Individual Investor
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.
daisy,
My guess is the N's are part of a restructuring deal with some group.
The Estate could have taken that series, added to the float by 20% or so, kept on the greys and have it part of a new major exchange & financing agreement.
Could anything else really makes sense?
mojo
Camaro!
Any news on this yet?
I see another $86M+ in claims transferred over to GS and others today so far.
mojo
thank you!
mojo
New Dockets 42342-7:
"Transfer Agreement FRBP. Partial Transfer of Claim Other Than For Security Transfer Agreement 3001 (e) 2 Transferors: HLF LP (Claim No. 20105, Amount \$20, 000, 000.00) To Banc of America Credit Products, Inc. filed by Jeff J. Friedman on behalf of Banc of America Credit Products, Inc.. (Friedman, Jeff)"
$185M+ Total (Corrected by Jimzin)
mojo
This Bud's for you, Judge!
(How's that for affordable virtual booze cotton?)
mojo
Good!
mojo
What is the link on Peck's statement?
Don't claim this, wayne, if it's not true.
mojo
The 3rd Party Litigators have to wind this up sometime & somehow.
If they are as good as Harvey Miller says, then they can wind up the stay, turn it over to Lehman's In-House Counsel and take an interest in exchange for some hours.
The legal bills are in the billions while they've sold off assets as a DIP for the benefit of Debtors!
The attorneys should be willing to take compensation after shareholders have had some compensation for the tax benefits they have provided.
mojo
Docket 42219 -
"Motion to Join / Joinder of Shenandoah Life Insurance Company in Certain Responses in Opposition and Objections to the Motion of Lehman Brothers holdings Inc. Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 7004(a)(1) to Extend Stay of Avoidance Actions and Grant Certain Related Relief (related document(s)[42119], [42130], [42123], [42139], [42122]) filed by John Richard Hein on behalf of Shenandoah Life Insurance Company with hearing to be held on 1/29/2014 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 601 (JMP). (Hein, John)"
Boom!
mojo
Thanks jw.
I was thinking that also.
At $.25, a million shares is $250,000.
That is some real money for a huge potential payoff.
I thought I saw another party with 500,000 shares, too, through FINRA.
mojo
Virtual booze?
I don't buy real booze and have no idea what virtual booze could be!
cotton, until shareholders see some satisfaction, why don't we go easy on the celebratory protocols...
mojo
Thank you, cotton, for posting this.
I had posted that Miller stated Lehman was a going concern but haven't found the video.
While he claims Lehman is out of Chapter 11 and administered under a POR, I haven't been able to retrieve the video where I heard him say that.
After 5 years, I'm not sure where these attorneys are going with this now.
They claim how difficult and "galactic" everything has been, but Lehman In-House guys were paid to make plans and had experience with all types of contingencies.
Weil et al and Alvarez may not have agreed with Lehman's In-House Estate advisors to gain roles and responsibilities for payment and I don't have a problem with it unless they are overpaid.
The longer the contract attorney's hold onto this case and ignore Creditor issues and keep it the DIP it is for their fees, the more difficult it will be for them politically.
They haven't liquidated Lehman 100% after 5 years. With $55B in NOLs, I think they should quit trying and turn it back over to the businessmen for the Estate to be administered with both the Debtors and Creditors in mind.
And, by the way, if it means the Lehman Estate has to re-evaluate the fees paid out and seek restitution in Court, so be it!
Maybe the attorneys paid can seek a final settlement with Lehman that could include an interest in Lehman that will grow over time instead of 100 cents on the dollar when the Creditors haven't been paid a dime.
mojo
Joe,
You respond with objections to my statements that were supported with video interviews that didn't have the exact wording.
However, Lehman being a going concern can be inferred from the fact Mr. Miller did state Lehman was out of Chapter 11 and administered under the POR.
I'm looking for that interview where Mr. Miller, or possibly someone else, states they expect Lehman creditors to be paid back 100% and that Lehman is a "going concern".
A number of these interviews were done during the 5 year anniversary of Lehman.
Good luck!
mojo
Mr. Miller has emphasized Lehman is a going concern.
In this video, Mr. Miller claims Lehman is out of bankruptcy and is administered under a POR.
Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/lehman-brothers-bankruptcy-five-years-on-QJkwLvm8QHmX9e1HDzXwfQ.html
He has stated this numerous times, clarifying Lehman as in business and a going concern.
What business is it of the Plan Administrators to use NOLs without the Creditors?
My expectation is they won't claim those benefits for very much longer without consideration of the CTs.
mojo
Joe,
I'm sure you agree not all claims are the same. That is why the Court has organized it's different classes, payment schedules and re-allocation priorities.
Have you ever stated the $65B in distributions goes toward debt principal or interest? At 6.5%, that represents another $4.225B per year.
Also, Debtor positions are not Creditor positions or ownership of the Company, and carry risks of non-repayment & default. Look at the recent bondholder defaults in Puerto Rico. PIMCO had a rough year last year.
Debtor positions, also, have nothing to do with NOL qualification; those are Creditor positions.
So, if the Estate is to maximize it's recoveries, the Debtors must work with the Creditors and it isn't easy to negotiate and assume write downs. These negotiations take time and cycles in the market.
My point is, that if the NOLs require the payment of CTs to be brought current, then the Debtors and Lehman Estate Administrators should bring them current as they are recovering more than what was anticipated and the Estate planning can then be administered with the NOLs in place.
mojo
More legalese instigated from Court decisions as per the POR the Creditors were assumed to have rejected and that did not explicitly preserve subordinate debt guarantees nor provide the covenants for retrieving NOLs for the Lehman Estate use.
It may make BNYM, however, continue the payment guaranteed while they look to continue recovery efforts with the Lehman Estate.
So, maybe BNYM is to payout the $423,203,521.22 & future coupons as per the guaranteed debt while standing in line for future recoveries per the POR or further Estate restructuring with the NOLs in place.
What this does to the market value of the CTs isn't clear as the market price may be determined by whether the CTs stay on the market or are called within the POR administration at some time.
Nonetheless, the POR administrator must execute the decisions of the Judge who has stated, "Subordinate debt guarantees claims are valid."
mojo
BNYM is Trustee of securities with subordinate debt guarantees.
The POR was completed after the securities prospectus was drafted and the securities sold to creditors who were assumed to have rejected the POR.
How else is BNYM going to claim what is owed and to be paid?
mojo
What else can the Lehman Estate do if Barclays refuses to close and proves to remain uncooperative?
The LAMCO deal is what Marsal & Alvarez would do if they could liquidate. That's it.
The yearly CT distribution is $74,730,000, not including any additional float possibly issued for LEHNQ.
So, at 3% interest for unpaid coupons, I compute a $423,203,521.22 payment after 21 quarters to bring the CTs current.
Why not keep the $1.2B in nominal value from calling the CTs and continue the re-structuring as per the POR, with the NOLs and CT prospectus with subordinate debt guarantees?
mojo
Yes, Camaro, I get this, too!
But, the Lehman Estate can let the CTs trade on the open market until 2052 unless they have to be called in 2016 as per Dodd-Frank.
And, Dodd-Frank is having trouble getting implemented.
We'll see what they decide to do.
mojo
jw,
Your computations are valid for a pure liquidation scenario.
However, the way to use the NOLs is to operate Lehman as a going concern, as Harvey Miller has emphasized in last September's Bloomberg interview, and shelter $55B in revenues due Lehman to realize approximately $20B in tax savings.
This $20B is what will pay down debtor and creditor positions further in addition to all the revenues Lehman can generate as a going concern, providing products and services to their customers.
In my mind, it is worth it to the Lehman Estate, the Debtors & Creditors, that they re-affirm the Lehman Charter and bring the CTs current to trade on the open market while assuming all NOLs and gaining the opportunity to restructure the business as a going concern within the POR or a subsequent agreement that will benefit the Debtors and Creditors with new financing and the tax credits in place.
A liquidation would fail to take advantage of this opportunity and competing interests continue to minimize the value of the NOLs and other business prospects because they want to manage the Lehman business legacy and holdings themselves and without the Debtor & Creditor positions.
mojo
Hey wayne wayne!
The 10% & 20% definitions were heard in the news as stated.
They were interesting definitions.
I made no prognostication but remain concerned with debt issues, ACA costs, new taxes, consumer strength, revenues and earnings growth.
Interest rates may stay low no matter the tapering of the FED because of low rates in Eurozone. So, we could see marginal rates that are lower for some time.
mojo
Experts?
All you did was split the difference!
What kind of expert does that make you?
mojo
Where is the market going?
$16,588 is the high.
$15,000 (-10%) is a Correction.
$13,300 (-20%) is a Bear Market.
Or, we continue the pullback before going higher.
Any thoughts?
mojo
OK!
Thanks, viva.
mojo
Viva,
It looks like CDEL is a decimal move.
Thanks for a little depth to the market.
mojo
viva,
Can you tell how many more K shares are available at $.50 after the 2500 posted?
I see it's 71 x 25.
Thanks.
mojo
Her Father admitted that it is possible that he has slept with 10,000 women.
That would be sleeping with a different woman every night for 27.78 years given a 360 day/year.
Given it is an amazing feat, it sounds like it could be a lot of in-laws.
mojo
Yes, you can have a volume difference.
As you know, if you have a 100ml beaker full of water at 10am and measured the same beaker at 11am with only 60ml, you can conclude your volume change was a difference of 40ml.
However, you can not have -20ml of water in an empty 100ml beaker.
That is similar to insisting -2000 shares could trade in a given day. Since the day starts with zero shares trading, any shares trading would be a positive number, generally, unless the market made some kind of mistake or adjustment.
Nonetheless, the physical properties of water make a negative volume a better example particularly if the problem to solve asked, "What would be the final volume of water left in the beaker?"
mojo
Hah!
Go figure, wayner!
mojo
In math, we have extraneous answers, answers that are correct mathematically or over a system of numbers but neither make sense nor are particularly how the world works.
Right? Say you computed a volume equation which resulted in a positive & negative factor; you would choose the positive factor because a negative volume makes absolutely no sense as an end result.
mojo
Thanks for the response, stockbum.
I have some other questions about shorts on these CT's but I don't think they are as relevant as other issues with the POR, subordinate debt guarantees, Tier 1 Capital, NOL's and the legal administration of the Estate that continues it's control rather than a BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION THAT I ADVOCATE!
The Lehman Estate has assets that resulted from core banking operations of Lehman, a top-5 investment bank.
There are reasons Estate attorneys are doing what they're doing as well as Market Makers and Traders.
But, the sooner Lehman can get back as a going concern servicing it's customers for new business, and managing it's assets, the better the creditors and debtors of Lehman are positioned to get paid returns.
Good luck!
mojo
stockbum,
If you are correct, and I don't doubt that there are merits to your point, do you have reasons why the shorts have not yet covered?
Do you have reasons why the shorts are still an issue?
What is the difference between closing now and after they have brought the CT's current?
Why didn't the shorts cover when the CT's were re-listed?
mojo
Thanks, wayner.
Frankly, I don't care for stipulations that are objections to creative resolutions exchanging debt for new equity.
The Citi case is interesting and I don't have a problem with Lehman/Weil's suggestion. Citi, on the other hand, wants cash each and every time they are owed in a settlement. Hopefully, Lehman/Weil will prevail if the have to pay out another decision and could include other Citi debt as well.
Maybe this stipulation can be overcome or maybe it won't matter in a larger debt-equity agreement construct that provides for more debtor & creditor relief through a new issue.
At this moment, however, I'm nonetheless surprised since we have the LBI Securities on the market, a fairly accurate estimation of NOL tax credits, an Operating Statement as of 12/2013 and a JPM agreement that may be worth $17B and the Estate is stipulating objections that rule out limit creative solutions.
Maybe it's nothing to worry about.
Docket 42091 - Notice of Presentment of Stipulation Establishing Procedures for an Evidentiary Hearing in Connection with Omnibus Objections to Reclassify Proofs of Claim as Equity Interests filed by Ralph I. Miller on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.. with presentment to be held on 1/24/2014 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 601 (JMP) Objections due by 1/23/2014, (Miller, Ralph)
The Court is Stipulating Objections that were initiated after I purchased my CTs & Preferreds as well as Marsal's statement that the BK case would be resolved within two (2) years.
Am I reading this correctly?
Are there others who have read the stipulations relating to the objections since 12/2010 on this Board that can offer any insight?
Objections to the Stipulation must be filed by next Thursday next week.
Only?
Stop with the EM stagflation stories already...
A merger or an equity investment?
Both could potentially work with a company with claims in litigation.
Barclays took a lot of employees with the Broker-Dealer Liquidation.
Then, LAMCO and Alvarez are managing and selling assets.
So, what is left in terms of Lehman Management that another company would want to merge with and why?
mojo
<<I don't see people lined up to grab a BK company that has billions in litigations.>>
There is opportunity to negotiate. The exact terms may depend on the investor/venture partner.
Am I wrong to state here that the NOLs are to protect the Lehman revenues from taxes, and such revenues are now estimated at $5B per year or more if Lehman is able to generate more business?
And I think Lehman is able to sell up to 49% of this post-BK venture, liabilities in litigation or not.
So, the partner could be a Lehman debtor that is willing to "buy it down" if a further equity investment will recover more debt than a liquidation. Citi does this all the time and, like Citi's 1:10 reverse-split, equity holders share pain. But, it's better than a complete annihilation!
The NOLs aren't going to shelter a partner's revenues from taxes nor will a partner increase their Tier 1 Capital with the CTs.
Some of the Lehman Debtors are getting 0% money from the FED and could buy a majority interest after the Lehman NOLs have run their course!
So, what's it going to be?
mojo
I think some of you are stating valuations and claims without any facts today and that is unfortunate.
As for WAMU or WMIH, the only shareholders who should ever see close to $50 a share are those preferreds that have a face value of $50, $1000 or are the investors in the WAMU common pre-BK who were lied to and dealing with absconded deposits with JPM.
LEHMAN & WAMU are two different bankruptcies so the liability is different.
mojo
I think it's a good time to sell fixed income if they have to.
Whether they have certain buyers lined up for one reason or another, I can't say because I don't know.
I don't think they should sell these securities if they don't have to since they are an investment bank.
But, there may be some special entities interested in certain issues like the 2B+ shares of Enron. They may have a special entity interested in that.
mojo
These are illiquid assets according to the announcement by the Trustee.
I'm curious why they would sell a 21.1% interest in LBI then turn around and sell these issues.
Why just keep the assets on the books?
Are they fishing?
mojo