are due by July 20, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(e) Debtors’ Twenty-First Omnibus Objection to Claims (Duplicative of Indenture Trustee Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket Nos. 9659, 9966) [Responses are due by July 20, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(f) Debtors’ Twenty-Second Omnibus Objection to Claims (Duplicative of Indenture Trustee Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket Nos. 9660, 9967) [Responses are due by July 20, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(g) Debtors’ Twenty-Third Omnibus Objection to Claims (Duplicative of Indenture Trustee Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket Nos. 9661, 9968) [Responses are due by July 20, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(h) Debtors’ Twenty-Fourth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Duplicative of Indenture Trustee Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket Nos. 9662, 9969) [Responses are due by July 20, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(i) Debtors’ Twenty-Fifth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Duplicative of Indenture Trustee Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 9663) [Responses are due by July 20, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(j) Debtors’ Twenty-Sixth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Duplicative of Indenture Trustee Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 9664) [Responses are due by July 20, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(k) Debtors’ Twenty-Seventh Omnibus Objection to Claims (Duplicative of Indenture Trustee Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 9665) [Responses are due by July 20, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(l) Debtors’ Fifth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Amended and Superseded Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 8006) (Adjourned) [Responses were due by May 3, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
(m) Debtors’ Sixth Omnibus Objection to claims (Amended and Superseded Claims) (Case No. 08-13555, Docket No. 8007) (Adjourned) [Responses were due by May 3, 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) [Objections are due by July 30, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.]
Go Jersey!!! Make it rain...
I have been wondering what the current trading experience is like. Please keep us updated.
I hope you get all your orders filled... and I'm holding all of my shares with an iron fist.
Go Lehman!!!
However "The Godfather" never gets his hands dirty... he has others to do the dirty work for him :)
What's the difference between the government and the mafia... The mafia is better organized and more efficient :P
Go Lehman!!!
Not sure. He published some new content on the 21st on the http://lehmanlotto.blogspot.com/.
I suggest sending him an email. His email address is on the site.
Lehman Brothers Estate Considers Filing Claim Against Intel
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100723-709314.html
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s (LEHMQ) bankruptcy estate is considering filing a claim against Intel Corp. (INTC) alleging the chip giant bilked the company out of hundreds of millions of dollars around the time of its collapse.
"We believe that we acted appropriately under our agreement with Lehman, and we intend to defend any claim to the contrary," said Intel in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Intel said it was informed in November 2009 that Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. was considering the claim, and subpoenaed Intel documents in February.
Weil Gotshal and Manges, the law firm representing Lehman's bankruptcy estate, declined to comment. A representative for Lehman did not respond to requests seeking comment.
The potential claim--which is expected to be between $130 million to $380 million--arises from a 2008 agreement between Lehman and Intel in which Lehman agreed to sell Intel 50 million shares, or $1 billion worth, of Intel stock at a future date. Intel paid Lehman $1 billion upfront, and Lehman turned over $1 billion worth of collateral.
The company filed for bankruptcy on September 15, 2008, just days before it was set to fulfill its contract with Intel, causing Intel to foreclose on the $1 billion collateral.
According to Intel, "No specific information has been provided by Lehman regarding the nature or scope of the potential claims, other than the assertion that Lehman contends that it suffered damages in a range between $130 million and $380 million."
-By Shayndi Raice, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9291; shayndi.raice@dowjones.com.
Lehman Brothers Estate Considers Filing Claim Against Intel
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100723-709314.html
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s (LEHMQ) bankruptcy estate is considering filing a claim against Intel Corp. (INTC) alleging the chip giant bilked the company out of hundreds of millions of dollars around the time of its collapse.
"We believe that we acted appropriately under our agreement with Lehman, and we intend to defend any claim to the contrary," said Intel in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Intel said it was informed in November 2009 that Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. was considering the claim, and subpoenaed Intel documents in February.
Weil Gotshal and Manges, the law firm representing Lehman's bankruptcy estate, declined to comment. A representative for Lehman did not respond to requests seeking comment.
The potential claim--which is expected to be between $130 million to $380 million--arises from a 2008 agreement between Lehman and Intel in which Lehman agreed to sell Intel 50 million shares, or $1 billion worth, of Intel stock at a future date. Intel paid Lehman $1 billion upfront, and Lehman turned over $1 billion worth of collateral.
The company filed for bankruptcy on September 15, 2008, just days before it was set to fulfill its contract with Intel, causing Intel to foreclose on the $1 billion collateral.
According to Intel, "No specific information has been provided by Lehman regarding the nature or scope of the potential claims, other than the assertion that Lehman contends that it suffered damages in a range between $130 million and $380 million."
-By Shayndi Raice, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9291; shayndi.raice@dowjones.com.
That sounds like a reasonable percentage. I would be very happy with 20% of the face for equity preferreds.
Go Lehman Brothers!!!
Lehman has so much money that they are lending money to others to restructure. LOL!
Go Lehman!!!
Great article. Thanks. The article indicates LBHI tax returns were filed with the IRS on a consolidated basis... so the payout should be on a consolidated basis as well.
Correction made. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4de99974-8f7c-11df-8df0-00144feab49a.html?referrer_id=yahoofinance&ft_ref=yahoo1&segid=03058
Correction: Lehman Brothers
Published: July 15 2010 02:40 | Last updated: July 15 2010 02:40
? Claims of $2.4bn against Lehman Brothers sold to distressed debt funds by the administrator of the failed bank’s German business are estimated to have generated just under $500m for the administrator, not $500,000 as wrongly stated in an article on July 12.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Hopes rise over unwinding of Lehman’s assets
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/93bab43c-8d11-11df-bad7-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss
The administrator of Lehman Brothers’ German business has sold $2.4bn of claims against the failed bank to a group of distressed debt funds, in a move that may help expedite the unwinding of the bank’s assets.
The claims sold by the administrator of Lehman Brothers Bankhaus, a deposit-taking institution based in Frankfurt, were against two Lehman units including its US business Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. The other unit, Lehman Commercial Paper Inc, is backed mainly by real estate assets.
The claims, which were sold to a group of distressed debt funds, are estimated to have generated just under $500,000 for the administrator, according to people familiar with the transaction.
Since the US firm’s collapse, a market in trading of claims against the bank has emerged, as well as trading debt issued by the bank. Banks and distressed debt funds have traded debt claims in the form of bond issues by the bank but also claims linked to losses related to derivatives transactions.
The trade of claims from Bankhaus, which is set to close this week, is the biggest since the bank collapsed in 2008 and the first trade of a claim between the different Lehman companies.
“It was a very successful outcome for Bankhaus and its creditors,” said the administrator of Bankhaus.
“In a relatively short period of time, a complex and disputed claim was settled and then, based on a competitive sales process, realised in a way that maximised the cash return for Bankhaus’s estate in order to distribute the cash to its creditors.”
When Lehman collapsed in September 2008, its various entities were placed into insolvency proceedings in jurisdictions across the globe and this has complicated the unwinding of the bank.
The administrators around the world have been embroiled in trying to return assets to clients trapped in the various different units.
Last week Bankhaus filed a $1bn counter-claim against Lehman’s European operations, Lehman Brothers International Europe, in a dispute over internal group cash payments.
Some distressed debt specialists believe that the move to sell intercompany claims, rather than wait potentially years to settle them, could help speed up the unravelling of some $225bn of claims.
I concur. I sleep peacefully knowing there are many things that could make Lehman take off. The upside is far greater than the downside at this point.
I have strong feeling there is GOLD at the other end of the rainbow.
thanks Jersey and same to you... happy 4th everyone.
Go Lehman Brothers!!!
Thanks for the post. I had to stop reading as it is heart wrenching... I have lost money due to my own poor judgment, but not my life savings like some of those elderly folks. What bothers me the most is they were told their investments were rock solid.
I hope they get back some of their investment.
Go Lehman!!!
Another objection from Minnesota State Board of Investment...
9965 - Objection Joinder in Ad Hoc Group Preliminary Objection (rel
Docket Date
7/1/2010
Objection Joinder in Ad Hoc Group Preliminary Objection (related document(s)[8332], [9905], [8330]) filed by Jeremy D. Eiden on behalf of Minnesota State Board of Investment. (Eiden, Jeremy)
Even better spin.... getting better with age.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-30/lehman-creditors-rangers-st-vincent-black-crow-gm-dbsi-bankruptcy.html
Lehman Creditors, Rangers, St. Vincent, Black Crow, GM, DBSI:
Creditors with $15.5 billion in claims against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. fired the opening salvo in a possibly protracted courtroom battle over how billions of dollars generated in the Lehman liquidation should be distributed to creditors.
An ad hoc group of the creditors said in court papers filed yesterday that so-called substantive consolidation of 23 Lehman affiliates would increase recoveries for holding company creditors “by billions.” The group includes California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Canyon Capital Advisors LLC, Fortress Credit Opportunities Advisors LLC, Owl Creek Asset Management LP and Paulson & Co.
Lehman filed a revised Chapter 11 plan and explanatory disclosure statement in April where creditors of each of the Lehman companies are treated according to the claims against the particular affiliate and the assets of the entity in question.
The plan also would allow creditors to enforce guarantees where one Lehman company, typically the holding company, guaranteed debt owing by a subsidiary. A creditor with a guarantee therefore could collect twice on the debt, although not more than the amount owed.
In substantive consolidation, as the ad hoc group would prefer, guarantee claims aren’t recognized; all assets of all companies are thrown into one pot, and unsecured creditors of all companies are treated the same.
The ad hoc group said that the “purported settlement” in Lehman’s plan regarding some guarantee claims is “illusory.” The settlement puts a cap of $21.2 billion on what the creditor group calls “previously undisclosed board resolutions and intercompany agreements” giving rise to guarantees by one Lehman company in favor of creditors of others.
The group believes the settlement is of little value because affected claims won’t greatly exceed the cap. As it now stands, the ad hoc group says the “plan’s proposed allocation of value within the individual debtor estates is seriously flawed.”
The holding company creditors contend that the new debt or stock proposed for distribution to holding company creditors gives “very little value” to their group while there is “enormous value” to creditors of subsidiaries who receive cash.
The group wants the bankruptcy judge to hold a status conference on July 14 to address how disputes over the disclosure statement should be handled. The ad hoc group proposes changes in the disclosure statement to explain how much holding company creditors would gain if there were substantive consolidation. They also want the judge to set up a schedule for pre-trial discovery in advance of hearings for approval of the disclosure statement and plan.
For details on the Lehman plan and disclosure statement, click here and here for the April 15 and April 16 Bloomberg bankruptcy reports.
The Lehman holding company filed under Chapter 11 in New York on Sept. 15, 2008, and sold office buildings and the North American investment-banking business to London-based Barclays Plc one week later. The Lehman brokerage operations went into liquidation on Sept. 19, 2008, in the same court. The brokerage is in the control of a trustee appointed under the Securities Investor Protection Act.
The Lehman holding company Chapter 11 case is In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08-13555, while the liquidation proceeding under the Securities Investor Protection Act for the brokerage operation is Securities Investors Protection Corp. v. Lehman Brothers Inc., 08-01420, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Another article... same topic. Finally an objection with muscle....
http://www.theusdaily.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=1139582&type=Business
Paulson, Calpers object to Lehman bankruptcy plan
By Reuters
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A group of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc's <LEHMQ.PK> creditors, including the largest U.S. pension fund and a prominent hedge fund, said they object to the investment bank's Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan.
In a filing in Manhattan bankruptcy court on Tuesday, the group of 12 hedge funds, pension funds and asset managers said the current plan would sow conflict among creditors, and could treat large bank creditors better than other creditors.
This, it said, could result in years of needless lawsuits, delay the deserved recovery of tens of billions of dollars.
The creditors said they are owed $15.5 billion. Among them are the California Public Employees' Retirement System, a pension fund with $211 billion of assets, and Paulson & Co, a $35 billion hedge fund firm run by billionaire John Paulson.
"The plan establishes a 'pot' of assets for distribution and pits creditors of the various estates against each other," the filing said.
"The plan's proposed allocation of value within the individual debtor estates is seriously flawed," it went on. "The stakes are too high for parties in interest simply to hope for global peace and later learn that they have no real ability to develop a case in a contested setting."
Bryan Marsal, a restructuring specialist and Lehman's chief executive, in a statement said the proposed plan is a "fair and administratively efficient resolution" to the case.
"While under one scenario some creditors would be significantly advantaged and others significantly disadvantaged, under a different option the roles would be reversed," he said.
The compromise plan "balanced the various conflicting positions and competing interests," Marsal added.
In a court filing on April 14, Lehman proposed that unsecured creditors recover 10.4 cents to 44.2 cents on the dollar.
While general unsecured creditors of the holding company would likely recover 14.7 cents on the dollar, creditors of its derivatives and commercial paper units could recover 21.9 cents to 44.2 cents on the dollar.
Creditors of the derivatives unit include banks such as Bank of America Corp <BAC.N>, Credit Suisse Group AG <CSGN.VX>, Goldman Sachs Group Inc <GS.N> and Morgan Stanley <MS.N>.
The creditor group asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck to hold a July 14 hearing to consider its objections and set procedures to allow "all constituencies" to present evidence that will result in an acceptable Chapter 11 plan.
Other creditors in the group are Canyon Capital Advisors LLC, Fiduciary Counselors Inc, Fir Tree Inc, Fortress Credit Opportunities Advisors LLC, Gruss Asset Management LP, King Street Capital Management LP, Owl Creek Asset Management LP, San Mateo County in California, Taconic Capital Advisors LP and Western Asset Management Co.
Lehman filed for bankruptcy protection on September 15, 2008. With $639 billion of assets, its bankruptcy is six times larger than any other in U.S. history.
The case is In re: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-13555.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Gary Hill, Leslie Gevirtz)
Found a great site to send a request for an Equity Committee that sends email to congress.
All you have to do is register and follow the steps...
Write your lawmakers. I did it and it was really easy to do.
http://www.congress.org/
Mine went to the following...
President Barack Obama (D)
Senator Jon L. Kyl (R-AZ)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ 6th) **
Barclays `Windfall' Trial Over Lehman Brokerage Buy Takes Summer Holiday
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-25/barclays-windfall-trial-over-lehman-brokerage-buy-takes-summer-holiday.html
The trial of Barclays Plc over an alleged $11 billion “windfall” on its purchase of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s brokerage goes on summer holiday today after three weeks of testimony by witnesses including Barclays Group Chief Executive John Varley.
The defunct investment bank is due to wrap up its case today in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, where it is seeking money from Britain’s third-biggest bank to pay creditors. Barclays lawyer David Boies is scheduled to present the bank’s side of the story starting Aug. 23. The brokerage deal was approved by Judge James Peck and closed a week after Lehman’s Sept. 15, 2008, bankruptcy, the biggest in U.S. history.
On the witness stand today, Luc Despins, a former lawyer for Lehman creditors, said he didn’t oppose the Barclays deal in September 2008 even though his financial adviser believed late changes to the terms might cost creditors billions of dollars.
“There was no other apparent viable alternative at the time,” he said. “The assumption was that the Barclays transaction was better than liquidation.”
Despins was responding to questions from Boies, who was trying to show that Lehman creditors had enough information to oppose the deal as it closed and didn’t do so. At issue is whether creditors have a right 21 months later to reopen a sale contract that would normally be final in bankruptcy court.
Secret Raid
Lehman, its creditors and the brokerage trustee James Giddens in separate lawsuits have accused Barclays of making a secret “raid” on Lehman’s assets that wasn’t disclosed to Peck or to them, justifying a review of the contract. Absent a settlement of the dispute, Peck must decide whether to overturn a deal he approved.
Lehman has paid its lawyers and managers $830.6 million for 20 months of work so far, with $296 million going to the restructuring firm Alvarez & Marsal LLC, co-headed by Lehman’s chief executive officer, Bryan Marsal. Marsal has said he will spend five years selling assets to pay unsecured creditors as little as 14.7 cents on the dollar. Any proceeds from litigation would add to the payout.
The cases are In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08- 13555, and James W. Giddens v. Barclays Capital Inc., 09-01732, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
To contact the reporters on this story: Linda Sandler in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York at lsandler@bloomberg.net.
Full article... Lehman Seeks To Transfer Servicing For $8.8B In Fannie Loans
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100624-711435.html
By Patrick Fitzgerald Of DOW JONES DAILY BANKRUPTCY REVIEW
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEHMQ) is seeking court approval to transfer the servicing rights to more than $8 billion of "high risk" mortgages sponsored by Fannie Mae (FNM) to its Delaware banking subsidiary in the hopes of making the unit more attractive to potential buyers.
In court papers Wednesday, Lehman sought the go-ahead to transfer the rights to service some 44,000 loans valued at $8.8 billion to its wholly owned Aurora Bank FSB, the latest move in a bid to bolster the bottom line of the former Lehman Brothers Bank FSB in anticipation of an eventual sale of the unit as a going concern.
Fannie Mae will pay Aurora, which services more than $100 billion in residential mortgages, $26 million for the rights, which involve collecting monthly mortgage payments and disbursing funds to investors.
A key to the deal, court papers say, is that Fannie Mae will approve the transfer of the rights to Aurora without requiring the bank to assume Lehman's seller representations with respect to the underlying loans. Fannie Mae also will allow Aurora to begin originating new Fannie mortgages.
The transfer of the servicing rights, Lehman said, "should boost the value of the bank's enterprise and make it more attractive to potential purchasers."
The U.S. government seized mortgage giants Fannie Mae and sibling Freddie Mac (FRE) in September 2008 as housing prices tumbled and the mortgage buyers' losses mounted.
Fannie Mae's move to buy the servicing rights from Aurora is part of a program the mortgage buyer is developing to concentrate the servicing of its high-risk loans, according to court papers. Fannie Mae will name a new servicer for the loans, which are now--or are expected to become--delinquent as part of its new troubled loan-servicing program.
A Lehman spokeswoman declined to comment. A representative for Fannie Mae couldn't be reached for comment.
Lehman hopes to boost the bank's capital level so it can again raise deposit funds. It has submitted a business plan to federal banking regulators that would allow it to again issue brokered certificates of deposits, which is how it traditionally financed its deposit obligations as they came due.
The investment bank is seeking approval of Judge James Peck of the U.S Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan to transfer the rights to its subsidiary at a hearing July 14.
Since filing for bankruptcy more than 20 months ago, Lehman has undertaken several efforts to prop up its Delaware bank as well as to boost capital at its Woodlands Commercial Bank, based in Salt Lake City. The series of moves have bolstered Aurora's and Woodlands' bottom lines by more than $1 billion, according to previously filed court papers. The banks represent significant assets for Lehman as it winds down in bankruptcy and collects money for creditors.
Alvarez & Marsal Inc., the turnaround firm winding down Lehman, recently pegged Aurora's value at $642 million. Woodlands, previously valued at $645 million, could be worth even more to creditors.
The investment bank has said that if both banks were seized and liquidated, unsecured creditors could lose up to $3.6 billion.
Lehman was the nation's fourth-largest investment bank prior to its Sept. 15, 2008, bankruptcy filing, which ranks as the largest ever. Since crashing into court protection, bankruptcy professionals have sold off a number of Lehman's most lucrative businesses while working to preserve the value of its other valuable assets.
Those moves have stabilized Lehman's business while adding billions of dollars to the coffers of the bankruptcy estate.
(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
Great article... thanks. If we can start servicing those loans that would be great as Freddie and Fannie (Government) have trillions in them.
I know it's just a blog but here's some information...
http://www.mortgageloanplace.com/blog/2010/06/15/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-bailout-could-cost-1-trillion/
Justin McHood
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailout Could Cost $1 Trillion
Posted on Jun 15 by Justin McHood
Someone has attempted to put their arms around just-exactly-how-much the ongoing bailout for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could cost the US taxpayers…
$1 Trillion.
According to Bloomberg, the Government Sponsored Enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have already drawn on an “unlimited” line of credit from the US Government to the tune of $145 billion and with the projected losses, the total cost of the bailout could approach $1 Trillion.
From Bloomberg:
The Congressional Budget Office calculated in August 2009 that the companies would need $389 billion in federal subsidies through 2019, based on assumptions about delinquency rates of loans in their securities pools. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget estimated in February that aid could total as little as $160 billion if the economy strengthens.
If housing prices drop further, the companies may need more. Barclays Capital Inc. analysts put the price tag as high as $500 billion in a December report on mortgage-backed securities, assuming home prices decline another 20 percent and default rates triple.
Sean Egan, president of Egan-Jones Ratings Co. in Haverford, Pennsylvania, said that a 20 percent loss on the companies’ loans and guarantees, along the lines of other large market players such as Countrywide Financial Corp., now owned by Bank of America Corp., could cause even more damage.
“One trillion dollars is a reasonable worst-case scenario for the companies,” said Egan, whose firm warned customers away from municipal bond insurers in 2002 and downgraded Enron Corp. a month before its 2001 collapse.
Between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they own a little over 50% of the nations almost $11 trillion in residential mortgages and with millions of bad loans that were issued during the housing bubble still on the books and not yet written down, people are just trying to figure out how bad the worst case scenario could be. But with unemployment remaining at high levels and interest rates projected to rise over the next few years – it could very well end up as bad as the projections are predicting.
But I hope not.
Sweet... I was able to grab some @ .0201.
Never mind... Lehman Brothers sold 4,718,999 shares of Common Stock at $10.63 per share of BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL INC [BLT]
Which is $50,162,959.37
I checked the chart for BLT on June 15th and they definitely dumped a ton of shares on that day
What is this all about in the latest 10K? How did this company LB Blount Investment SPV LLC, get 10.63 per share for common stock.
On June 15, 2010, the Reporting Persons sold 4,718,999 shares of Common Stock at $10.63 per share. As of the date hereof, the Reporting Persons no longer beneficially own any shares of Common Stock.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806085/000119312510144624/0001193125-10-144624-index.htm
I think Lamco is a smoke screen. Have you been to their site it doesn't look like a multi billion dollar company. My kid can do a better job...
In addition, there is another company already using Lamco...
http://www.lendersreo.com/
Can you imagine how pissed Judge Peck is over this deal? Even Jamie Dimon stated that Judge Peck was misled.
Wow, that would piss me off. Throw the book at them Judge Peck...
Go Lehman!
Despite how much I dislike JPM/Dimon this is a great press release. Dimon is a very powerful man; even the government supports him, so this might play out as a win for us against Barclay's.
JPMorgan Said Barclays Misled Judge in Lehman Deal
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-22/jpmorgan-said-barclays-misled-judge-in-lehman-deal-update1-.html
By Linda Sandler
June 22 (Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. accused Barclays Plc of misleading a federal judge when it bought Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s defunct brokerage in the falling markets of September 2008, said a Lehman lawyer, citing a letter from JPMorgan Chairman Jamie Dimon.
Barclays Group Chief Executive John Varley was asked by Lehman lawyer Robert Gaffey in federal court in Manhattan today about what he characterized as “two big-time bankers in a very big dispute.”
Gaffey said Dimon wrote to Varley and Barclays President Robert Diamond, saying the court was misinformed about the Barclays deal. JPMorgan had asked Barclays to participate in an accounting of the transaction and they declined, Dimon said in the letter, according to Gaffey.
“I could refute him point by point but he’s not here,” Varley said. “I inwardly groaned when I read it because I knew that there were a number of points on which Jamie Dimon and I would disagree.”
Varley was the second witness today in a U.S. Bankruptcy Court trial over Lehman’s claim that the U.K.’s third-biggest bank should pay it as much as $11 billion for an allegedly undisclosed “windfall” on the deal for the brokerage. The purchase was approved by Judge James Peck and closed a week after Lehman’s Sept. 15, 2008, bankruptcy, the biggest in U.S. history.
Custodial Account
JPMorgan around that time had taken $7 billion out of a Barclays custodial account, according to Varley.
“I was deeply unhappy that without our consent a large amount of money had been taken out of our account,” Varley said. He interpreted the letter about misleading the court as a device by JPMorgan to distract attention from the dispute over money, he said.
Joe Evangelisti, a JPMorgan spokesman, declined to comment on the dispute, which was later settled.
Separately, Lehman in May sued JPMorgan to recover tens of billions of dollars in “lost value,” accusing the bank of precipitating its downfall and preventing it from winding down in an orderly fashion. Evangelisti said the lawsuit was “ill conceived.”
Earlier, Varley said the week when Barclays bought the Lehman brokerage was “the riskiest week of my life.”
“Markets were collapsing,” he said. “We needed to ensure there was a buffer between assets and liabilities. We needed to be able to look regulators in the eye and say the deal would be capital accretive.”
Protect Our Ratios
“This was a time when there was a great deal of focus by supervisors around the world, including the U.K. Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England, on capital ratios, and it was clear to me that the only circumstances in which I could look our regulators in the eye, and indeed look our shareholders in the eye, would be if we were able to protect our capital ratios,” Varley said.
“To put it another way, were we not capable of doing that, then I was not prepared to recommend that we should proceed to the board” of Barclays, he said.
Lehman lawyer Gaffey has tried to prove that Barclays made a safe, or “derisked” acquisition, and took more assets out of the defunct firm than it should have without telling the court.
“You expected an immediate profit” on the brokerage purchase? Gaffey asked.
“Yes we did,” Varley said. “That’s because we expected the income we generated to exceed costs.”
BofA Balked
Today’s first witness, Barclays President Diamond, said the bank had qualms about acquiring Lehman’s brokerage after Bank of America Corp. balked at buying it.
“BofA walked away from an opportunity to do a deal with Lehman at some distressed price,” said Diamond, who runs Barclays’s corporate and investment banking operations. “But they paid $50 billion for Merrill Lynch. That created real concern for us. What had they seen?”
Diamond was responding to questions from Barclays’s lawyer David Boies about the bank’s concerns when it bought Lehman and why it sought to buffer itself from risk by staking claim to assets in the brokerage business.
“BofA could have bought it for about $1 billion,” Diamond said. “They walked away and paid $50 billion for Merrill. It reinforced in Varley and myself and our board what a risky environment we were working in.”
Government Help
“When JPMorgan bought Bear Stearns it got government help,” Diamond said. “Barclays wasn’t able to get help. So it was especially important to get the values and commitments we had received or we couldn’t go forward. There were hours when we were expecting not to execute on the deal.”
Lehman, which wants money to pay off creditors, has accused the London-based bank of making a “secret” asset raid on Lehman that wasn’t disclosed to the court. The brokerage’s trustee, James Giddens, has said changes were secretly inserted in the sale contract without notice to him or Lehman’s lawyers. He wants $6.7 billion from Barclays to pay hedge funds and other institutional clients of Lehman.
Lehman’s lawyers are beginning to wrap up their case after more than two weeks of testimony by former Lehman executives, advisers and Barclays officials.
The U.K. bank’s lawyers have tried to show when questioning Lehman’s witnesses that all the key facts of the deal were known by the main players. They are scheduled to present Barclays’s side of the story starting Aug. 23. Barclays, which announced a gain on its purchase on Sept. 17, 2008, has said it owes Lehman nothing and wants $3 billion that is being withheld by the trustee.
Lehman spent $794 million on lawyers, advisers and managers in 19 months through April, with $277.4 million going to Lehman CEO Bryan Marsal’s restructuring firm, Alvarez & Marsal. Marsal has said he will spend five years selling assets to pay unsecured creditors as little as 14.7 cents on the dollar. Any proceeds from litigation would add to the payout.
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
Yep, and since it's from the banking poster boy Dimon we might get the attention we need here.
Go Lehman!!!
JPMorgan Said Barclays Misled Judge in Lehman Deal
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-22/jpmorgan-said-barclays-misled-judge-in-lehman-deal-update1-.html
By Linda Sandler
June 22 (Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. accused Barclays Plc of misleading a federal judge when it bought Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s defunct brokerage in the falling markets of September 2008, said a Lehman lawyer, citing a letter from JPMorgan Chairman Jamie Dimon.
Barclays Group Chief Executive John Varley was asked by Lehman lawyer Robert Gaffey in federal court in Manhattan today about what he characterized as “two big-time bankers in a very big dispute.”
Gaffey said Dimon wrote to Varley and Barclays President Robert Diamond, saying the court was misinformed about the Barclays deal. JPMorgan had asked Barclays to participate in an accounting of the transaction and they declined, Dimon said in the letter, according to Gaffey.
“I could refute him point by point but he’s not here,” Varley said. “I inwardly groaned when I read it because I knew that there were a number of points on which Jamie Dimon and I would disagree.”
Varley was the second witness today in a U.S. Bankruptcy Court trial over Lehman’s claim that the U.K.’s third-biggest bank should pay it as much as $11 billion for an allegedly undisclosed “windfall” on the deal for the brokerage. The purchase was approved by Judge James Peck and closed a week after Lehman’s Sept. 15, 2008, bankruptcy, the biggest in U.S. history.
Custodial Account
JPMorgan around that time had taken $7 billion out of a Barclays custodial account, according to Varley.
“I was deeply unhappy that without our consent a large amount of money had been taken out of our account,” Varley said. He interpreted the letter about misleading the court as a device by JPMorgan to distract attention from the dispute over money, he said.
Joe Evangelisti, a JPMorgan spokesman, declined to comment on the dispute, which was later settled.
Separately, Lehman in May sued JPMorgan to recover tens of billions of dollars in “lost value,” accusing the bank of precipitating its downfall and preventing it from winding down in an orderly fashion. Evangelisti said the lawsuit was “ill conceived.”
Earlier, Varley said the week when Barclays bought the Lehman brokerage was “the riskiest week of my life.”
“Markets were collapsing,” he said. “We needed to ensure there was a buffer between assets and liabilities. We needed to be able to look regulators in the eye and say the deal would be capital accretive.”
Protect Our Ratios
“This was a time when there was a great deal of focus by supervisors around the world, including the U.K. Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England, on capital ratios, and it was clear to me that the only circumstances in which I could look our regulators in the eye, and indeed look our shareholders in the eye, would be if we were able to protect our capital ratios,” Varley said.
“To put it another way, were we not capable of doing that, then I was not prepared to recommend that we should proceed to the board” of Barclays, he said.
Lehman lawyer Gaffey has tried to prove that Barclays made a safe, or “derisked” acquisition, and took more assets out of the defunct firm than it should have without telling the court.
“You expected an immediate profit” on the brokerage purchase? Gaffey asked.
“Yes we did,” Varley said. “That’s because we expected the income we generated to exceed costs.”
BofA Balked
Today’s first witness, Barclays President Diamond, said the bank had qualms about acquiring Lehman’s brokerage after Bank of America Corp. balked at buying it.
“BofA walked away from an opportunity to do a deal with Lehman at some distressed price,” said Diamond, who runs Barclays’s corporate and investment banking operations. “But they paid $50 billion for Merrill Lynch. That created real concern for us. What had they seen?”
Diamond was responding to questions from Barclays’s lawyer David Boies about the bank’s concerns when it bought Lehman and why it sought to buffer itself from risk by staking claim to assets in the brokerage business.
“BofA could have bought it for about $1 billion,” Diamond said. “They walked away and paid $50 billion for Merrill. It reinforced in Varley and myself and our board what a risky environment we were working in.”
Government Help
“When JPMorgan bought Bear Stearns it got government help,” Diamond said. “Barclays wasn’t able to get help. So it was especially important to get the values and commitments we had received or we couldn’t go forward. There were hours when we were expecting not to execute on the deal.”
Lehman, which wants money to pay off creditors, has accused the London-based bank of making a “secret” asset raid on Lehman that wasn’t disclosed to the court. The brokerage’s trustee, James Giddens, has said changes were secretly inserted in the sale contract without notice to him or Lehman’s lawyers. He wants $6.7 billion from Barclays to pay hedge funds and other institutional clients of Lehman.
Lehman’s lawyers are beginning to wrap up their case after more than two weeks of testimony by former Lehman executives, advisers and Barclays officials.
The U.K. bank’s lawyers have tried to show when questioning Lehman’s witnesses that all the key facts of the deal were known by the main players. They are scheduled to present Barclays’s side of the story starting Aug. 23. Barclays, which announced a gain on its purchase on Sept. 17, 2008, has said it owes Lehman nothing and wants $3 billion that is being withheld by the trustee.
Lehman spent $794 million on lawyers, advisers and managers in 19 months through April, with $277.4 million going to Lehman CEO Bryan Marsal’s restructuring firm, Alvarez & Marsal. Marsal has said he will spend five years selling assets to pay unsecured creditors as little as 14.7 cents on the dollar. Any proceeds from litigation would add to the payout.
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).
LEHMAN CREDITORS GET A LIFT AFTER $620M OF ASIAN ASSETS ARE SOLD
The Hong Kong-based liquidators of Lehman Brothers’ Asian operations have sold $620m (£420m) of the failed investment bank’s portfolio of loans, bonds and equity positions in the region. The transactions, which achieved an average recovery rate of 100 per cent, mark the first major disposals from Lehman’s $2.6bn “principal investments and loans” portfolio.
http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/what-the-other-papers-say-morning-255