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.
It is dumping if you are LBHI and you know J shares are worthless and if you could assign them to the ECAPs it will resolve and end the lawsuit against you without any harm done to LBHI's BK.
Well good luck with your theory. V.
What case are you talking about? I was not aware of a lawsuit against LBHI except the current ones. You should probably go ask the Ws on this one.
My understanding is the lawsuit is for a class action against the BNYM. Am I wrong?
Okay. I forgot there are multiple ECAPs just like there are multiple CTs. There are like 9 CTs. I did see a few ECAPs sub guarantee expunged too. We were just talking ECAPs and I assumed we were talking about the same somes.
I will check iv and v later to see if they are on the docket as expunged.
What is lbh plc again? I forgot
Well that is what you would do blindly. I would not just call Abrams because her chambers will not answer a non party's questions. Again, please do some DD.
Wrong. Both do not have their guarantees. The reason why ECAPs got a settlement is because LBHI disbanded some oversight management shareholder group of the ECAPs. Something like that.
LBHI wanted to dump the J shares on the ECAPs to end the lawsuit while placing them in class 12 which will not effect anything. ECAPs holders said HELL NO, keep your garbage. Then Chapman said you are not allow to do that anyways. You guys are way over thinking the J shares intent.
Yikes!!! In hind sight, it was a terrible move.
I am not going to comment on the thought process back in 2011.
At least CTs still have a chance.
I did not know judges have deadlines to make a ruling. That is interesting. Maybe Waske and Wu should evaluate if the judge is sitting on their motions? If so, take some action. Who knows. Lets wait and see.
Lol. That is all I have to say. No worries, others are laughing at you too. You ignorance on what is going on is now hilarious. It wont be as funny if you did not try to pass as an expert in this bk. You have no clue. Not one ounce of clue on what is going on here. Now, that is funny.
But its ok. We are all Retail Investors here.
Lol. Like I said, you have no clue what is going on. This should confirm it for everyone. V.
That was said blanketly in Chapman's court.
In Abrams court the Plan Admin tried to play word games to get Wu's motion dismissed. The Plan Admin got the no respond part granted but, the dismissal that was orginally granted on Wu's motion later got reversed and Wu's motion got reinstated.
In Abrams court for Waske, the Plan Admin have to respond to Waske because Wu and Waske Motions are different and independent Motions. They can choose not to respond then, Abrams will just rule on Waske's merits. The Plan Admin could have tried to ask for a no response base on the BK court ruling as they did with Wu's motion but did not because imo Abrams will not allow LBHI to not respond to fraud charges twice. Imo, Abrams will not grant a second no response needed for fraud charges. Abrams need to also watch out for herself when she rules. Therefore, the current Plan Admin rather not respond.
What will he say? Wu posted all facts on merits. Each argument is backed by a docket.
That letter was written so confusing and it asked for a dismissal which was granted (if Wu did not Appeal) but later reversed when Abrams blamed the clerk for the error. Abrams Letter endorsement was equally as confusing. Lets just say we are not sure what happened but, it ended like a "clown show" between the Plan Admin and Abrams. Talk about being busted for collusion. The Weil flimsy letter endorsement cant be applied to the Waske Motion. Weil asked for a dismissal in Wu and was granted. That is a request that cannot be applied to another motion especially if its granted.
There is no response in Waske and No rebuttal on Wu. Lets Rock and Roll.
LBHI did not respond to the Waske motion. I do not think the current Plan Admin want any part of the fraud allegations made by the previous Plan Admin. Now its a clear path for Abrams to rule on all the Waske and Wu merits. The Plan Admin did not respond.???!!!! Wow.
All NOLs have an expiration dates. They carryforward 20 years and carrryback like 3-5 years. They can still use the NOLs to offset taxable income like discharges.
Its 2022, about 5.5 years left. The NOLs value to a new entity or a buyer has significantly decreased over time. Even a new spinoff entity will only benefit a few years if even that because there will be a wrap up company.
In todays market and entering recession, most companies wont need NOLs until 2+ years out. They also have their own to use. Time is not on your scenario's side.
Please tell me what the docket # is? Did you even borher to verify before you go on the attack? Its typical you. Dont bother to DD and just talk blindly.
What docket number is your quote from? Thanks.
Thats a good post but it can be better if you can point out a real life fact that effects it. Whats wrong with that post? Think about it. Comment on it. If you dont see it, I will tell you after my nice home cooked dinner.
I can buy that pool home with 40% x 350kshares x 25 dollars. No new deal needed.
Nobody. They will all be discharged.
Bro, then get some glasses. I am the one who said the NOLs can be given to creditors and said there is a bankruptcy law exception that allows it. I also said imo LBHI will use the NOLs to offset the discharge.
I hope so. I hope so.
Do you believe there will be a new Lehman? Do you think we will get shares of the new company if there is one? Thanks.
The movants went further this time. They are seeking relief under Rule 60 under Fraud. W2 motions in Abrams court meets Rule 59 too, right?
I could have sworn you were all gung ho on You do not think LBHI will take a discharge. Its cool though. We will leave it at that. We can all change our minds or be wrong as long as we own up to it and adjust. I give credit to You, Waske and Wu for this.
You can believe what you want to believe. Its all good. I will believe what I believe.
Just rememeber, if the lawsuits yield any payouts or money, I get 40% of your gains. Remember that, I will collect. Head I win, Tails you lose.
Bro, dont get all Millennial or GenZ on me! I do not know what is NPC and do not care to know. If you are talking support for the Ws, then YES, I do support their lawsuits. Therefore, it makes your point about me thinking the lawsuits are BOGUS, stupid. Why would you make an accusation like that when I made it clear I support the Ws' lawsuits?
Maybe you are the NPC, how about that? N P C, give me a break.
Reread my posts. I gave 3 options. That means nothing is final. Its all up in the air. Why are you so word sensitive? ALL my 3 options CAN happen. And yes there CAN BE 100% or 99% creditor take over.
Disclaimer: Just because I talk about the topic does not mean I believe there will be a new NOL company. I believe LBHI will take a discharge and use the NOL. No NOL company.
No. Equity is Equity. Class 12 is class 12 during the BK.
Where it changes is IF they EXIT, the NEW EQUITY can be either all old equity, a combo of old equity and creditors or just all creditors making up the new equity.
Are you talking about the exception to the NOLS? Like I said earlier, creditors can replace equity in a scenario where NOLs were to survive or spunoff/merge.
I agree with your post. My take is Creditors can potentially take 100% of the NOLs if they were to survive. You are at 99%, close enough.
Please note: That is only if they use the exception. Just know its out there.
Good you finally took my advice and look at the exceptions. Just another fyi, and you can refute it if you like, the discharge might already been expressed to be taken during the confirmation of the plan. If they chose not to do that, then they will take it near the end. All in all, a discharge will be taken.
Another fyi, LBHI do currently have a revenue generating business. V.
I have nothing against you. I always said I have the dockets. You are the one that kept insisting that the Order did not exist and speak as we still have the Guarantee. You decided to attack me for updating the board on the lawsuits so, I decided that taking the time to find the docket for you was not worth it. Stockmojo genuinely wanted to read and confirm the Guarantee was expunged. So, I gave it to him.
If people are genuine in wanting to know what is going on, then I will tell them. If you are not, then you continue the fantasy path. Its all good.
Docket 23049.
The controlling law is presented now and its interpreted by the highest court.
Thank you. I will read the ruling a few times.
Are you saying in 2019 the SCOTUS ruling overrides the expungement? Were the ECAP's Guarantee expunged and disallowed like ours? Thanks.
Our guarantee rights are completely gone.
Are you saying that if we get reaffirmed, our Guarantee rights gets restored even though there is a court order that expunged and disallowed it? That is interesting. I have to look into that.
Biden did not really say that!!! Did he? Omg. My mom is jewish and my dad is Russian. Long story. Biden in my opinion is deteriorating cognitively.
Its an expungement Order issued by judge Peck. Our Guarantee rights no longer exist.
Swiss, give us the latest ECAPs update. If you wish hard enough, the parity privision might come back to make it relevent.
"*brings up 11 year old docket* "oh my gosh! no guarentee? if we dont get it back we are DONE!!!!!""
I brought up an 11 year old expungement order of our CTs. Why? Because to inform the board in which none of you guys knew until I brought it up. You guys were talking about the guarantee like it was still valid. I did you and everyone here a favor by posting that. I informed this board and you of something that is important.
And good luck to you if you think we will get paid without the guarantee. Continue with your fantasy scenarios pretending the guarantee still exists. Why talk about ECAPs if there is no Guarantee? Do you know where the parity provision is? Yeah, the guarantee. Come on swiss, give us a ton of new posts on the ECAPS. Lets hear it. Make this board your fantasy island.
I was not here for 10 years. You are and the sad thing is you are still confused and dont know what you are talking about. You think LBHI deposited their common shares into our trust to make it a quasi structure. This was posted by you recently. Lol
Nothing you post have value. Nothing. Name one post of yours that is accurate and truthful. Not one but all your posts are just attacks on others.
Lets be clear, you are the one who is always expecting money day after day with your NOL and new company fantasy. You post about non discharge when there is no guarantee. You post about new shares of a new company magically going to the CTs by satisfied in full of classes 1-9 blindly thinking that is all they will get without being discharged. They will continue to collect until they are discharged. You think CTs will get paid without the guarantee and dont address the liability subject to compromise wishing that it will just magically go away.
That is your garbage for the past 10 plus years.
You seem to want to pass on your failures by accusing me of them. You are the joker who is wishing and talking about a payout each day for the past 10 years, not me. Go back and read your post. Now that is sad but at this point funny to me because you are worn and defeated claiming onto your own lies. By you saying that tells me how you really feel about yourself and your time and hope invested in the CTs.
Did you read Judge Peck's Order? Did you read the two recent motions? What are you referring to when you said I miscontrued and why?