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.
Yes. Thank you.
Yes, thank you.
I would ask Waske or Wu. Their email addresses are on court documents.
The interest is cumulative. That is the only answer which I can verify that I have for you. Try the two gentlemen.
There is another letter out today. Check it out.
I don't think they want to see it.
Ok. ;). I am just curious on your understanding of the waske motion. Thanks
Swiss, a few weeks ago you posted a post regarding pwc did not file their immunity on time but the uk judge granted it anyways because there was no objections to it. Can you repost that post of yours or post the link? Thanks.
You think waske was seeking to be reclassed to class 12????
I believe a sub means 51% or majority ownership. In essence, Wu is right. I need to analyze what he is saying more carefully.
I originally thought on one of Wu's emails he made a mistake that LBHI's subs cannot issue new stock, redeem stocks, etc etc under the covenant because the subs can do whatever they like. But, if they are subs that means LBHI owns the stock therefore, Wu is right. The subs cannot issue new stock or redeem their stock as long as the CTs are outstanding. It also applies to the junior sub debt/debt securities of LHBI and its subs.
You guys agree? Am I reading it right? Thanks.
Neuberger Berman redeemed preferreds and common stock held by LBHI. So did others. In the future, my understanding is LBHI cannot issue new stock as long as the CTs are still outstanding. The CTs cannot be discharged unless certain conditions are met.
Isn't today's GM a phoenix company? Back in the financial crisis, we called this the good bank bad bank model. Thus Good GM Bad GM. Bad GM was left to die with all the debt in bankruptcy.
I agree with the NOLs. Have a good day.
"LBHI guarantee is just in the background."
What do you mean by that? You do know that the current equity will get discharged right? I am not banking on US to be with equity. We are not equity nor should we want to be equity.
Why do you think there are lawsuits now? That is because as where we stand now, we get nothing. Debt to equity will happen and our shares will be reallocated. LBHI will take a discharge. Where do you think that is going? Not to classes 1-11. All those classes will get shares with 10 and 11 being reallocated. Equity is gone.
They can still preserve the NOLs if they discharge equity. We are not equity. You dont want to there. Why do you think others decline to be put into the equity class? It's not because it's safe. The guarantee is what is going to save us. Be glad its effective and in the prospectus. We dont have to do anything more and the covenant is still enforceable. The judge is picking which parts to enforce and which part not too. If you were to study what is going on, you should see this. The covenant and Appeals is what we got going for us. Wu is fighting tooth and nail to get the covenant honored as it should be. The people you guys need to talk to are Wu and Waske. Let's wait for the order. I want to see it and read the transcripts.
What went on during the hearing? Can you please share? I am trying to figure out where we stand with the covenant. Thanks
WaMu spun off equity with the NOLs before the bk ended.
The price went up substantially as time passed. Someone did not do their homework. The treat of the covenant coming to light should be enough for LBHI to find a settlement. Wu was for under a 1 mil in awards. Waske is for over 70 million. Now, the covenant is for all the marbles 1.2 billion.
The covenant is worth 1.2 billion because all the stocks issued by LBHI's subsidiaries had to add up to more than 1.2 billion.
The person to watch out for is Wu. From the two letters he wrote, I think he is willing to take down the entire ship. Letter 1 was a total rebuke of Judge Chapman. I am curious to see the order and the transcripts. This could be history in the making if my judgement on Wu is correct.
LBHI and the Judge should fear the covenant more than a Waske Appeal. Although the Waske Motion leads to a covenant argument. The covenant have been effective all along. That is the danger for LBHI. I am assuming LBHI denied they knew about the covenant. That had to be the reason for letter #2.
Wu is up to something. If there is misconduct, letter 1 and letter 2 makes sense. Ignoring the covenant is a misconduct if it stands that its enforceable. By placing us in 10b does not take away anything from the guarantee or the covenant. It's just our claims are in 10b.
I am intrigued by the waske case. I thought he had a stronger case than Wu. Do you guys think Waske will appeal? If so, one of us should inform them that Waske have to file the Appeal. I hope and think Wu should know that by now. Lol.
I brought up the covenant before during the waske motion proceedings. Did you guys read it? Why is there a need to stress that "they" are now aware of it. Were they not before?
I read the covenant and I believe it applies to us too and not just wu and waske. I do not think all the transactions that LBHI did during the bk is valid unless they address the CTs. And LBHI, cannot exit the BK or issue new shares of any new company to anyone without addressing the CTs.
I called and emailed Wu to ask what is his intention with the letter? I hope he responds.
I am not sure about Lehman but, there are off balance sheet assets with WaMu and Bear Stearns. Bear Stearns updated their balance sheet near the end. The reason was that they were not able to put a price on those assets at the start of the bk. I guess at the end they were able to. I am always perplexed on why couldn't they value the assets anytime leading to the end?
Waske mentioned a Lehman Bank as another affiliate who got bought out or spun off during bankruptcy.
Who paid the ECAPS in full?
They redeemed 845 million immediately in preferred shares during the bankruptcy right b4 the POR was about to get approved. The other 650 million in future sales of common stock was just as shameful but not as cold hearted as the 845 million dollars pocketed money and the stone cold fraud perpetrated a month later to place the CTs in a subordinated class. This shows levels of fraud.
400 million of the 845 million went to Weil's fees! Weil billed 400 million by the emergence of LBHI from bk.
Waske filed a motion calling out our Plan Admin. Waske even got exhibits. He named that guy Fails. The LBHI BK is not over yet. Let's hold this guy Fails/plan admin and LBHI accountable for the errors. I see it as fraud.
I wonder what is the delay time to mail in motions and letters? How do electronic filing cost. I read from the past you have to attend classes before they grant you electronic rights.
Look what I found. See docket #60645. Did you guys see this letter?
I think there is a language barrier here and with some of your comments. But, its 0k.
Both the Objection and the Response to the Objection are short reads. I have a question. What is the Payment Stoppage Covenant????
I saw that too. I just downloaded it and will be reading it after my online grocery shopping chore. If the document is complete and the content is there, I believe its just a glitch or something irrelevent.
Online grocery shopping only offers a fraction of the products of what in store shopping offers. They need to change that.
I am not sure what the 5 year deferment is. Maybe that is why I am on the sidelines. I am just a cheerleader. But, I do like what I am seeing with Waske.
My last post on this with you. Please read the 3 motions. The reserve is not for accumulated interest.
You have to read the motions. Did you see the exhibits? Please read the motions. This guy Fails is the Plan Administrator who with LBHI spun off and sold Neuberger Berman and then months later put the CTs in class 10B knowing equity got paid for berman.
Then the exhibits from the Motion to Reserve. Add in the 400 million in fees leading up to the emergence and LBHI have claims? I am not a lawyer but I know my law pretty well. I lost a case before so, I researched and researched on why? I could be wrong but from my understanding, what waske proved is fraud. He just did not say it. He used intentional error instead. All this was done during the BK too.
I would like to see Wu pursue the fraud in federal court or pursue it with the proper authorities. He is harmed the most out of everyone involved. He had his motion thrown out based on fraud directly or indirectly imo. Wu should know the Plan Administrator committed more fraud by just continuing to conceal the error at the time. LBHI and the plan Administrator knew of the fraud when they committed it during the POR process. The Plan Admin knew wu had the standing. If you read the Wu letter, he repeatedly relied on the general guarantee throughout his motion and he lost because of the general guarantee? There are many dots here that don't connect. If Waske gets the reserve, definitely I think Wu should file a lawsuit in the federal courts.
Disclaimer - I do not have detailed knowledge of the Wu motion. But, Wu should atleast look into what I am saying. Hint hint
I am not sure if I understand your point. The Waske motion is all about Waske and the joinders. But, what I like about it is that if there is an error, LBHI is obligated to fix it and the Court is obligated to enforce a correction of the error especially if its intentional. To me an intentional error means fraud and waske proved it with the neuberger berman transaction and treatment of CTs on the POR and with the recent responses from the Plan Administrator on both his and Wu's motions.
Just so you know, Waske filed 3 motions. Two are being heard on June 3rd.
Neuberger berman was sold/spunoff right away after LBHI declared BK. According to Waske, they spunoff Neuberger Berman right after bk protection but right before the POR was created. I am not sure if the 5 year deferment counts pre POR. I am not even sure what the 5 year deferment is. That is the best answer I can give you.
Edit- is the 5 year deferment their interest/dividend payments? Like what the CTs have? If it is, I assume that it has little impact on a sale or spinoff because LBHI would have to pay off the shareholders.
We should get no less than what the senior preferred shares of neuberger berman or lbmb got. Did you guys read about that bank? We should get what the highest equity of all the LBHI affiliates got.
I dont think that is just moving us to equity or class 13 my friend.
The trustee had to know what was going on. Were they a part of the fraud? That is why I think Wu should sue in federal court or file something to get this looked at.
That is 400 million as of the emergence from bk. I assume emergence is when they put the POR in place. Therefore, from the date of the Neuberger sale to creating the POR, diring that time Weil fraudulently placed the CTs in 10B knowing the equity of neuberger berman got paid. And they made 400 million. That sounds like fraud to me.
It makes you wonder, if this happened to the CTs, are there any other frauds? Maybe the entire BK needs to be reviewed!!