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 also interested me is Waske holding the Plan Administrator responsible for misleading the BK court by steering the court to rule on the Motion to Reclassify which was not on the agenda.
He put forth a good argument. The Plan Administrator did not deny that he mislead Judge Chapman on his brief. Waske pointed that out on his reply. Waske is asking the District court to require the Plan Administrator to notify LBHI and the creditors of his misconduct if the District court rules in favor of Waske's argument. The Plan Administrator now have a personal interest in this Appeal. This could effect his career if he is found guilty of misrepresentation.
I agree with cottonisking. Waske covered it all. Waske did an excellent job! His lawsuits may have just saved us all. Cheers to the lad. He is taking all of us along on this ride.
I read all the District Court filings. Waske wrote an excellent brief. His response to Weil's brief is even better. Waske laid it all out there.
Waske covered, all aspects of the guarantee. He covered the dividend stopper, covenant, parity and discharge rights.
What is interesting to me is that the guarantee should have been enforced all along. Weil and LBHI just chose to look the other way.
What is 1127(b)? No worries. My next post, I will be able to contribute my opinion. My opinion for whatever its worth. Please also comment. Thanks.
Thank you for sharing. I will look at the Briefs this evening.
I don't have pacer because I am cheap. I will read my free versions tonight. Thanks.
Sorry for my ignorance. What is going on with the Libor settlement?
Thank you.
Dhyan, what are the highlights from both sides?
Can someone post all 3 documents from the Waske Appeal? I do not have access to Pacer. Thanks.
What stood out on the Brief, Respond Brief and Waske's response? Any highlights on either sides?
Can you post the Waske Appeal so, we can read it? Thanks.
Jwnoble, you seem to be correct. My question is will the bk court be able to account for the funds in LBHI2, how it's funds are being moved and if it has any affiliates of any kind? I do not think LBHI2 is obligated to disclose any transactions to LBHI. That is how LBHI is trying to get away with it. LBHI will play stupid to the activities of LBHI2.
"Distributions shall be made quarterly, and, in the case of LBHI2 only,
deferred consideration payable, (subject to certain adjustments, based on
certain contingencies and outstanding disputes, payment of interest to
LBHI2 in certain circumstances, and the retention of amounts to meet
certain payment obligations, by way of distributions on various classes of
interests in the Cayman LP, and payments in respect of other contractual
obligations between the Parties and their Affiliates), in the order set out
below:
(a) 100% to the Funds until the Funds receive the Tier 1 Pool Threshold
Amount;
(b) 70% to the Funds and 30% to LBHI2 until the Funds and LBHI2 have
received, in aggregate, the Tier 2 Pool Threshold Amount;
(c) 50% to the Funds and 50% to LBHI2 until the Funds and LBHI2 have
received, in aggregate, the Tier 3 Pool Threshold Amount; and
(d) all surplus above the Tier 3 Pool Threshold Amount to be paid 75% to
LBHI2 and 25% to the Funds.
Proceeds from the portion of economic interests represented by the
Preferred Equity sub-participated to the Equity Claims SPV will be
distributed to the Funds.
Proceeds from recoveries in respect of Future Claims will be distributed to
participating Parties by reference to their interests in those Future Claims.
6. Funding Expenses in respect of matters other than Future Claims will be funded by
loans from the partners of the Cayman LP based on the voting interests
held (e.g., initially 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 for each of Elliott, KS and LBHI2). These
loans will be required to fund expenses in an amount equal to GBP 10
million in the first year of operations, GBP 5 million in the second and
third years of operations and GBP 2.5 million in each of the fourth and
fifth years of operations. These loans will be contributed equally by LBHI2
and the Funds. Usage of these amounts will be pre-agreed between the
partners.
The majority of Voting Shareholders may cause the Cayman LP to enter
into loans with interest at 3 month Libor + 3 year HY CDX spread plus 1%
p.a. not to exceed GBP 25 million in the aggregate for the purpose of
funding expenses, provided that loans with parties other than partners or
LBHI will require unanimous consent of the Voting Shareholders.
Additional funding (including the terms of interest thereon) above GBP 25
million in aggregate for the expenses of the Cayman LP, Cayman GP and
their direct or indirect subsidiaries (including the Recovery SPVs) shall be
subject to the unanimous consent of the Voting Shareholders. If any
partner determines that it shall not make a loan, the other Voting
Shareholders can choose to lend in an amount equal to the deficit on a pro
rata basis, provided that in the event that LBHI2 declines to lend, LBHI
may assume LBHI2’s rights and responsibilities with respect to such
additional funding, and shall be entitled to lend as if it were a Voting
Shareholder for that purpose on the same terms as would otherwise have
applied to LBHI2. For the avoidance of doubt, no shareholder or LBHI
shall be required to provide any loan to the Cayman LP (other than the
loans described in the first paragraph of this Section 6).
Loan Amounts shall first be repaid out of proceeds from the Recovery
Pool, and may only be repaid out of other Loan Amounts if all Voting
Shareholders agree that there is sufficient funding remaining in the
Cayman LP, the Cayman GP and their direct or indirect subsidiaries
(including the Recovery SPVs).
All proceeds received in the Recovery Pool on and after such time as any
partnership loan is made shall first be used to discharge the Loan Amounts
before distributions are made to the partners pursuant to Sections 5(a), (b),
(c), and (d). For the avoidance of doubt, payments in respect of the Loan
Amounts shall not count towards the amount of distributions payable to
partners pursuant to Section 5(a) – (d) (or the determination of the Tier 1
Pool Threshold Amount, the Tier 2 Pool Threshold Amount or Tier 3 Pool
Threshold Amount or payment of amounts in respect thereof or otherwise).
A form of the loan agreement shall be attached as an exhibit to the
Partnership Agreement.
All loans to the Cayman LP, Cayman GP and their direct or indirect
subsidiaries (including the Recovery SPVs) shall be limited recourse loans.
All loans down the corporate chain shall also be limited recourse. This is
to ensure that the Cayman LP, Cayman GP and their direct or indirect
subsidiaries (including the Recovery SPVs) are insolvency remote.
Each Party shall have full visibility into reserve accounts, which accounts
shall be established with a third party custodian. Until Cause has occurred,
the administrator of the Cayman LP, Cayman GP, and/or a direct or
indirect subsidiary of the Cayman LP and Cayman GP (including the
applicable Recovery SPV) shall be entitled to withdraw from such account
to fund pre-agreed expenses incurred by the relevant Recovery SPV. Upon
Cause, no withdrawals may occur from any account without the unanimous
written consent of the Voting Shareholders."
Waske has a response due 10/30. We have a couple more days to wait for that one.
Maybe you should read the filings.
Did you read Waske's Appeal?
The entire Ecaps camp was against it too. From the trustee to shareholders.
If you have time, email or call Waske, Wu or both. I know a few people who reached out to them. As did I.
What is your take on that Wu letter, Weil adding the Barclay's case and what is going on in the UK? Thanks.
Those named in the lawsuit are big time hedgefunds.
Lhhmq bid is .14 and ask is .149.
The UK subs can pay whoever they want but LBHI. LBHI cannot pay or collect on behalf of subordinated debts from the UK or elsewhere without paying the CTs under the Covenent.
The CTs also have the dividend stopper. And it's not just the ECAP that violated the DS.
My observation about the N and Ks being perceived more valuable by the way they trade is probably just that, my lousy observation. I agree most likely all 4 CTs are equal.
Another thing is both you and board think Mq s are the hardest to accumulate. The MQs are the most liquid.
That is interesting because the MQs are the most liquid.
Do you guys think there is a preference for Lehkq and lehnq over lhhmq and lehlq? I have to ask again because for some reason I am sensing that the Ks and Ns are sought after more.
The last board consensus is that they are all equal.
Thanks
WHY do these still trade as Qs, when the bankruptcy ended many years ago?
LBHI owns all the commons of each of the 4 individual trusts. We along with others own the preferred shares. LBHI is in BK. LBHI emerged back in 2011. LBHI have not exited BK. THE four CTs are not in BK. They were delisted once by mistake during the BK and relisted.
Does it have to do with the liquidation preference on the managing trusts that collateralize these securities?
Yes, and the Trustee also failed to uplist us back up. The assets which makes up of the sub debt is a variety of assets ranging from my research notes to real estate. ALL IMO have been sold and taken by LBHI. The CTs are not dischargeable unless they reissue the sub debt back to our Trust with a major exchange or LBHI redeem us. LBHI can no longer reissue the sub debt back to our Trust.
Was there a RS here or did it run to the current price? I was a long time holder of WAMU before I sold my shares. Is this stock still a good play? Thanks.
I slowly built 100k shares of a mix bag of CTs.
Copy and paste from a previous post
New NOL Company scenario. NOLs going forward can be carried over indefinitely.
This is from the motor liquidation company 8k ala old GM.
This can apply to the LBHI NOLs?
Ordinarily, when one company buys another's assets, it does not acquire its tax losses
too. But the sale from Old GM to New GM qualified as a tax-free "reorganization" under
Sec. 368 of the tax code: neither Old GM nor New GM incurred a tax liability, New GM
entered Old GM's assets on its books with Old GM's "adjusted basis," and New GM
acquired Old GM's NOL’s.
The problem involved Treasury's plans to sell the shares it took in New GM. If the
combined equity stake of any group of shareholders in a "loss corporation" like New GM
climbs by more than 50 percentage points, Sec. 382 of the tax code limits the firm's ability to
use those accumulated NOL’s. Given Treasury's large stake in New GM, if it sold its entire
stake to the public, those new owners would raise their combined interest by 50 points.
New GM would then lose its ability to avoid taxes on future income.
To solve this "problem," the Treasury issued a series of "Notices." The Sec. 382 rules,
it declared, would not apply to itself. When it sold its shares in New GM, the new owners
might increase their ownership stake by 50 percentage points, but they would not trigger the
Sec. 382 limits. The tax code offered no exception for government-owned shares, and the
Treasury did not purport to find one. Instead, it just declared that the law did not apply.5
The Notices also apply to two other companies, AIG and Citigroup. Both of these
companies had ownership changes over 50% as a result of TARP and would ordinarily, as in
bankruptcy, lose their NOL’s. If they retain them, that reduces the apparent (but not real)
cost of the bailout because the government can resell its shares at a higher price.
Docket #60874
Do you have the entire article? Thanks
New NOL Company scenario. NOLs going forward can be carried over indefinitely.
This is from the motor liquidation company 8k ala old GM.
This can apply to the LBHI NOLs?
Ordinarily, when one company buys another's assets, it does not acquire its tax losses
too. But the sale from Old GM to New GM qualified as a tax-free "reorganization" under
Sec. 368 of the tax code: neither Old GM nor New GM incurred a tax liability, New GM
entered Old GM's assets on its books with Old GM's "adjusted basis," and New GM
acquired Old GM's NOL’s.
The problem involved Treasury's plans to sell the shares it took in New GM. If the
combined equity stake of any group of shareholders in a "loss corporation" like New GM
climbs by more than 50 percentage points, Sec. 382 of the tax code limits the firm's ability to
use those accumulated NOL’s. Given Treasury's large stake in New GM, if it sold its entire
stake to the public, those new owners would raise their combined interest by 50 points.
New GM would then lose its ability to avoid taxes on future income.
To solve this "problem," the Treasury issued a series of "Notices." The Sec. 382 rules,
it declared, would not apply to itself. When it sold its shares in New GM, the new owners
might increase their ownership stake by 50 percentage points, but they would not trigger the
Sec. 382 limits. The tax code offered no exception for government-owned shares, and the
Treasury did not purport to find one. Instead, it just declared that the law did not apply.5
The Notices also apply to two other companies, AIG and Citigroup. Both of these
companies had ownership changes over 50% as a result of TARP and would ordinarily, as in
bankruptcy, lose their NOL’s. If they retain them, that reduces the apparent (but not real)
cost of the bailout because the government can resell its shares at a higher price.
Why is this company still worth 1.40 as of today? What assets are left and what is the status of the company? Thanks.
Correct me if I am wrong. Old GM already issued the equity shares and warrants to the trust and the trust already distributed to the holders on record back them. As far a I know, old GM is gone now and the trust have no other assets.
I do have a question. LBHI I guess maybe hold the commons? And LBHI is still in bk so, that is why ccypq is still trading? LBHI is not obligated to pay ccypq and the trust dont have any assets left? In other words, it's just a shell trading. But, why allow ccypq to continue trading if there is no value left? Ccypq is not mentioned or a part of the LBHI bk right? I think ccypq is owed by GM and LBHI owns ccypq via commons, so LBHI is owed and that is why it's still trading. Thanks
We do not have swap transactions. It does not concern us.
Ok. So you bought at ask. I dont think I will buy in at .12. I rather buy CTs then. I might go for sub penny to .015 cents a share.
Haha. How much did you get your shares for? The bid is .005 and ask is .12. Today MMs hit ask.
What is a good price?
Haha. How much did you get your shares for? The bid is .005 and ask is .12. Today MMs hit ask.
What is a good price?
From my DD. The old GM certs are the only assets. Then I read in an sec filing there can be more assets? Today it's up 2300% on low volume with a .005×.12 bidask.
Did you buy this? Is there a play here? Is there potential for a payout? Thanks.