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.
That is fine. It is a message board. Everyone can use a good laugh at times when they read your posts.
Then, just stop responding to my posts. All you do is attack and have nothing noteworthy to say.
What changed???? Everything changed since they discovered the Guarantee was expunged. I do not have much more to say in regards to Rex, Joseph and LD. I think LD is MoneyRobot and MoneyRobot is maybe Rex or Joseph. I asked MoneyRobot on this board but did not get a reply. Those are my opinions.
I believe from talking to the Ws that they do not believe in the NOLs. Is one of the Ws LD? I do not know.
Regardless, my points still stand.
Tell me how so? Tell me what I said that you disagree with and why?
Jesus, alright by calling Rex with questions and talking to him means I don't think on my own. Lol
And this is coming from the guy who said LBHI placed their common shares in our trust thus making CTs hybrid securities.
Hey swiss, who is this guy again?
The NOLs are accounted for. They will be used to offset the discharge. LBHI have said this for years.
I spoke to Rex. He does not believe in the NOLs. That is my take on his tone. I believe Joseph also do not believe in the NOLs. I am not going to speak for them. I also believe they both think the discharge will be used.
Regardless, do yourself a favor and do some DD. You have no clue on what is going on. And it shows.
Swiss, go back to talking about your debt to equity and NOLs. That is your space. I feel sorry for the people who are buying into your misinformation.
Like I said, you need to read the Motions.
I am not going to speak for LD. But, I believe Joseph and Rex do not believe in the NOLs. I am not certain and will leave it at that.
Up to the filing of the last two motions, chapman was not wrong. Wu and Waske were wrong. And the Plan Admin continued the fraud by standing behind the fraud.
All the motions up to the last two were moot because the Subordinated Guarantee was expunged. The 4Ws were arguing something that did not exist. Therefore, Chapman was right to deny the motions because the guarantee did not exist.
The question now, is the expungement of the guarantees legal and was the SCOTUS ruling applied to our CTs?
Anyone who reads your posts who have the simpliest idea on what is going on knows you are full of it and you plainly just do not understand what is going on.
People can tell by the way you post. You are just posting misinformation at this point. You are definitely hands down wrong beyond belief. Its hilarious.
I just want to confirm LD is Rex Wu or Joseph Waske? I believe they do not believe in a NOL Company. You will have to ask them that.
Do you even read what you post or my response posts to you?
I said LBHI will take a discharge and the NOLs will be used to offset the discharged tax gains. Thus no NOLs will remain. Tell me what is your point with the link about chapter 11? It confirms what I said.
You have serious issues my friend. You do not understand this bankruptcy or how a chapter 11 BK works in general.
You don't even know how a settlement works. I hope there is not one and the cases get ruled on. If there is one, and asked for my opinion, I would suggest they take it and bring the group along.
Good luck with your debt to equity. You are going to need it.
Wait. You think its a debt to equity exchange. Like 200 billion in liab subject to compromise on 50 billion ( you got this from.a reporter btw, its a guess) in NOLs and that is your debt to equity with a new pps of 25 dollars per share on a new lehman company.
Now, that is either stupidity or a fantasy. I want to say fantasy.
That is fine. I am through debating this with you.
If you think that going with status quo to the end of the BK and think that you will get paid, or get shares of a new company with assets being NOLs, then good luck to you.
You can quote the BK judge all you want. But, this is the appellate court.
I am not as righteous as Rex Wu or Joseph Waske. They are both working for everyone including you. A part of me hope they settle and take their peoples with them and let people like you play out your own fate. At that point you will understand without the Ws you will get discharged. You will get nothing.
You like to quote the BK side, so let me remind you, LBHI said they will utilize all the NOLs. There will not be any NOL company. On top of that, LBHI said they will use the discharge. They said that and filed it with the court for over 5 years. Its documented.
You are lucky I am not running the lawsuits. If I am I would tell them to settle and let the people like you and toogood live with your misinformation. They should settle with any chance they get. If they ask me, heck yeah settle and take the money for our group and run.
Good luck with your fantasy outcomes. At one point, your friend said LBHI placed their common shares inside our trust. The joke is you think we are getting paid without the guarantee and that they will not use the discharge and the NOLs to offset but instead put the NOLs in a new company so they can ipo it and give it to classes 10-12 because 1-9 is satisfied in full. Lol.
So the liability subject to compromise will magically disappear legally without any penalties. Poooof, gone. Lol. Whatever.
Again, is that a swisscheese guess or did you actually read documents?
Its useless to respond to you if all your doing is guessing without reading the documents.
Really? Is that another swisscheese guess or did you actually look into court procedures? Lol.
Its cool if the Plan Admin don't respond. I am good with that as a shareholder. By not responding will only help the 4Ws. V.
Read the subsequent Letters to Wu as well. Those are interesting. That is where there was a letter battle in which the Plan Admin dismissed the Motion to Reconsider (supposedly an admin error on interpretation of Abram's Letter Endorsement) and then Wu restored it on an Appeal filing that triggered Abrams to instruct the Court Staff to restore the Motion on another Letter Endorsement.
Also, read the Waske Letter. The Plan Admin just decided not to respond anymore. The dude is smart to not defend against fraud that was committed by his predecessor with Weil. Why get tangle with fraud in the largest BK filing in US history? F that. He is not going to ruin his career over this.
The 4Ws' lawsuits are an exciting drama.
Why on earth would you want a distribution when you are in parity with NB's most senior preference shares? Why would you want ECAPs type of distribution when you are in parity with NB's most senior preference shares? Do you know how many of LBHI's affiliates redeemed their preferred equity during the BK? There are many. Just go to the SEC.gov page and start your DD.
BTW, the Prospectus is always enforceable. It was just not being enforced. If it is not enforced, what good is it? The prospectus without the Guarantee Provisions are pretty much worthless except for the Sub Debt provision in there that we are only subordinated to Senior Creditors and not to any of LBHI's Subordinated Debts. The basis for the 10B claims are the Subordinated Debenture Provisions. It was never in doubt that the Prospectus is active.
What we need are our Guarantee Provisions to be restored. All of them.
Next step, read the Order from Judge Peck. Finding the Omnibus Objection is a good start. The Objection is the reason the Plan Administrator used to expunge the Guarantee.
After reading the Order from Judge Peck, read the Wu Motion to Reconsider and the Waske Motion to Reconsider.
Then form your opinion and we can talk about it.
Whats there to learn? Its a heads I win tails you lose kind of bet.
I get 40% of your total gains if any of the lawsuits are won/we get paid from.
If all lawsuits are lost, you get toilet paper shares. If all the lawsuits are lost, it will mean no guarantee and we go straight to discharge.
Oh, I forgot you think our guarantees are currently valid and we still have parity, the covenants and all the provisions.
The only thing keeping us from toilet paper status are the lawsuits. Without them, the Plan Administrator will throw us all in the garbage can.
Heads I win. Tails you lose.
Of course, I always do. I am not as ignorant about CTs as you to think that we still currently have the Guarantee. Yeah, I checked the dockets and just found out about the hearing. If I knew, I would haved called in.
I bet you did not even know there was a Status Hearing. Lol.
Anyways, just curious if anyone listened in and have any news to report?
V.
Do anyone have any news or update on the June 29 Status Hearing? Transcripts won't be ready online until October. Thanks.
Cool. I see what you are saying and how you are connecting the dots. Chances are you are correct.
I admit just like I told swiss, LBIE and the foreign litigations are areas I need to DD more on.
Is that how the 4Ws see it too? Thanks.
If you opened all 20 documents and its not there, then I will CONSIDER posting the docket number. How is it that everyone else can find it and you can't? Its there my friend. Look harder.
And dont just BS. I will look at the search parameters I have you and if the TWO dockets are there, I will just ignore your post.
Seriously man, just get it over with and seriously look it up. They are on EPIQ and free just in case you are a cheap Az.
I do not know the docket #. The search function works well.
Wrong board Joseph or Rex. Lol
What the ECAPs get in the UK has nothing to do with us. We do not have any rights or claims in Europe like the ECAPs do.
We are solely US and our claims will be solely against LBHI. Where we are similar to the ECAPs is on the US side and not on the UK/Europe side.
The point with the ECAPs that matter to us is that LBHI recognize their subordinated guarantee in Chapmans court(LBHI/USA). Our sub guarantee is not recognized because its expunged. The 4Ws are trying to fix that so we can exercise our guarantee rights to get paid with parity provision and other provisions.
Is that right? That I did not know. I am not following the UK Litigation. I should dd more on where lbhi stands in the UK Litigation.
There you go swiss. We finally agree. The relevence for the ECAPs is that their subordinated guarantee is getting honored. Their terms are similar to ours but different. Our subordinated guarantee is not subordinated to the level of LBHI's preferred shares like the Plan Admin fraudulently claimed to get our sub guarantees expunged.
The J shares issue was a few years old. It is not being litigated right now.
If our guarantees get reinstated, then we are in parity with LBIE's most senior preferred shares right?
Are we entitled to the future value? What are your thoughts on the Waske letter?
Wow. Why isn't LBHI responding? What happens if we get vacated? The fraud charges will remain with Abrams and the BK issues like the Subordinated Guarantee and executory contract rights will get remand back to Chapman? All monetary determinations I believe is determined at the BK level. I guess it will come down to why is the judgement being vacated? Does that mean Abrams will overrule Judge Peck's Order to expunge our Guarantees?
If our Guarantees gets reinstated, watch out! There are clawbacks and individual liabilities for fraud. We might be collecting from WGM too.
Judicial Corruption Question
Could these judges be involved in judicial corruption? It would be huge if they were. Lehman Brothers is the largest bankruptcy in US history.
Fraud is already not good. Imagine if its proven by the 4Ws. SCOTUS ruling is a good case for Abrams to consider with our CTs.
I wonder can fraud disallow LBHI the discharge?
SCOTUS ruling protects the Subordinated Guatantee too. That should over rule the expungement order which was obtained through fraud anyways as stated by the Wu and Waske Motions. Those who perpetrated the fraud needs to be held responsible. If Judge Chapman was aware of the fraud she should be held accountable too. We just hope there was no judicial corruption.
Can you tell me if I am an irritant to the board? I am just trying to post facts which includes details of the cases. Its up to the individual to decide if they agree with the 4Ws or not. But, the 4Ws relates to here so, as part of my DD I came here to learn but ended up being attacked.
If that is the case, I will just stop posting again and just read. But, its sad to see how people just run with misinformation.
I agree. Its just toogood in being wrong as usual. Eom
Lol. Lets just be nice. I think you were trying to mount an attack. Let me correct you. Our CTs have a monetary claim against LBHI. That is currently in class 10B.
What you are trying to say is our Capital Trust is not in bankruptcy and what we hold are equity of that trust and therefore we do not have a claim against LBHI.
That is well known on this board. But, apparently just not by you.
The question you asked should not be directed towards me because I did my DD and know what I am talking about to some extent. I admit I do not know everything but, at least I did the basic DD here. What I don't know, I research or ask the 4Ws.
How can you own the CTs for 10 years and don't understand the basics of the bankruptcy?
What are you talking about? I don't think you even understand the very basic events that is going on with our CTs. Like you said what? Only you want to be in class 12. I never said I want to be in class 12. Here is my,
Like I said moment, you have no clue what is going on or even what I said. You seriously need to do some DD. Good luck.
This SCOTUS case and the Fraud allegations are a 1, 2 punch. The SCOTUS case speaks for itself on how it applies to our CTs. The fraud comes down to are our Subordinated Guarantees at the level of LBHI's preferred equity as the Plan Admin manipulated contract terms to convince Judge Peck and stated in writing that our CTs are at the level of LBHI's preferred on their own will to back up the word manipulation.
The answer is HELL NO! A blind bat can tell that our Guarantees are not subordinated to levels of LBHI's preferred stock as the Plan Admin claims.
I cant wait to see Abrams ruling on Waske and Wu motions. On top of that it is known now they will take this all the way.