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.
Tell me what are CTs?
Are you sure that is what that hearing is about?
Wu and Waske are the ones keeping us alive. I do not see any real world practicalities to the outcome you are presenting. It is just not in conformity with BK or any type of US law.
You fail to understand that LBHI cannot issue new LBHI stock to the CTs even if they wanted to because the BK court already shot that down. LBHI is no longer permitted to issue new stock. While I agree with most here that there will be a surviving company, it will be with new blood. The CTs were heading towards a gangster "I will steal your money ending" until Wu and Waske came in. The CTs were heading to a quiet discharge with a no objection from our trustee.
After reading the Wu statement, I contribute the price movement here to the UK court guidance. I am going to say all the Schwab account income displays is because of Wu's action.
What fantasy are you living thinking we are magically going to get out of class 10b intact without intervention? There is no piece of a pie planned out by the plan Administrator and LBHI for the CTs. If you want a piece of the pie, you have to go get it. That is what is happening with Wu and Waske.
The most hilariously thing is you still think the CTs are part of LHBI's equity or you think the CTs will magically get lbhi shares. You also think the POR will close in 9 days with the indemnity claims outstanding worth over a billion dollars? The outcome you are peddling is flawed at a major league level.
Sorry. I changed my mind on the previous post.
Isn't that the point? The CTs are not subordinate to equity of LBHI or any of its subsidiaries ala Neuberger Berman and a few other subs. They redeemed the preferreds of NB. That is the waske argument. No?
What is the "Original Combined Registration"?
When you said "So it appears that the use of the funds, “upon a holding company Bk” was allowed to be used to pay creditors / debt "". Do you mean when they defaulted they used the defaulted funds to pay the creditors and each quarter they used the defaulted funds to pay creditors it acts like it fulfilled paying of that quarters dividends? Or did you mean that they just defaulted and can and did used the money to pay creditors but, the accumulated dividends are still unpaid? Thanks
So, according to your broker, the dividends are accumulating but just not able to be paid or realized because of the BK right?
From my knowledge that is the case. The dividends are cumulative as soon as the default occured around the time the bk began.
The dividends are suspended. They have not been paid since the bk began. The distributions that were reallocated are not the dividends.
Are the dividends cumulative?
I just saw that on TD. Ask at 4.5 you are right.
Did the verdict come in yet?
It goes back to the lack of understanding that the CTs are not LBHI's equity. The entire call was waste if the Schwab guy was thinking the CTs are LBHI's preferred equity.
Will that be 2 payments of 1.53 each or 1 payment of 1.53?
Exactly, our CTs are only subordinated to higher ranking debt and certainly not subordinated to equity. The guarantee is not subordinated to any equity class of LHBI or its affiliates. It is ONLY subordinated to all higher ranking debt of LBHI. LBHI is also not allow to receive a distribution from subsidiaries who are paying LBHI for peer ranking or lower subordinated debts. That is my understanding.
Good point. But, they could have also settled them and silenced them. I am glad they did not. Lol.
I read both orders from the BK court and the District court and nowhere on any of the orders did they address the CT's guarantee. None of the orders said the covenant and the guarantee as a whole was not effective or enforceable. That leads me to think its enforceable, correct? If our guarantees are not enforceable, they would have stated that long time ago.
There was a CT holder that got sanctioned and he is a Mr. Kuntz according to a google search. It tells me LBHI did silence people in the past. Or maybe LBHI is doing the right thing and not taking action because it seems to me Wu and Waske will fight this to the end and Wu threw off his boxing gloves. The guy is fighting for us in the UK now.
If Wu is right, keep in mind his motion was for 600k. 600k!!! The waske motion is for 70million. Now, the fight has gone to LBIE and PLC in the UK for over a billion dollars? They could have kicked Wu aside for 600k.
The more they dont stop Wu, the more he seems right.
It makes me wonder if Wu does not have a valid point on the Covenant and the guarantee as a whole as he claims its enforceable under the POR, wouldn't LBHI, the Plan Adman or the judge shut him up by now? Our BK judge needs to just rule and say the guarantee is ineffective and Wu will be silenced. But, nowhere on any of her orders did Judge Chapman state that. It makes a person wonder.
I think this court determined that LBHI and LBHI2 can receive a distribution from PLC and LBIE base on claims ranking. The next hearing will determine if they will get one. PWC is asking the high court for direction. LBHI and LBHI2 cleared the 1st hurdle. One more hurdle to clear.
Yup. I see LBIE is the last big one. And maybe the indemnification claims. How much are those? LBIE is for a billion plus.
Seriously, waske is not even material. He is not holding up anything
Yes,they can. All they need to do is reserve for the open cases properly. Major cases have to be closed.
Por can close and lehman can exit with pending cases as long as they reserve well for the cases. I am not sure if LBHI will do this and I am not even sure if the POR will close in 2020.
You are seriously confused my friend. Maybe others can chime in and tell you what the ECAPs settled for if you dont believe me. What I am telling you is all public information.
What to you think the ECAPs settlement was for? I am just curious.
Ecaps was settled for money and future shares if any of a new company.
I just explained that. Waske also brought up LBIE and "others".
If LBIE do decide to pay LBHI2, that is another violation and we are in parity with LBHI2's most senior equity also.
ECAPs did not get any LBHI preferreds. And I just explained NB and the bank.
That is my understanding of waske explained with my last few posts. What is your understanding of waske?
ECAPS' is like the CTs correct? They have Trust preferred shares which are being held by ECAPs holders. So, if ECAPs settled, the cash went to their preferred shares. Our CTs are in parity with ECAPs preferreds because they are equity as LBHI or its affiliate from my understanding owns 100% of the ECAPS commons which makes them a wholly owned entity. Whatever the ECAPs Preferred gets, we should be in parity with.
NB and that bank both redeemed THEIR preferreds and commons. They are affiliates and we are in parity with the most senior preferred stock of LBHI or ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES.
that means the guarantee is only subordinate to all LBHI debt BUT NOT SUBORDINATED TO THE EQUITY OF LBHI OR ITS AFFILIATES.
They also brought up the Covenant. That is another beast.
Ok. I think toogood thinks that LBHI issued the ECAPs LBHI preferred shares as part of the settlement. And maybe he thinks the equity transaction that was denied by the court is still active? Maybe he thinks the shares are along the lines of authorized shares but not outstanding therefore, those shares can be used for the new company?
ECAPs did not get swapped into LBHI preferreds. It was just the opposite.
The discharge did not happen yet for LBHI.
Waske said NB and that one bank got their equity paid. Same with ECAPS. And there are still other affiliates that got their equity paid. They just ignore our parity rights under the guarantee.
My understanding is waske wants to be treated like how the redeemed shares of NB was treated. Waske also seeks to be treated as how the highest ranking preferred shares of LBHI or ANY of LHBI affiliate's equity was treated.
That means waske wants us to get what the above got. That is my understanding.
Now, what is yours?
I have no idea what you mean when you say Waske wants to be reclassified into capital investments???? What does that mean? Are you saying Waske wants to get reclassified from 10b to class 12? What is the asset class capital investments? LBHI equity? You think waske is seeking to be placed in class 12?
Class 12 was where LBHI wanted to put the ECAPS and ECAPs turned it down. The judge ruled it was illegal to issue new stocks anyways so, going to class 12 is not doable. And why on earth do you want to move from class 10b to class 12? I dont get what you are saying.
Discharge comes at the end of the bankruptcy. After the discharge, then they exit the BK. The discharge happens after the satisfied in full and before the exit.
What do you think about LBHI discharging equity?
I thought the court said that they dont have standing?
You are going to have to google the link. LBHI tried to issued ECAPs equity shares of LBHI. All the holders of ECAPs rejected it and Chapman ruled in favor for the ECAPs and denied it.
I agree with mostly what you are saying. I think we will get paid when LBHI reissues us whatever market value our subdebt is worth at that time. This will allow them to discharge the CTs.
The CT preferreds has nothing to do with LBHI's capital structure. The CT preferreds are preferreds of the Trust and not LBHI. LBHI created the Trust so they can pay Interest on the subdebt. The subdebt is now in 10b. We are trups. But, a broken trups. We can no longer be converted to equity as per the ECAPS ruling by Chapman. The only way to get paid right now is through the debt and that is in 10b. So, unless you can get out of 10b, we are not getting paid.
The more I think of it, the more I ask myself, WHY ARE WASKE AND WU FIGHTING SO HARD?