Any thoughts on this? Did you buy in? I am thinking about buying a few shares. I know they made 2 distribution of GM shares to the class A-1 certs but nothing to A2 certs. I assume these are the A-2 certs?

The bid/ask ranges have closed to normal levels except for LHHMQ. LHHMQ is still over 100% in disparity.

Thanks. I guess Waske continues on from here.

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Discovery for which side? Another plan admin filed that motion. What about the POR does the plan admin not know about?

Correct me if I am wrong, the main Plan Admin is Weil. The one who will close out the bk will be Weil. Not this one.

You are funny. You know your "aide of execution" hearing is for a specific claim or action right? They need help to reinforce or dispel the claim or action. I believe it is more on dispel. You took that as ending the bk.

You need to really do some research. I am curious, what do you think the "aide of execution" hearing is about? Do you even know the entire title?

If you believe that hearing is on the status of the POR and closing it, you are dead wrong. All you have to do is go read it. It is obvious you are peddling something you have not even read.

Please explain what you mean.its senseless to just attack without giving an explanation. What was wrong with what I said? I think this is where you lack of understanding the English language shows. You just dont understand grammar, usage and sentence structure.

It's sometimes funny reading your responses to others because most times you fail to understand what others are saying and you respond with a foreign answer which dont make sense to an English reader which makes it a waste of time.

So, just tell me, what about the "OTHER" was wrong with what I said.

I am staying our CTs are not subordinated to other subordinated debts debts that are ranked junior. It's a fact and you can easily understand it if you understood english.

6.2. Ranking.
This Guarantee will constitute an unsecured obligation of the Guarantor and will rank (i) subordinate and junior in right of payment to all other liabilities of the Guarantor, (ii) on a parity with the most senior preferred or preference stock now or hereafter issued by the Guarantor and with any guarantee now or hereafter entered into by the Guarantor in respect of any preferred securities of any Affiliate of the Guarantor and (iii) senior to the Guarantor's common stock. In addition, at all times such obligations will be structurally subordinated to the liabilities and obligations of the Guarantor's subsidiaries

*ALL OTHER = Not subordinate and junior to any subordinate debts of LBHI or its subsidiaries.

Yes, the ECAPs were against being issued any type of LBHI equity lol. ECAPs are glad Chapman ruled the way she did. ECAPs wants nothing to do with LBHI equity.

Does the one plan trust share cover authorized shares too? Or just outstanding shares? I believe it said all of equity is replaced with the one plan trust share which excludes the AS shares because they were not outstanding. But, during the BK Chapman already ruled they cant issue new shares.

After the bk exit, lbhi might be able to issue the new shares. But, I don't think they will go to the old shareholders. They will imo get discharged.

LBHI tried issuing new shares to the ECAPS. Chapman ruled if they did, it will change the bk and disallowed it.

What class is ccypq in?

Are there any news on the LBIE dustribution?

You submit your groups of shareholders with their sharecount to the trustee and they will tell you if you are the majority group.

At the end, getting paid is getting paid. Money is money. You will realize it will not be from the NOLs. It will be from the subordinated debt being issued back to the CTs or from the UK.

There is no NOL play for the CTs. That is how you will know that you were wrong all along. But, the good thing for you and all of us is that we will all get paid. That is all that matters in the end.

As I said, the trustee will only act if the majority shareholder requests them to act. It's all out there and repeated many time. The trustee clearly responded they will not act on the guarantee until they receive instructions from the majority shareholders.

I guess you were also not aware of that fact based on your response.

As I said, the trustee will only act if the majority shareholder requests them to act. It's all out there and repeated many time. The trustee clearly responded they will not act on the guarantee until they receive instructions from the majority shareholders.

I guess you were also not aware of that fact based on your response.

Lol. The prospectus said so. That is your answer which is also correct because the answer lies in connecting the dots within the prospectus to find the contractual reason.

The CTs are actually dischargable after BHI redeems the preferred shares. Anything short of a full redemption, they have to reissue the subordinated debt back to the CTs via the Nasdaq or major exchange.

The next question is what is the subordinated debt consist of?

Put the group together and contact the trustee.

That is not what I asked. I am asking you do you know why the CTs are not dischargable?

Let make this more complicated. LBHI reorganized and emerged from the bk but, they are still reorganizing until they exit. And, LBHI took selective discharges thus far as they wind down the subs. They did not fully discharge what they planned yet. Throughout the rest of the bk, the discharges will continue to be selective.

If Fail can have his way, he would discharge the subordinated debt. He can't now. Wu has gone on his own agenda and does not fear him or Chapman. We can say the same about waske on his appeal.

Do you know why the CTs are not dischargable?

You should give them a call or have them contact Waske and Wu. Have Waske and Wu foot the bill. Haha!

I give those two all the credit here. They acted not only for themselves but they are carrying all of us on their backs. I follow the filings and from what I read from the motions and the UK letters, they included all holders of CTs. I will give credit when credit is due.

Like I said, CTs are not dischargable. LBHI will have to issue US the subordinated debt back through the Nasdaq or a major exchange in order to get rid of the CTs.

With that said, by reading the waske motions and Appeals of both Waske and Wu plus Wu's seperate dockets, I came to the conclusion that Fail from Weil was going to do something crooked and try to get the CTs discharged and claim it was a mistake and he "did not know" if he were to get caught. Wu debunked the "I did not know" defense with his filings.

In essence, I think Waske and Wu saved us from an unlawful discharge. Mark my post, at exit they will discharge 10b. And hopefully waske and Wu saved US from that fate.

Our trustee will not act. Myself and others here wrote to the trustee. The Trustee said we have to be majority shareholders to get them to act. That is why Waske and Wu are suing. They are doing exactly what you posted.

LBHI eventually needs to issue the subordinated notes back to our Capital Trust through the Nasdaq or an exchange. They can either do that or redeem our preferred shares. The CTs are not dischargable.

If it were not for Waske and Wu, I truly believe LBHI and the Plan Administrator would have discharged the 10b claim without reissuing the subordinated debt back to us.

It looks like we will receive dividend payments quarterly going forward from what schwab told you. They are the largest brokerage firm in the country. I would think they researched your question before answering it. Thanks.

Wu wrote a scathing letter to the judge shortly after their hearing. Wu was scratched off Chapman's christmas list long time ago

Yes, can LBIE and LBHI2 make a distribution to LBHI legally while the CTs are still outstanding?

I did not know LBIE have 8 billion to distribute. I always thought it was a little over a billion. It looks like LBHI and LBHI2 have subordinate debt that is approved to receive cash. The question is can they make the distribution to LBHI without addressing the CTs?

Goodie: I cant respond to private messages but, it was a rhetorical question. :)

There goes that theory of closing the POR in 10 days. Lol

And I do not think it's for the closing of the POR as you suggest. I think that hearing is for a claim.

It's too late to ask Barclay's to do anything now. Plus, they have no reason to do it.

"Aide of execution...." could be aide of execution in almost any dispute. They can ask for help in multiple claims, etc.

My point is if it was not for Wu and Waske, they would have quietly dis charged the CTs under the table.

Yeah, the volume on the .99 was way too low.

Or an aide of execution to enforce a certain provision of the POR. I do not think the upcoming hearing is about closing the POR.

DISCHARGE! We were on course to get discharged quietly under the table with no objection from our trustee.

The POR, basically said we get nothing in the bk unless classes 1-9 are satisfied if full.