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.
"Lehman and Barclays were in court on Thursday for a status conference over their dispute, in which they were discussing a schedule for evidentiary hearings."
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1524013020091015
UPDATE 1-Barclays owed $3 bln in assets from Lehman-lawyer
Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:30pm EDT
NEW YORK, Oct 15 (Reuters) - Barclays Capital (BARC.L) is still owed billions in assets from bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LEHMQ.PK), whose U.S. broker-dealer business it purchased last year, a Barclays lawyer told a federal judge on Thursday.
The British bank's lawyer, Hamish Hume, told Judge James Peck of federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan that Lehman, which is seeking to change the terms of the transaction, has not yet delivered $3 billion of assets he said is owed to Barclays. He did not disclose what that assets were.
Lehman said in court documents last month that Barclays Capital got an $8.2 billion "windfall profit" from excess assets it took in the fire sale of Lehman's U.S. brokerage business, a deal quickly assembled in September 2008 in the days following the Lehman bankruptcy.
Lehman claimed that "critical changes" were made to the sale in between the time the sale order was signed and the deal was closed, resulting in Barclays gaining control of assets that Lehman said were not supposed to be part of the purchase.
A lawyer for Lehman did not counter Barclays claim in court.
Barclays has said Lehman is making "an opportunistic claim" and trying to "re-trade the deal."
Enjoy,
Coach T
"Lehman and Barclays were in court on Thursday for a status conference over their dispute, in which they were discussing a schedule for evidentiary hearings."
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1524013020091015
UPDATE 1-Barclays owed $3 bln in assets from Lehman-lawyer
Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:30pm EDT
NEW YORK, Oct 15 (Reuters) - Barclays Capital (BARC.L) is still owed billions in assets from bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LEHMQ.PK), whose U.S. broker-dealer business it purchased last year, a Barclays lawyer told a federal judge on Thursday.
The British bank's lawyer, Hamish Hume, told Judge James Peck of federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan that Lehman, which is seeking to change the terms of the transaction, has not yet delivered $3 billion of assets he said is owed to Barclays. He did not disclose what that assets were.
Lehman said in court documents last month that Barclays Capital got an $8.2 billion "windfall profit" from excess assets it took in the fire sale of Lehman's U.S. brokerage business, a deal quickly assembled in September 2008 in the days following the Lehman bankruptcy.
Lehman claimed that "critical changes" were made to the sale in between the time the sale order was signed and the deal was closed, resulting in Barclays gaining control of assets that Lehman said were not supposed to be part of the purchase.
A lawyer for Lehman did not counter Barclays claim in court.
Barclays has said Lehman is making "an opportunistic claim" and trying to "re-trade the deal."
Enjoy,
Coach T
Bollinger Bands could allow it to get to $.27 today. At least it would fir a nice pattern and set it up for next week.
IMO.
Coach T
The "unsealed" part went exactly as A&M and the LEHMAN team had proposed prior to having to file a motion to unseal. Mr. Marsal did not care about individual names and/or compensation information.
All that happened was it took the court to make Barclays come to the table and do what we requested three weeks ago.
Have not seen anything on the AIG CDS hearing yet.
Coach T
Mr. Marsal once again gets what he wished for...
One of the proposals that the LEHMAN team made prior to filing the motion to unseal was to keep individual names and compensation numbers from being released. If the Feds or someone wants to press criminal prosecution they will have access to the total file.
LEHMAN was only after the concepts and details that showed how many and what assets were moved to Barclays unbeknownst to the court. The who doesn't matter.
I think the order and timing of the unsealing will be discussed tomorrow along with the meat of the discussion...getting the assets back and letting Judge Peck have at Barclays for the fraud/robbery of how it all came down!
Way to go...
Coach T
Homebuilders and REITS are starting to move up again. Look at the similarity in the charts of LEHMANS and XHB and the REITS of your choice.
Commercial Mortgage Bond Prices are up this day also with the confidence in the increased revenues seen by Intel.
Coach T
This week the volume of claims transfers has really spiked!
I think more entities are seeing opportunity in the LEHMAN claims paper.
Can't imagine that being a bad thing...considering most of the public does not even know LEHMAN is still trading anything.
Coach T
Can someone explain this to me from yesterday's LBHI dockets...
STIPULATION CONCERNING SCHEDULING BETWEEN
THE DEBTORS, TRUSTEE, COMMITTEE AND THE BANK OF
TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD., AUSTRALIA & NEW
ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD. AND LLOYDS TSB BANK plc
This Stipulation concerning scheduling (the “Stipulation) is entered into by and among the undersigned counsel, acting for and on behalf of their respective clients: (a)Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“LBHI”) and its affiliated debtors and debtors-in possession in the Chapter 11 Cases (collectively, the “Debtors”); (b) James W. Giddens, As Trustee in the Securities Investor Protection Act Liquidation of Lehman Brothers Inc. (the “Trustee”); (c) the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession (the “Committee”)
(Debtors, Trustee and Committee collectively the “Moving Parties,” and each a “Moving Party”); (d) The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. (“BTMU”); (e) Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., properly named Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (“ANZ”); and (f) Lloyds TSB Bank plc (“Lloyds”) (BTMU, ANZ and Lloyds collectively the “OCC Interpleader Defendant Banks”).
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2009: (i) LBHI filed Debtor’s Motion for an Order, Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 and Fed.R.Bankr.P 9024, Modifying the September 20, 2008 Sale Order and Granting Other Relief; (ii) The Trustee filed The Trustee’s Motion for Relief Pursuant to the Sale Orders or, Alternatively, for Certain Limited Relief under Rule 60(b); and (iii) the Committee filed the Motion of Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Et Al., Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), and Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9024, for Relief from Order under 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 363, and 365 and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 2002, 6004 and 6006 Authorizing and Approving (A) Sale of Purchased Assets free and Clear of Liens and Other Interests and (B) Assumption and Assignment of Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases, Dated September 20, 2008 (and Related SIPA Sale Order) and
Joinder in Debtors’ and SIPA Trustee’s Motions for an Order under Rule 60(b) to Modify Sale Order (collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Moving Parties’ Rule 60
Motions”);
WHEREAS, the Moving Parties’ Rule 60 Motions each currently have an Objection Deadline of October 9, 2009 and a Hearing Date of October 15, 2009;
WHEREAS, Barclays Capital Inc. (“Barclays”), LBHI, the Trustee and the Committee have each agreed to an adjournment of the above-referenced Objection Deadline and Hearing Date;
WHEREAS, the OCC Interpleader Defendant Banks have requested that the schedule for Objection Deadline and Hearing Date that may be agreed or Ordered as among the Moving Parties and Barclays also apply to any submissions by the OCC Interpleader Defendant Banks;
-NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, AGREED, AND UPON
COURT APPROVAL HEREOF, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The schedule for Objection Deadline and Hearing Date that may be agreed or Ordered as among the Moving Parties and Barclays also shall apply to any response or objection filed by the OCC Interpleader Defendant Banks.
2. This Stipulation may be executed in separate counterparts (which may include counterparts delivered by facsimile or email transmission). Dated: New York, New York
October 8, 2009
Why would they postpone this when two days ago LEH, the Trustee and the Creditors Committee could not wait to get Barclays into court?
Me thinks it is a good thing...thoughts?
Coach T
Kid:
Court started at 10:00. It is now 12:00 EST. My guess is that you will see Bloomberg, Reuters start to come out with comments prior to seeing anything posted on the EPIQ or Creditors website.
Keep the Faith!
Coach T
It would not surprise me if the MM's don't put a trade for 200 shares at $.05 or something way down underneath the market.
Seems that happens just before a run to new highs...
Don't know if they run out stops or what?
Coach T
PAULSON JUST BOUGHT 10% of CONSECO!
Has anyone seen the investment that Paulson & Co. has made in lowly Conseco (CNO).
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/paulson-to-own-almost-10-of-conseco-2009-10-13
This company is in the Financial Industry (Insurance) and was expected to have to raise capital according to analyst reports from March of this year.
This company in March of 2009 was trading on the NYSE at $0.26!
Currently trading in the after hours at $5.79!
Look at the balance sheet and numbers. Does it remind you of any other company?
Keep the Faith!
Coach T
PAULSON JUST BOUGHT 10% of CONSECO!
Has anyone seen the investment that Paulson & Co. has made in lowly Conseco (CNO).
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/paulson-to-own-almost-10-of-conseco-2009-10-13
This company is in the Financial Industry (Insurance) and was expected to have to raise capital according to analyst reports from March of this year.
This company in March of 2009 was trading on the NYSE at $0.26!
Currently trading in the after hours at $5.79!
Look at the balance sheet and numbers. Does it remind you of any other company?
Keep the Faith!
Coach T
PAULSON JUST BOUGHT 10% of CONSECO!
Has anyone seen the investment that Paulson & Co. has made in lowly Conseco (CNO).
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/paulson-to-own-almost-10-of-conseco-2009-10-13
This company is in the Financial Industry (Insurance) and was expected to have to raise capital according to analyst reports from March of this year.
This company in March of 2009 was trading on the NYSE at $0.26!
Currently trading in the after hours at $5.79!
Look at the balance sheet and numbers. Does it remind you of any other company?
Keep the Faith!
Coach T
Mic:
My feeling is the 17B that JPM confiscated was the final liquidity that LEH had left to operate. Mr. Marsal was very convincing in court statements about how he felt it was unjustified and money should be returned to the estate.
Counterparties had been taking billions of dollars of liquidity for the 2 months prior to the BK.
What the examiner is trying to figure out is if it was justified and/or caused the final tilt. This could also cause a claim by LEHMAN to JPM.
You can bet that A&M and Weil, Jones Day etc. will be close behind!
Rough day today but better days to come. IMO.
Coach T
I don't think the amount of money in this hearing is as important as the continued precedent that even though Counterparties think they may be ok because of LEHMAN's "Default" due to Chap 11 BK...they are not.
Counterparties have to have notified properly to LEHMAN of termination. This includes many variables according to the Master Service Agreements. Price, Date, and LEHMAN has to accept the price at which the termination is derived!
Counterparties in the most recent court decisions are finding out that doing nothing does not terminate.
Counterparties are finding out that just notification of termination does not complete the process.
Counterparties are finding out that if they did notify with proper documentation that LEHMAN can still dispute the price at which the termination can be completed.
There is a lot of meat left on this bone! IMO.
Coach T
I was a little concerned about the position that AIG CDS was taking in tomorrow's hearing on the money owed by AIG to LEH. AIG was trying to position itself apart from the Metavante decision. I have been waiting for the LEH response to the AIG motion...
LBHI Docket #5447 has put that to rest. In other brilliant response, the LEH legal team has itself on solid footing IMO.
If you have time, it is entertaining to hear the legal team position itself for tomorrow's hearing. Verbiage, Delivery and Tempo are in perfect response to the AIG CDS attempt to get out of money owed to LEHMAN.
Keep the Faith!
Coach T
Underneath the market the homebuilder stocks are catching a bid again. XHB is now positive after a down day yesterday...
Go get 'em...still can't believe the US Trustee wants to have the Barclays documents unsealed. I just don't think it gets better than that. Can't see how Judge Peck will go against the US Trustee.
The Perfect Storm is upon us!
Coach T
Tight supply pushes U.K. house price balance higher: RICS
September annual same-store sales up 2.8%: British Retail Consortium
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- A growing majority of British surveyors saw house prices rise in September due to an ongoing lack of homes for sale, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors reported Tuesday.
The group's monthly survey found the net balance of surveyors reporting rises rather than falls in house prices rose to +22 in September, up from +10 in August and its highest reading since May 2007. The balance is calculated by subtracting the number surveyors who report a fall in price from the number who report a rise.
The South of England, which includes London, led the upturn in prices. The net balance in London rose to +79, while the Southeast rose to +52.
"A lack of supply is still underpinning the rise in house prices with new instructions to estate agents only edging up very gradually," said RICS spokesman Ian Perry.
"Meanwhile despite the problems first-time buyers are continuing to encounter in securing finance, the level of enquiries from potential purchasers is increasing. This imbalance between demand and supply suggests that house prices will move higher in the near term."
Other housing surveys have also pointed to rises in house prices amid tight supplies. British house prices have shown signs of stabilization after a sharp tumble that began in 2007 after several years of sharp price rises.
Enjoy the Ride!
Coach T
Tight supply pushes U.K. house price balance higher: RICS
September annual same-store sales up 2.8%: British Retail Consortium
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- A growing majority of British surveyors saw house prices rise in September due to an ongoing lack of homes for sale, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors reported Tuesday.
The group's monthly survey found the net balance of surveyors reporting rises rather than falls in house prices rose to +22 in September, up from +10 in August and its highest reading since May 2007. The balance is calculated by subtracting the number surveyors who report a fall in price from the number who report a rise.
The South of England, which includes London, led the upturn in prices. The net balance in London rose to +79, while the Southeast rose to +52.
"A lack of supply is still underpinning the rise in house prices with new instructions to estate agents only edging up very gradually," said RICS spokesman Ian Perry.
"Meanwhile despite the problems first-time buyers are continuing to encounter in securing finance, the level of enquiries from potential purchasers is increasing. This imbalance between demand and supply suggests that house prices will move higher in the near term."
Other housing surveys have also pointed to rises in house prices amid tight supplies. British house prices have shown signs of stabilization after a sharp tumble that began in 2007 after several years of sharp price rises.
Enjoy the Ride!
Coach T
Tight supply pushes U.K. house price balance higher: RICS
September annual same-store sales up 2.8%: British Retail Consortium
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- A growing majority of British surveyors saw house prices rise in September due to an ongoing lack of homes for sale, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors reported Tuesday.
The group's monthly survey found the net balance of surveyors reporting rises rather than falls in house prices rose to +22 in September, up from +10 in August and its highest reading since May 2007. The balance is calculated by subtracting the number surveyors who report a fall in price from the number who report a rise.
The South of England, which includes London, led the upturn in prices. The net balance in London rose to +79, while the Southeast rose to +52.
"A lack of supply is still underpinning the rise in house prices with new instructions to estate agents only edging up very gradually," said RICS spokesman Ian Perry.
"Meanwhile despite the problems first-time buyers are continuing to encounter in securing finance, the level of enquiries from potential purchasers is increasing. This imbalance between demand and supply suggests that house prices will move higher in the near term."
Other housing surveys have also pointed to rises in house prices amid tight supplies. British house prices have shown signs of stabilization after a sharp tumble that began in 2007 after several years of sharp price rises.
Enjoy the Ride!
Coach T
I don't think of it that way...
If there is such a wide spread between bid/ask, I simply only look at the bid.
If I were a large player looking to accumulate a position I would offer to buy at the bid then trade a large amount to purchase on the ask. Then ping the bid with a nominal 100-1000 shares to make the end of day price look like nothing happened that day.
Unless you look at the time and sales (which very few do) the general public never knows what is happening.
Coach T
Remember when the price of all the Lehman's dropped under $1.00? The NYSE couldn't move fast enough to delist the Commons, Trusts and Preferreds.
So what if the Preferreds and Trusts start trading over $1.00 again? Relist?
That would be a full cycle turn of events!
Coach T
I don't think you will see any type of movement to the purchase side until after the June 30, 2009 Balance Sheet is released (whenever that is).
We know from marketplace quotations, that pricing on many Lehman type assets have improved generally by 30-50% from the lows.
If we figure a 15% advance in the overall asset base of $295B you get to a new assets valuation of $347B, with liabilities of $325B.
At this point, I think it would be politically possible to put the final touches on a plan. This would obviously not include any of the legal proceedings like JPM and the 17B, Barclays $8B etc. However, it would be a full face value payout for Trusts and Preferreds!
Once all counterparties and debt holders/creditors know there would be enough money in the A/L pool I think a different atmosphere will prevail (cooler, less adversarial).
Just my opinion. But I do not think a 15% increase in assets on what Mr. Marsal called "very conservative marks" at the creditors meeting is unrealistic.
Thoughts?
Coach T
It is hard to say...not a whole lot of information is available.
If I remember correctly, JPM had quite a bit of counterparty exposure along with Citi.
Barclay's tends to make the most sense to me. I believe when it all washes out that Barclay's can benefit the most. Both the US and UK wanted that marriage. No one knew what the potential derivative, CDO, Swap, etc. exposure was. At the time, no one trusted anyone. So no one stepped up.
IMO Barclay's has civil and criminal exposure to the way they were trying to get assets thru "under the tag" and behind Judge Peck's back. Including the top brass at Barclay's. There was an interview done with Bob Diamond of Barclay's last month and he was almost bragging about getting as many LEH assets as he could!
Judge Peck during the late night approval of the "Sale" left the door open that alot of work went into a short period of time to put the "Sale" of Lehman together and that the possibility existed that mistakes were made and might need to be revisited.
For $2B Barclay's could buy the LEH Common Stock, assume the $325B liabilities, including the $100B Bonds, plus the $11B Preferreds and Trusts, and have an $300B asset base that might be worth $400B in the coming months years.
That is not counting all of the relationships it would gain OVERNIGHT thru the existing thousands of counterparties holding derivatives, etc.
In effect, freeing up the notional $39 TRILLION of counterparty assets that are currently frozen worldwide. From a government standpoint...I don't think it is that far fetched for the US and UK to lend a hand for 30B that releases that type of money flow and investor confidence back into the global economy.
Not to mention the public relations bonanza that Barclay's would get by "saving the day" in front of the world!
Just my opinion...
Coach T
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (Trustee) SUPPORTS LEHMAN!
On September 15, 2009, LBHI filed the instant LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion.2 Collectively, these Rule 60(b) Motions assert that certain Lehman representatives failed to disclose key components of the transaction to the Court and, even where information was disclosed, the Court and creditors were never informed of “critical changes” to the Sale that took
place both prior to the final Sale Hearing and after the Sale Hearing but prior to the closing on September 22, 2008. (LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at 1.)
As one of the few parties-in-interest with the ability to discover this critical information, LBHI has thus far estimated that Barclays received at least $8.2 billion in excess Lehman assets. (LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at ¶ 12.)
More troubling still is LBHI’s allegation that certain key employees responsible for negotiating a supposedly arms-length sale for the benefit of all the Debtors’ estates may have been complicit with Barclays in the misrepresentation of information regarding the Sale due to their competing allegiances and improper incentives as future Barclays employees. (See LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at ¶ 14.)
3. On September 24, 2009, the Committee filed the Committee Unsealing Motion. LBHI and the SIPA Trustee filed statements joining the Committee Unsealing Motion [Docket Nos. 5270 and 5271]. In the Committee Unsealing Motion, the Committee argues that Barclays improperly designated as confidential and highly confidential much of the information provided pursuant to the LBHI 2004 Motion.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
4. Even after hundreds of pages of redactions, the skeletal Motions (and their gutted exhibits) suggest that misrepresentations were made to the Court concerning the assets to be 2 Concurrent with the filing of the LBHI Rule 60(b), the Committee filed the Committee Rule 60(b) Motion. The
SIPA Trustee filed a Joinder to LBHI’s Rule 60(b) Motion stating that it would also file a similar motion in the
SIPA proceedings [Docket No. 5173]. transferred to Barclays upon the consummation of the Sale.
Absent granting the relief requested in the Committee Unsealing Motion, the Trustee, like other parties-in-interest, will be left to wonder about such improper transfers of LBHI (and potentially LBCS) estate assets. Such obfuscation of the truth, as underscored by the Committee, serves no valid or justifiable purpose.
Accordingly, the Trustee joins in the arguments raised in the Committee’s Unsealing Motion to further expose the facts of the Sale to the “sunlight” of public examination.
5. The Trustee also agrees with the arguments set forth in the Rule 60(b) Motions, and files this Statement in support of the Rule 60(b) Motions. However, the Trustee respectfully
requests that any Order of the Court granting the Rule 60(b) Motions should leave intact the representations made in the Clarification Letter concerning the exclusion of LBCS from the
Asset Purchase Agreement.
The world is getting smaller and the truth is coming out!
Coach T
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (Trustee) SUPPORTS LEHMAN!
On September 15, 2009, LBHI filed the instant LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion.2 Collectively, these Rule 60(b) Motions assert that certain Lehman representatives failed to disclose key components of the transaction to the Court and, even where information was disclosed, the Court and creditors were never informed of “critical changes” to the Sale that took
place both prior to the final Sale Hearing and after the Sale Hearing but prior to the closing on September 22, 2008. (LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at 1.)
As one of the few parties-in-interest with the ability to discover this critical information, LBHI has thus far estimated that Barclays received at least $8.2 billion in excess Lehman assets. (LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at ¶ 12.)
More troubling still is LBHI’s allegation that certain key employees responsible for negotiating a supposedly arms-length sale for the benefit of all the Debtors’ estates may have been complicit with Barclays in the misrepresentation of information regarding the Sale due to their competing allegiances and improper incentives as future Barclays employees. (See LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at ¶ 14.)
3. On September 24, 2009, the Committee filed the Committee Unsealing Motion. LBHI and the SIPA Trustee filed statements joining the Committee Unsealing Motion [Docket Nos. 5270 and 5271]. In the Committee Unsealing Motion, the Committee argues that Barclays improperly designated as confidential and highly confidential much of the information provided pursuant to the LBHI 2004 Motion.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
4. Even after hundreds of pages of redactions, the skeletal Motions (and their gutted exhibits) suggest that misrepresentations were made to the Court concerning the assets to be 2 Concurrent with the filing of the LBHI Rule 60(b), the Committee filed the Committee Rule 60(b) Motion. The
SIPA Trustee filed a Joinder to LBHI’s Rule 60(b) Motion stating that it would also file a similar motion in the
SIPA proceedings [Docket No. 5173]. transferred to Barclays upon the consummation of the Sale.
Absent granting the relief requested in the Committee Unsealing Motion, the Trustee, like other parties-in-interest, will be left to wonder about such improper transfers of LBHI (and potentially LBCS) estate assets. Such obfuscation of the truth, as underscored by the Committee, serves no valid or justifiable purpose.
Accordingly, the Trustee joins in the arguments raised in the Committee’s Unsealing Motion to further expose the facts of the Sale to the “sunlight” of public examination.
5. The Trustee also agrees with the arguments set forth in the Rule 60(b) Motions, and files this Statement in support of the Rule 60(b) Motions. However, the Trustee respectfully
requests that any Order of the Court granting the Rule 60(b) Motions should leave intact the representations made in the Clarification Letter concerning the exclusion of LBCS from the
Asset Purchase Agreement.
The world is getting smaller and the truth is coming out!
Coach T
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (Trustee) SUPPORTS LEHMAN!
On September 15, 2009, LBHI filed the instant LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion.2 Collectively, these Rule 60(b) Motions assert that certain Lehman representatives failed to disclose key components of the transaction to the Court and, even where information was disclosed, the Court and creditors were never informed of “critical changes” to the Sale that took
place both prior to the final Sale Hearing and after the Sale Hearing but prior to the closing on September 22, 2008. (LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at 1.)
As one of the few parties-in-interest with the ability to discover this critical information, LBHI has thus far estimated that Barclays received at least $8.2 billion in excess Lehman assets. (LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at ¶ 12.)
More troubling still is LBHI’s allegation that certain key employees responsible for negotiating a supposedly arms-length sale for the benefit of all the Debtors’ estates may have been complicit with Barclays in the misrepresentation of information regarding the Sale due to their competing allegiances and improper incentives as future Barclays employees. (See LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at ¶ 14.)
3. On September 24, 2009, the Committee filed the Committee Unsealing Motion. LBHI and the SIPA Trustee filed statements joining the Committee Unsealing Motion [Docket Nos. 5270 and 5271]. In the Committee Unsealing Motion, the Committee argues that Barclays improperly designated as confidential and highly confidential much of the information provided pursuant to the LBHI 2004 Motion.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
4. Even after hundreds of pages of redactions, the skeletal Motions (and their gutted exhibits) suggest that misrepresentations were made to the Court concerning the assets to be 2 Concurrent with the filing of the LBHI Rule 60(b), the Committee filed the Committee Rule 60(b) Motion. The
SIPA Trustee filed a Joinder to LBHI’s Rule 60(b) Motion stating that it would also file a similar motion in the
SIPA proceedings [Docket No. 5173]. transferred to Barclays upon the consummation of the Sale.
Absent granting the relief requested in the Committee Unsealing Motion, the Trustee, like other parties-in-interest, will be left to wonder about such improper transfers of LBHI (and potentially LBCS) estate assets. Such obfuscation of the truth, as underscored by the Committee, serves no valid or justifiable purpose.
Accordingly, the Trustee joins in the arguments raised in the Committee’s Unsealing Motion to further expose the facts of the Sale to the “sunlight” of public examination.
5. The Trustee also agrees with the arguments set forth in the Rule 60(b) Motions, and files this Statement in support of the Rule 60(b) Motions. However, the Trustee respectfully
requests that any Order of the Court granting the Rule 60(b) Motions should leave intact the representations made in the Clarification Letter concerning the exclusion of LBCS from the
Asset Purchase Agreement.
The world is getting smaller and the truth is coming out!
Coach T
REMEMBER WHEN BARCLAY'S COULD HAVE HAD ALL OF LEHMAN FOR $8 BILLION +/- and had the assets and liabilities?
Now they are going to have to come up with $$$ and not have the asset/liability pile.
Don't be surprised if someone doesn't come knocking on LEHMAN'S door wanting to make an offer for everything. If a counterparty that already has SUBSTANTIAL derivative/swap liability risk with LEHMAN for Billions of dollars...why not buy the whole LEH pie and never have to pay on the liability risk?
If the June 30, 2009 Balance Sheet shows Assets=Liabilities but counterparties would still have risk, why not buy it all for $8B +/- and assume the risk.
If Uncle Sam knew it did not have alot of exposure, a deal could be put together that made sense and all ptarties would now know the risk and what is on the books! This would release trillions of dollars into the world economy that have been locked up since 09/14/08.
Coach T
EVERGREEN SOLAR NOW SEES THAT BARCLAY'S WAS TAKING ITS SHARES WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION...the Perfect Storm. LBHI Docket #5422
As this Court is aware, Evergreen is a plaintiff in that certain adversary proceeding
captioned Evergreen Solar, Inc. v. Barclays Capital, Inc., Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and
Lehman Brothers, Inc., Adv. Pro. No. 08-01633 (JMP) (the “Adversary Proceeding”), arising
from the unauthorized sale of certain shares of Evergreen Common Stock by Lehman Brothers
Inc. (“LBI”), agent under that certain Share Lending Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2008 (the
“SLA”).1 In that Adversary Proceeding, Evergreen alleged that LBI lacked authority to transfer
the loaned shares (the “Loaned Shares”) in its possession solely as agent to Barclays Capital, Inc.
1 Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the SLA, a copy of which has
been provided to this Court in connection with Adversary Proceeding (defined below).
3
(“Barclays”) at the time of the sale, LBI failed to provide Evergreen with notice of the sale
despite the fact that the SLA had terminated, and Evergreen, as a result of the defendants’
actions, was damaged through, among other things, the loss of the Loaned Shares and by a
corresponding and substantial dilution of its Common Stock. Now, LBI and Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”), together with the Committee, have moved to reconsider the Sale Order,
claiming that “mistakes, inadvertence, or misrepresentations” led to the approval of the Sale
Order and that assets that should not have been sold were transferred in secret to Barclays under
the guise of the Sale Order. This is the very same subject matter of Evergreen’s Adversary
Proceeding with respect to the Loaned Shares.
While Evergreen was naturally not alone in suffering a loss upon Lehman’s failure,
unlike the vast majority of unsecured creditors and customers of Lehman, a substantial portion of
Evergreen’s loss—approximately 12,304,187 shares—could have and should have been
prevented both as a matter of law and in the interests of equity. By the time the shares were
transferred, certain events of default had occurred under the SLA and LBIE was required to
return the shares through its agent, LBI, to Evergreen. Instead, those shares over which LBI did
not hold title, but merely held as an agent for LBIE (which itself had lost title to its holdings of
the Loaned Shares upon default), were swept up into a whirlwind sale (the “Sale”) to Barclays.
According to the Debtors, the Committee, and the SIPA Trusteee, it now appears that
Barclays—which throughout its dispute with Evergreen has consistently touted the fairness of
the Sale process—took advantage of the exigent circumstances surrounding the Sale by securing
for itself a windfall profit and by arguing that assets transferred outside the scope of the Sale
Order approved by this Court were validly “purchased.” Although much of what has been
uncovered by the Committee, the Debtors, and the SIPA Trustee remains under seal, and
4
therefore unavailable to Evergreen at the time of this pleading, the Committee Motion describes
in sufficient detail how Barclays managed to conceal the nature of the securities transferred to it
under the Sale Order and the related Repo Agreement. Because it is this element of the Sale that
directly affected Evergreen’s interests, Evergreen hereby joins in the Committee Motion and
asks this Court to reconsider the Sale Order.
They are all starting to see the true picture!
Coach T
EVERGREEN SOLAR NOW SEES THAT BARCLAY'S WAS TAKING ITS SHARES WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION...the Perfect Storm. LBHI Docket #5422
As this Court is aware, Evergreen is a plaintiff in that certain adversary proceeding
captioned Evergreen Solar, Inc. v. Barclays Capital, Inc., Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and
Lehman Brothers, Inc., Adv. Pro. No. 08-01633 (JMP) (the “Adversary Proceeding”), arising
from the unauthorized sale of certain shares of Evergreen Common Stock by Lehman Brothers
Inc. (“LBI”), agent under that certain Share Lending Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2008 (the
“SLA”).1 In that Adversary Proceeding, Evergreen alleged that LBI lacked authority to transfer
the loaned shares (the “Loaned Shares”) in its possession solely as agent to Barclays Capital, Inc.
1 Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the SLA, a copy of which has
been provided to this Court in connection with Adversary Proceeding (defined below).
3
(“Barclays”) at the time of the sale, LBI failed to provide Evergreen with notice of the sale
despite the fact that the SLA had terminated, and Evergreen, as a result of the defendants’
actions, was damaged through, among other things, the loss of the Loaned Shares and by a
corresponding and substantial dilution of its Common Stock. Now, LBI and Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”), together with the Committee, have moved to reconsider the Sale Order,
claiming that “mistakes, inadvertence, or misrepresentations” led to the approval of the Sale
Order and that assets that should not have been sold were transferred in secret to Barclays under
the guise of the Sale Order. This is the very same subject matter of Evergreen’s Adversary
Proceeding with respect to the Loaned Shares.
While Evergreen was naturally not alone in suffering a loss upon Lehman’s failure,
unlike the vast majority of unsecured creditors and customers of Lehman, a substantial portion of
Evergreen’s loss—approximately 12,304,187 shares—could have and should have been
prevented both as a matter of law and in the interests of equity. By the time the shares were
transferred, certain events of default had occurred under the SLA and LBIE was required to
return the shares through its agent, LBI, to Evergreen. Instead, those shares over which LBI did
not hold title, but merely held as an agent for LBIE (which itself had lost title to its holdings of
the Loaned Shares upon default), were swept up into a whirlwind sale (the “Sale”) to Barclays.
According to the Debtors, the Committee, and the SIPA Trusteee, it now appears that
Barclays—which throughout its dispute with Evergreen has consistently touted the fairness of
the Sale process—took advantage of the exigent circumstances surrounding the Sale by securing
for itself a windfall profit and by arguing that assets transferred outside the scope of the Sale
Order approved by this Court were validly “purchased.” Although much of what has been
uncovered by the Committee, the Debtors, and the SIPA Trustee remains under seal, and
4
therefore unavailable to Evergreen at the time of this pleading, the Committee Motion describes
in sufficient detail how Barclays managed to conceal the nature of the securities transferred to it
under the Sale Order and the related Repo Agreement. Because it is this element of the Sale that
directly affected Evergreen’s interests, Evergreen hereby joins in the Committee Motion and
asks this Court to reconsider the Sale Order.
They are all starting to see the true picture!
Coach T
EVERGREEN SOLAR NOW SEES THAT BARCLAY'S WAS TAKING ITS SHARES WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION...the Perfect Storm. LBHI Docket #5422
As this Court is aware, Evergreen is a plaintiff in that certain adversary proceeding
captioned Evergreen Solar, Inc. v. Barclays Capital, Inc., Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and
Lehman Brothers, Inc., Adv. Pro. No. 08-01633 (JMP) (the “Adversary Proceeding”), arising
from the unauthorized sale of certain shares of Evergreen Common Stock by Lehman Brothers
Inc. (“LBI”), agent under that certain Share Lending Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2008 (the
“SLA”).1 In that Adversary Proceeding, Evergreen alleged that LBI lacked authority to transfer
the loaned shares (the “Loaned Shares”) in its possession solely as agent to Barclays Capital, Inc.
1 Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the SLA, a copy of which has
been provided to this Court in connection with Adversary Proceeding (defined below).
3
(“Barclays”) at the time of the sale, LBI failed to provide Evergreen with notice of the sale
despite the fact that the SLA had terminated, and Evergreen, as a result of the defendants’
actions, was damaged through, among other things, the loss of the Loaned Shares and by a
corresponding and substantial dilution of its Common Stock. Now, LBI and Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”), together with the Committee, have moved to reconsider the Sale Order,
claiming that “mistakes, inadvertence, or misrepresentations” led to the approval of the Sale
Order and that assets that should not have been sold were transferred in secret to Barclays under
the guise of the Sale Order. This is the very same subject matter of Evergreen’s Adversary
Proceeding with respect to the Loaned Shares.
While Evergreen was naturally not alone in suffering a loss upon Lehman’s failure,
unlike the vast majority of unsecured creditors and customers of Lehman, a substantial portion of
Evergreen’s loss—approximately 12,304,187 shares—could have and should have been
prevented both as a matter of law and in the interests of equity. By the time the shares were
transferred, certain events of default had occurred under the SLA and LBIE was required to
return the shares through its agent, LBI, to Evergreen. Instead, those shares over which LBI did
not hold title, but merely held as an agent for LBIE (which itself had lost title to its holdings of
the Loaned Shares upon default), were swept up into a whirlwind sale (the “Sale”) to Barclays.
According to the Debtors, the Committee, and the SIPA Trusteee, it now appears that
Barclays—which throughout its dispute with Evergreen has consistently touted the fairness of
the Sale process—took advantage of the exigent circumstances surrounding the Sale by securing
for itself a windfall profit and by arguing that assets transferred outside the scope of the Sale
Order approved by this Court were validly “purchased.” Although much of what has been
uncovered by the Committee, the Debtors, and the SIPA Trustee remains under seal, and
4
therefore unavailable to Evergreen at the time of this pleading, the Committee Motion describes
in sufficient detail how Barclays managed to conceal the nature of the securities transferred to it
under the Sale Order and the related Repo Agreement. Because it is this element of the Sale that
directly affected Evergreen’s interests, Evergreen hereby joins in the Committee Motion and
asks this Court to reconsider the Sale Order.
They are all starting to see the true picture!
Coach T
Yes...this was filed in addition to the SIPA Trustee. This is filed in today's LBHI docket by THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE!
I can't imagine it being supported by anyone any better...but...
Coach T
STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
REGARDING MOTIONS TO UNSEAL MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM
SEPTEMBER 20, 2008 SALE ORDER (AND RELATED SIPA SALE ORDER)
TO: HON. JAMES M. PECK, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:
Diana G. Adams, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (the “United States Trustee”), by
and through her counsel, hereby files this Statement of the United States Trustee Regarding
Motions to Unseal Motions for Relief From September 28, 2008 Sale Order (and Related SIPA
Sale Order) (the “Motions to Unseal”).
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Before the Court are related Rule 60(b) Motions (defined at 3 below) and Motions to
Unseal filed by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“LBHI”) and certain of its direct and indirect
subsidiaries (collectively with LBHI, the “Debtors”), the Official Creditors’ Committee of the
Debtors (the “Creditors’ Committee”) and James W. Giddens, as trustee for the SIPA liquidation
of Lehman Bros. Inc. (the “SIPA Trustee”) with respect to the signature transaction in these cases
thus far – the sale of the assets from the North American broker dealer business of Lehman
Brothers Inc. to Barclays Capital, Inc. (“Barclays”) within four days of the commencement of
- 2 -
these bankruptcy cases. The Motions to Unseal should be granted, and the Rule 60(b) Motions
unsealed and adjudicated, to the extent of the fullest disclosure permitted under Bankruptcy Code
section 107.
The “open courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the American judicial system.”
Brown v. Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178 (6 Cir. th
1983). Particularly here, where there is widespread public interest in the Debtors’ bankruptcy
cases, and because the issues raised in the Motions to Unseal and their underlying Rule 60(b)
Motions are so significant to the cases, it is important that these specific proceedings be carried
out with as much transparency as is possible within the parameters of Bankruptcy Code section
107. Accordingly, the United States Trustee respectfully requests that the evidentiary basis upon
which the Rule 60(b) Motions are adjudicated – and the public conduct of the proceedings – be
as open as the statute allows.
Now if that doesn't give you a "warm and fuzzy" nothing will!
The Perfect Storm Continues!
Coach T
STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
REGARDING MOTIONS TO UNSEAL MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM
SEPTEMBER 20, 2008 SALE ORDER (AND RELATED SIPA SALE ORDER)
TO: HON. JAMES M. PECK, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:
Diana G. Adams, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (the “United States Trustee”), by
and through her counsel, hereby files this Statement of the United States Trustee Regarding
Motions to Unseal Motions for Relief From September 28, 2008 Sale Order (and Related SIPA
Sale Order) (the “Motions to Unseal”).
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Before the Court are related Rule 60(b) Motions (defined at 3 below) and Motions to
Unseal filed by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“LBHI”) and certain of its direct and indirect
subsidiaries (collectively with LBHI, the “Debtors”), the Official Creditors’ Committee of the
Debtors (the “Creditors’ Committee”) and James W. Giddens, as trustee for the SIPA liquidation
of Lehman Bros. Inc. (the “SIPA Trustee”) with respect to the signature transaction in these cases
thus far – the sale of the assets from the North American broker dealer business of Lehman
Brothers Inc. to Barclays Capital, Inc. (“Barclays”) within four days of the commencement of
- 2 -
these bankruptcy cases. The Motions to Unseal should be granted, and the Rule 60(b) Motions
unsealed and adjudicated, to the extent of the fullest disclosure permitted under Bankruptcy Code
section 107.
The “open courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the American judicial system.”
Brown v. Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178 (6 Cir. th
1983). Particularly here, where there is widespread public interest in the Debtors’ bankruptcy
cases, and because the issues raised in the Motions to Unseal and their underlying Rule 60(b)
Motions are so significant to the cases, it is important that these specific proceedings be carried
out with as much transparency as is possible within the parameters of Bankruptcy Code section
107. Accordingly, the United States Trustee respectfully requests that the evidentiary basis upon
which the Rule 60(b) Motions are adjudicated – and the public conduct of the proceedings – be
as open as the statute allows.
Now if that doesn't give you a "warm and fuzzy" nothing will!
The Perfect Storm Continues!
Coach T
STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
REGARDING MOTIONS TO UNSEAL MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM
SEPTEMBER 20, 2008 SALE ORDER (AND RELATED SIPA SALE ORDER)
TO: HON. JAMES M. PECK, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:
Diana G. Adams, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (the “United States Trustee”), by
and through her counsel, hereby files this Statement of the United States Trustee Regarding
Motions to Unseal Motions for Relief From September 28, 2008 Sale Order (and Related SIPA
Sale Order) (the “Motions to Unseal”).
SUMMARY STATEMENT
Before the Court are related Rule 60(b) Motions (defined at 3 below) and Motions to
Unseal filed by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“LBHI”) and certain of its direct and indirect
subsidiaries (collectively with LBHI, the “Debtors”), the Official Creditors’ Committee of the
Debtors (the “Creditors’ Committee”) and James W. Giddens, as trustee for the SIPA liquidation
of Lehman Bros. Inc. (the “SIPA Trustee”) with respect to the signature transaction in these cases
thus far – the sale of the assets from the North American broker dealer business of Lehman
Brothers Inc. to Barclays Capital, Inc. (“Barclays”) within four days of the commencement of
- 2 -
these bankruptcy cases. The Motions to Unseal should be granted, and the Rule 60(b) Motions
unsealed and adjudicated, to the extent of the fullest disclosure permitted under Bankruptcy Code
section 107.
The “open courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the American judicial system.”
Brown v. Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178 (6 Cir. th
1983). Particularly here, where there is widespread public interest in the Debtors’ bankruptcy
cases, and because the issues raised in the Motions to Unseal and their underlying Rule 60(b)
Motions are so significant to the cases, it is important that these specific proceedings be carried
out with as much transparency as is possible within the parameters of Bankruptcy Code section
107. Accordingly, the United States Trustee respectfully requests that the evidentiary basis upon
which the Rule 60(b) Motions are adjudicated – and the public conduct of the proceedings – be
as open as the statute allows.
Now if that doesn't give you a "warm and fuzzy" nothing will!
The Perfect Storm Continues!
Coach T
I believe there are hearings scheduled for both the 14th and 15th.
Coach T
Brikk:
The Housing stocks are getting their up legs again...as is the REIT stocks...judging from the hourly charts we are ready to go between today and Monday...
Thoughts?
Coach T
So why do you think Goldman Sachs just bought another $150M in LEHMAN claims according to today's court dockets? GS has been buying claims for the past 8 weeks.
I think this is why we are not seeing more activity in the bond markets.
Thoughts?
Coach T
Let's see what the Weil lawyers have to say in their reply to the AIG CDS statements.
Then I think we will have a better expectation.
Should be coming before the week is out.
Coach T
I think the willingness of AIG CDS to perform is a complete turnaround from the 4th Qtr of last year. IMO it represents a dramatic change on how the "market" is viewing LEHAMAN as a counterparty. Even thought they are in Chap 11.
Last year at this time everyone threw in the towel and cancelled their position. The court however, has ruled that the Chap 11 filing by itself does not constitute default!
In order to terminate many variables have to be in place.
I found the verbage and tone in the motion filed by AIG CDS to really be far less combative than I would have expected. They do raise some good points one of which was the non-performance by LEHMAN.
Coach T