We are in court right now too, so anything can happen.

Same here. No worries; just holding my shares tight.

Goldman Sachs implicated in shorting Lehman shares

http://lehmanlotto.blogspot.com/2010/04/goldman-sachs-implicated-in-shorting.html

I remember Troy mentioning that Weil wanted to talk, but do we have a date?

Thanks Gold. Every bit helps.

I was thinking today about how it's in the best interest of A&M and the trustee not to fully disclose the true value of Lehman. I was thinking they are trying to convince creditors there is little or no money left to pay everyone. If they do that they can reduce the amount of the claims. In addition, if they convince the shareholders there is little to no value left in the company that is less money they have to pay out to us.

Lehman to Recover $12 Billion From Real Estate (Update1)

©2010 Bloomberg News

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/19/bloomberg1376-L14GQH0D9L36-5.DTL

April 19 (Bloomberg) -- Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the investment bank liquidating in bankruptcy, said it aims to recover $12 billion from real estate assets in the next five years, and another $17 billion from private equity and loans.

Lehman, which filed the biggest U.S. bankruptcy in September 2008, disclosed the updated figures in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission today. A bankruptcy judge on April 15 approved Lehman's plan to retain illiquid assets in a unit called Lamco for as long as five years before selling them.

Lehman said it plans to sell its Aurora and Woodlands banks eventually. It has been adding capital to the banks to prop them up.

The case is In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08-13555, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

--Editors: David Rovella, Steve Farr

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/19/bloomberg1376-L14GQH0D9L36-5.DTL#ixzz0lYGJhTMF

LBHI Class 9 — Equity Interests in LBHI.



(a) Impairment and Voting. LBHI Class 9 is impaired by the Plan. Each holder of an Equity Interest in LBHI Class 9 is not entitled to vote to accept or reject the Plan and is conclusively deemed to have rejected the Plan.



(b) Distributions. On the Effective Date, all Equity Interests in LBHI shall be cancelled and one new share of LBHI’s common stock shall be issued to the Plan Administrator which will hold such share for the benefit of the holders of such former Equity Interests consistent with their former economic entitlements; provided, however, that the Plan Administrator may not exercise any voting rights appurtenant thereto in conflict with Article VII of the Plan. Each holder of an Equity Interest in LBHI shall neither receive nor retain any property or interest in property on account of such Equity Interests; provided, however, that in the event that all Allowed Claims in LBHI Classes 1 through 8 have been satisfied in full in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code and the Plan, each holder of an Equity Interest in LBHI may receive its Pro Rata Equity Share of any remaining assets of LBHI consistent with such holder’s rights of priority of payment existing immediately prior to the Commencement Date. The rights of the holders of former Equity Interests in LBHI shall be nontransferable. On or promptly after the Effective Date, the Plan Administrator shall file with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Form 15 for the purpose of terminating the registration of any of its publicly traded securities. Unless otherwise determined by the Plan Administrator, on the date that LBHI’s Chapter 11 Case is closed in accordance with Section 6.6 of the Plan, all such former Equity Interests in LBHI shall be deemed cancelled and of no force and effect provided that such cancellation does not adversely impact the Debtors’ estates.

So are you are saying that each class would retain its true face value after the conversion to the Lamco class?

Pinda, you are correct. They are NOT saying that your shares are worthless. You are receiving one share in Lamco in lieu of the each share you currently own in any given equity class. With that said, nothing has changed except for the fact you will not be able to trade Lamco shares as it will be a private subsidiary.

Currently the ratio is a share for a share.

Audit reports 'should give more subjective view'

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a88a40bc-4b49-11df-a7ff-00144feab49a.html

By Rachel Sanderson

Published: April 19 2010 03:00 | Last updated: April 19 2010 03:00

The audit report does not provide useful information and auditors should give a more subjective view of their clients to help investors and regulators make decisions, according to a survey published today.

The findings, in a survey by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW), come at a time when the auditing profession has swung into the regulatory spotlight for its part in the financial crisis.

Prosecutor Anton Valukas' investigation into the Lehman Brothers' collapse criticised its auditors Ernst & Young, a Big Four accounting firm. US congressional hearings on the Lehman report due this week are expected to intensify interest in the audit function.

The institute interviewed UK bank finance directors, audit committee chairmen, investors and regulators following criticism of auditors earlier this year by the Treasury Select Committee. The committee queried how useful audits had been in alerting investors to the crisis and the risks banks faced.

In its findings , the ICAEW discovered that the audit process that takes place inside banks and out of the view of investors was considered essential in "imposing discipline" on how finance directors present company accounts.

However, the audit report - which is the information made available to investors - was considered a compliance document lacking in usefulness and information.

Investors were critical of the standardisation of the audit process because it also meant that they were unable to judge the quality of audit firms and individual auditors.

Instead, some investors wanted to see more paragraphs emphasising risks a company faced to help them make investment decisions. Controversially, they wanted to know the subjective opinion of auditors, a suggestion strongly opposed by bankers, and by senior accountants who fear it could increase their chances of being sued.

Richard Oldfield, banking assurance leader, PricewaterhouseCoopers, said auditors had done a "great deal" to encourage more disclosure of risk in company reports. But "any move to extend the audit report to cover key risks would require a revision of the auditing standards framework".

The survey was also critical about the role of the Financial Services Authority, arguing the regulator and auditors should be in closer dialogue.

For example, while auditors have a duty to report any serious fraud to the FSA, the FSA has no reciprocal duty to auditors. One audit committee chairman called this "a disgrace".

The FSA is expected to make its proposals soon on the audit function. It has indicated it could demand more in-depth "Section 166" reports from auditors, which fell out of use during the "light touch" regulatory environment of the past decade.

Paulson you have blood on your hands and you are going down... you crook. Hope you share a cell with Bubba and get what you deserve.

I'm SO tired of all this white collar crime... these guys need to pay.

Paulson you have blood on your hands and you are going down... you crook. Hope you share a cell with Bubba and get what you deserve.

I'm SO tired of all this white collar crime... these guys need to pay.

They say size doesn't matter :)

Great job on the follow-up and thanks for the blog access. I will definitely contribute as much as I can, however it appears the network nazis in my company have blocked ihub, so I will not be able to post during office hours :(

Yes, we have to turn up the heat and get an equity committee established.

Let me know if you need me to resend my letter as I hold a fairly large position in 7 classes. I initially sent my letter to the fax number that you provided on your site. If I remember correctly you indicated the trustee would forward the letter to the judge but I have not seen it on the docket.

:) It's only 8pm here in the southwest :) I saw your post on the courts not receiving your package. That is crazy... how convenient for them to misplace it.

class 9 equity

LMAO!!! That's funny...

Maybe soon with Goldman Sachs... hehe :P

Someone other than myself still has faith.... Someone is grabbing the cheapies from all of the weak hands.

I still have my 15,000 shares, but at a much higher price, but that's okay.

I was going to mention that too. They are the last man on the totem pole and the commons held strong. Case in point.

I don't own any, but I do use them as a baseline.

Correct, That is the intent.

WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO FIGHT Getting the EC established should be our number one priority.

I hope we see the docket that Troy worked so hard on requesting an EC.

I can tell you one thing though... if I don't get anything back from Lehman you can bet you arse that I won't be buying any lamco.

You can burn me once, but not a second time.

It was not spelled out in the disclosure, so I can't answer that question honestly. We should get something...

I'm still not convinced all is lost here folks. Someone was loading up today on the Ps.

I have NOT sold a share and I will continue to HOLD.

if you notice the squares are already questioning their investments. LMAO...

Define: square

square - someone who doesn't understand what is going on

I hear that... Honorable Judge Peck, please give us justice as justice needs to be served.

Gotta love those lawsuits... Go Lehman!!!

Lehman May Have Grounds to Sue Goldman, Barclays, Examiner Says
April 14, 2010, 12:10 PM EDT

By Linda Sandler and Donald Jeffrey

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-14/lehman-may-have-grounds-to-sue-goldman-barclays-examiner-says.html

April 14 (Bloomberg) -- Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. may have grounds to sue Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Barclays Plc after they obtained assets from CME Group Inc. for less than half their value, bankruptcy examiner Anton Valukas said.

Goldman was the highest bidder for Lehman’s equity derivatives at CME, and took $445 million of those assets at a private auction in September 2008, according to previously censored details of Valukas’s March 11 report. Barclays was the highest bidder for Lehman’s energy derivatives and took $707 million in assets from CME.

DRW Trading was the highest bidder for Lehman’s foreign exchange, agricultural and interest-rate derivatives, Valukas said. As a result of the auction to the three successful bidders, Lehman lost $1.2 billion out of total deposits with the CME of $2 billion, Valukas said.

“The examiner concludes that an argument can be made that the transfers at issue were fraudulent,” Valukas said in the report. Under bankruptcy law, the auction may be able to be undone, he said.

Lehman received “less than reasonably equivalent value”, Valukas said in his partly censored March 11 report on the 2008 bankruptcy.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge James M. Peck today agreed to allow previously redacted portions of the report to be unsealed to test the fairness of the auction process. CME had sought to keep the documents confidential.

Weak Claims

“The claims of confidentiality are weak,” Peck said. “The arguments concerning potential future harm to events that may never occur are so speculative as to be discounted close to zero.”

Lehman, which filed for bankruptcy with debts of $613 billion, has had 66,000 claims for payment totaling $899 billion, lawyers told the judge at the hearing. Lehman has said allowable claims may be as low as $260 billion.

Peck asked Valukas why his report hadn’t mentioned Hudson Castle, a Lehman affiliate that allowed the investment bank to move $1 billion in risky investments off its balance sheet, according to the New York Times.

“Hudson Capital to our knowledge had become independent of Lehman as of 2004,” Valukas said. His 2,200-page report focused on 2006 forward, he said.

At the hearing, Peck approved Lehman’s settlement of disputes over payments on $600 million of swap agreements with Metavante Corp.

The case is In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08-13555, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

--Editors: John Pickering

To contact the reporter on this story: Linda Sandler in New York at lsandler@bloomberg.net. Don Jeffrey in New York at djeffrey1@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net.

Now available Docket 8307: Examiners Report / Notice of Filing Unredacted Volume 5 of Examiners Report filed by Patrick J. Trostle on behalf of Anton R. Valukas. (Attachments: # (1) Volume 5 - Unredacted)(Trostle, Patrick)
Debtor: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Related: none

Just in... Lehman Examiner to Publish CME Auction Documents (Update1)

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-14/lehman-examiner-to-publish-cme-auction-documents-update1-.html


Lehman Examiner to Publish CME Auction Documents (Update1)
April 14, 2010, 10:34 AM EDT
By Linda Sandler and Donald Jeffrey

April 14 (Bloomberg) -- Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. bankruptcy examiner Anton Valukas won permission from a judge to publish previously censored details of a report on a $2 billion auction of Lehman collateral that he says caused $1.2 billion in losses.

Futures and options exchange CME Group Inc. sold the Lehman collateral and clearing deposits to three successful bidders after the auction, giving Lehman “less than reasonably equivalent value” in return, examiner Valukas said in his partly censored March 11 report on the 2008 bankruptcy.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge James M. Peck agreed that the redacted portions should be unsealed to test the fairness of the auction process, which benefited the buyers. CME had sought to keep the documents confidential.

“The claims of confidentiality are weak,” Peck said. “The arguments concerning potential future harm to events that may never occur are so speculative as to be discounted close to zero.”

The case is In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08-13555, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

--Editors: John Pickering

To contact the reporter on this story: Linda Sandler in New York at lsandler@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net.

Ask gets hit with 75,000 shares. Go Js!!!

Jersey, you and I are thinking the same $$$.

As you said... Show us the MONEY!!!

Go Lehman!!!

A law suit filed by Lehman Brothers against Barclays is to proceed after the latter’s attempt to have the case thrown out was rejected by a US judge.

http://www.bobsguide.com/guide/news/2010/Apr/13/Barclays_trial_over_Lehman_Brothers_%E2%80%98windfall%E2%80%99_to_go_ahead.html

13 April 2010
A law suit filed by Lehman Brothers against Barclays is to proceed after the latter’s attempt to have the case thrown out was rejected by a US judge.
Barclays trial over Lehman Brothers ‘windfall’ to go ahead

Creditors and trustees of the failed financial services provider alleged that Barclays made an $11 billion windfall from its acquisition.

Lawyers acting on behalf of Lehman Brothers told Judge James Peck that new evidence from 60 depositions and 100,000 documents shows that Barclays failed to disclose details of the gain before the takeover occurred.

Robert Gaffey, a lawyer representing Lehman Brothers, was quoted by Bloomberg as saying: “The court was never told of the $11 billion gain for Barclays which was known before the sale hearing.

“Barclays sat silent in court while Lehman’s lawyers described the deal to the court as a wash.”

Judge Peck announced that the trial will start on April 26th.

James Giddens, Lehman Brothers trustee, launched a law suit against Barclays in November 2009 claiming that the bank had made unfair gains from the acquisition.

However, Barclays alleges that Mr Giddens has withheld $3 billion which he owes to the bank.

By Jim Ottewill

Docket just posted regarding LAMCO.

Docket 8300

http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/docket/Default.aspx?SearchCriteria=&DMWin=e708d65e-342e-4a7b-888a-a7768efc86f1


Statement of Ad Hoc Group of Lehman Brothers Creditors Regarding Debtors Motion for Authorization to Enter into Certain Asset Management and Related Agreements (related document(s)[7579]) filed by Gerard Uzzi on behalf of Ad Hoc Group of Lehman Brothers Creditors. with hearing to be held on 4/15/2010 at 02:00 PM at Courtroom 601 (JMP) (Uzzi, Gerard)
Debtor: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Related: 7579

Js are open for action. .06x.07

I think even the MMs are unsure what could happen here so they are being cautious. It could blow up in their face. I can't think of another company that has this much money on the line.

The upside here is far greater than the downside.

I will send this to your gmail.