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.
What does cutting cap rules have to do with achieving affordable housing goals? We are in conservatorship.
Well, you guys might know more than I. I just think what the judge and the plan admin are doing are outright fraud and they should be prosecuted.
This is clearly fraud. Or let me guess, LBHI and the Plan Administrator will claim they are unaware of the certificates at the end. This needs to be exposed.
Wu needs to send one of his fearless correspondences to Judge Chapman. That guy sure is exercising his constitutional rights to the max.
The best preferred stock that LBHI had redeemed is by Neuberger Berman at 25 dollars a share during the bankruptcy as Waske said. That is EQUITY and not debt.
I associate ECAPs as a parity subdebt getting paid. They also qualify as a most senior preferred shares of an affiliate.
The big parity payout is with Neuberger folks. That equals to RV for us.
One powerful statement waske wrote in his response is that Fail did not deny that he mislead the court. Waske also said that he is not asking for a claim (distribution). He is asking for a reclass (meaning you F'ed up).
The waske response was well written.
Yes. In the case of the ECAPs, my understanding is LBHI will pay the two ECAPs directly into their trust and the ECAPs will pay their shareholders.
I thought LBHI would pay the ECAPs directly.
Lbhi holds the ECAPS' subordinated debt right? That is my understanding.
I thought LBHI made the distribution to the ECAPs. It looks like from the article LBIE made the distribution? My question is who made the 29 million distribution to the ECAPS?
Oh! The ECAPs distribution is from LBIE. I thought it was from LBHI. Regardless, it does not matter who pays the ECAPs. What matters is the ECAPs got paid.
Yes, I believe so.
Those were authorized shares that were never issued by LBHI prior to the bk. Those shares were not a part of any outstanding shares.
Those would be new preferred shares if they were to issue them and it would have diluted the equity pool.
Google authorized vs outstanding shares.
The guarantee is not dischargable. Thumbs up!
You mean they were authorized before the bk? I am not sure. I thought the issue was they wanted to issue new preferreds to the ECAPs and everyone objected and the judge ruled that any new shares will change the structure of the bk ownership so, it was denied.
They tried to create new shares for the ECAPs and was rejected by the judge. Those were not the shares.
Thank you. It worked exactly as you described.
How do you upload an image to ihub?
TD Ameritrade shows the NQs with that description. "Lehman Brothers Fin SA Capital Trust" then the coupon rates
The other 3 just say "Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc." followed by the coupon rates
I am wondering what the differences are?
Lehnq fin cap A trust.
I noticed the description for the NQs are different from the other 3 CTs. Can someone tell me what makes the NQs different? Thanks
Bid/asks are slowly rising. Lehnq have a .13 bid and .998 ask.
Waske have his arguments and grievances with his Appeal which is the misrepresentations. He answered Fail's brief with 510A. Waske responded really well. Excellent!
Waske and Wu. Their response to Appellee's brief argument is basically 510A of the plan is not being enforced. Not only that, its violated and the POR is compromised. 510A already has been ruled on with the Citibank ruling by Judge Peck. Do you even know what 510A is? Ask cottonisking, Waske or Wu if you dont. I doubt you do.
I read about 510A recently. What Waske and Wu basically is saying 510A was violated intentionally and there is a material error. They left room for the error to be unintentional in the beginning. I can tell they are getting more aggressive and imo, they will bring up 510A in a hearing if one is called by Judge Abrams. Waske and Wu implied to Judge Abrams that she should call one because of the clip cottonisking posted. They want Abrams to ask Fail 3 questions. That was a slick move.
Thus far, they argued on it and did everything else with it but bring up that provision of the POR. If they bring it up, it will APPLY TO ALL of the subordinated debt with a guarantee.
At that point it's more than just our 1.25 billion it's all the guarantees. That is also relevent because an error that size can blow up this entire BK.
I speak 3 languages too. I do not understand what you meant by arguing over semantic? It is very clear that the POR will not say it violated the CTs or 510a (as cottonisking pointed out). The POR is a document and you have to point out the errors on the document. That is what waske is doing.
I did not know about 510a. Good find. Thanks
You think the POR is going to say it violated the CTs? Lol
I doubt there was a glitch. The quotes come through a feed.
Seems to be that a lot of claims are being transferred to the offshore entity in the caymans.
All my CTs are trading and still listed on Etrade. I do not see anything the other guy is talking about.
It's a distribution. It's not just interest. Did they say it was just interest or mention a payment of interest? NO! A distribution is more than just interest. Like I said, it's likely just a % of principal or a combo of principal and interest.
I will also say reinstating the CTs are highly unlikely because going forward they can't carry CTs on their books.
They made a distribution to the ECAPs. What was paid was a % of what was owed on their subordinated debt. That is most likely principal. It could be a combination of principal and interest. What we do know is the ECAPs got paid and they are the European version of the CTs.
After the stay they plan on using the discharge but, we are not dischargable unless certain conditions are met. The condition will also yield a payout.
I dont know when. What I posted is my interpretation of the waske appeal.
I am talking about the waske points. I made that clear. I have to go back and read if he argued about the deferment. I know what it is.
I believe the terms are they have to make one payment after 5 years of deferment to keep it going but, if they want to get out of default, they have to make up all the missed payments.
I personally do not see a point of restating the CTs because they are no longer allowed to be held on the books. Even after the exit and there is a company of some sort, they cant hold CTs on their books. So, what is the point? I can see them maybe convert the CTs to new shares? Idk.
But, I rather see a payout in a form of a reclass with a clawback to day 1 or a redemption.
In my humble opinion number 1 should result in a reclass and number 2 should result in a redemption or we get paid the same amount of money the affiliate that paid the highest price to redeem their preferred shares.
My take on each of the guarantee routes.
1. Subordinates claims - because of the covenant and dividend stopper, transactions in the past and currently in the UK should have the subordinated claims reclassed.
2. Parity- under parity - because NB, Lehman Bank and other affiliates who redeemed their preferreds, the CTs should be redeemed or should get the highest dollar value of all the affiliate redemptions.
They can organize a class as subordinated if they want and if it is the proper class. But they made a mistake with the CTs. They should have organized the CTs to under a guarantee class. But, they did not. That is the error waske is arguing. The CTs need to be reclass ed.
With the parity argument and NB being redeemed and NB is an affiliate, one can argue that the CTs should have been redeemed or get the same dollar amount the NB shareholders got. Both waske and Wu claim NB is not the only affiliate that redeemed their preferred shares.
That is the error. All subdebt got lumped together. That is why a reclass is needed and not a new claim to be filed. Also, I think you failed to realize the motion to reclassify was not supposed to be heard that day. It was not scheduled for that hearing. The hearing was originally for the motion for summary judgement. The judge added the motion to reserve to the hearing over the objection of waske. Then at the hearing, the plan Administrator lead the judge to add the motion to reclassify during the hearing surprising waske.
I believe waske have a strong reclassify case too. But, that should have been heard on it's own seperate hearing.
Just look at exhibit that included the NOTICE OF HEARING.
The guarantee is covered by the "PLAN." Waske asked the District court to rule on the legitimacy of the guarantee as being protected and to be enforced by the "PLAN." He also tied it to answering one of the Plan Administrator's counter attack. That was smart and he has a good point in doing so.