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.
da 1 Linda goober,
What do expect a 32-page objection to the Debtor's Disclosure Statement to do when it was assumed that all creditors, including the creditor's committee, were to be against the POR?
You may be able to read a Balance Sheet, but what information do you have on off-balance sheet items?
Further, should the Estate conclude its POR payments as agreed and suppose these payments were to go towards principle, what would be the annual liability payments to keep the remaining debt current? And, could the Estate re-structure some maturity dates to make debtors & creditors 100% whole as claimed?
And, what is the ratio of Claims Subject to Compromise that you feel will eventually be Liabilities to be repaid?
Lastly, of what interest is the Balance Sheet to you, truly, if the CTs were never really a part of the Bankruptcy because they were agreed to be assumed Liabilities by another Company after the 20 quarters pay deferral time period saving Lehman about $437M at 8%?
mojo goober
Thanks for checking that, ro ro goober!
I'll researching the ISIN for the SEDOL which I think is the Euro filing system and will have some information.
How different the SEDOL info is from the ISIN, I don't know.
I think I might have to call someone at the Exchange in the UK to get the information.
This posting gives me pause.
I'm speechless as to why someone would make such a claim nor do I understand what it is the poster intends to do here.
I hope so, too, camaro goober...
It would be nice to have something work out as it is written and expected.
But, in the Courts, what is written can change and be altered without notice.
Good luck!
mojo goober
devilsgoober,
Why guess?
Thats true...so, I hope they solve it soon.
mojo goober
cat,
All the Estate does now is litigation...
It would be nice to have some dealmakers back at the helm and get on schedule.
But, maybe they'll be onto a good deal soon.
mojo goober
It seems we can say all the CTs are basically the same.
However, the payout dates and, therefore, the default dates are not the same.
Therefore, the sequence of events is important.
Frankly, I don't know what the Estate will do with these differences as they move forward.
K, N, HH, L
I haves new car goobers with candies.
I sing, "I'm Henry the VIIIth I Yam...Henry the VIIIth I Yam I Yam..." all the day long...
Plus, get paids for goobers while going to beach and surfs...
Goobers are marvelous tings!
Thanks catdaddyrt and littledevils...mojo goober
CT coupons can be witheld for 20 quarters only under certain stipulations where capital can not be allocated.
It is conditional.
catdaddy had the gooberride...until he took it down.
He might have had too much action on his rims...
Say there is a new IPO at $25/share for 530M shares.
About 25% of the float is exchanged for Preferred & Common OBS shares.
That leaves 75% of a float at $25 or about $9.825B less fees.
What could explain the viability or likelihood?
What would be the best use of the cash?
Besides the CTs coupons, how much debt service would it pay if debt were re-structured with new maturities?
By the way, $2.5B will cover the annual debt service of $41.6B at 3.5% for 25 years.
If SEDOL is 2471488 for the K's, what is ISIN?
Or any issue for that matter?
What does the fact that the Federal Reserve has a list of Holding Companies it tracks with more than $300M in assets or a company incorporated overseas that may be on the list have to do with Dodd-Frank?
What is the relevance of the Dodd-Frank legislation if the CTs were assumed by an overseas institution with SEDOL numbers assigned for the issues?
5800 shares traded by 1:44pm?
Maybe they don't have the paperwork all done and are holding off the market makers until further notice?
K's & N's on the pink sheets tommorrow?
Check Exchange on Preferred Stock Information.
K Link - http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/MarketData/CompanyInfo/detail.jsp?query=0P000083A6
N Link - http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/MarketData/CompanyInfo/detail.jsp?query=0P000083A8
Hey...You took my ride!...ROTFLMAO!!
devils goober...when divvies paid?...pic...see?
450K CTs is big money...$.10 Avg Price?
mojo got the goober pic...go figure...
silversurfer,
try hulk or thor...
The address on the pink sheets OTC web site is 745 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY.
But, no company is identified.
If you go to FINRA, the Lehman Brothers Capital Trust is the company issuer at the same address 745 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY with a telephone number that is busy.
However, if you google the number you get the following:
Lehman Brothers Capital Trust
3 World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281
So, why can't we assume the information that shows us Barclays has the Capital Trusts is correct?
It looks like 29,000+ shares now have been traded on the pinks with pink sheet market makers.
It looks like things are going faster now.
devils da money bot goober...lol
The US Bancorp claim from Schedule F is for Trust Preferred Securities with a notional value of $231.75M with CUSIP 52520X208.
In this instance, US Bancorp is listed as a creditor.
The overall float for the CTs is $1.2B. So, US Bancorp owns 19.31% of the float.
catdad,
I don't know who you are talking to at Barclays, but you can read the Barclays Transaction Clarification Letter and the actual Asset Agreement and see Barclays assumed some Liabilities in the transaction to acquire the Lehman US Broker-Dealer.
jwnoble posted the following:
"From the Esquire article -
"And so, when the $7 billion went missing, perhaps it was inevitable that Bob Diamond's winning streak would continue. It was shocking to Barclays executives that the Fed wasn't able to just make JPMorgan give it back — wasn't able to convince JPMorgan to right such an obvious wrong. But when the Fed forensically reconstructed the trade and both sides were called upon to settle, Barclays got satisfaction: $1.3 billion in cash and $5.7 billion in securities." "
Again, JPM was hired to facilitate Barclays purchase of a US Broker-Dealer and required Barclays to make the $7B deposit. What they received back was the Lehman US Broker-Dealer and the above as they related to the transaction.
Exactly what securities issues these are has not been stated or confirmed anywhere because Barclays doesn't say.
I figure not having to pay $74.73M for 5 years is a $454M credit discounted at 8%.
As someone else posted, if the securities were assumed as Liabilities to be paid in a transaction, it makes no difference what the underlying debentures were and Lehman, in fact, paid two bills with one credit in the transaction.
Lastly, Lehman could assign re-affirmation rights of the CTs to Barclays, Lehmans only buyer at the time, but maintain the NOL credits until the Liabilities were to actually be paid by Barclays.
mojo goober
Nella,
You may think a Reporter is protecting his job and complying with insider trading laws.
But, what is it doing to the shareholders who's securities valuation continues to suffer because their true role in the sale and NOL claims isn't disclosed?
And, the Reporter doesn't have the guts to ask the questions and pursue the story?
I'm trying to be a gentleman and appropriate businessman here while a lot of you read my posts, run away with unsubstantiated theories buried in legalese, focusing on intercompany claims, obfuscating an already opaque market, so you can claim credit and keep the market down.
What do you think your liability is now?
mojo
Barclays can say they don't want any Lehman debt in Court or wherever they want, but they did assume some Lehman Liabilities.
It is written in the Asset Purchase Agreement and Clarification Letter that Barclays assumed some Lehman Liabilities.
Furthermore, Barclays had a Court Agreement identifying cash and securities as a settlement for the Lehman US Broker-Dealer purchase they hired JPM who required the deposit.
So, what is there to buy?
JPM & BCS are the parties that aren't talking.
The $7B Deposit JPM required of Barclays was intended for purchasing a US Broker-Dealer.
After the deal, Barclays was given the deposit back in both cash and securities.
Look at the terms of the deal and read the Esquire Article. You can also refer to Wikilinks.
So, if JPM is the Trustee for the securities, it would seem that Barclays is paying JPM to pay the CTs as part of the Liabilities they assumed on behalf of acquiring the Lehman US Broker-Dealer.
This makes sense. What could be another reason why JPM would be paying the CTs?
Got it...
Yep!
Just trying to pull a rabbit out of the hat, wayne.
It might have some fur & meat left on the bones...and, then again, it might not.
mojo
Thanks.
I'm trying to stay on top of all this and it's a lot.
It comes together in pieces if it comes together at all.
So, it looks like this document is saying a 14.9% distribution payment is coming in the last POR payment although there may be a chance still the CTs will be re-affirmed, re-instated, brought current and on the market until called or maturity.
Frankly, romang, I'm not sure what I think about the 14.9%.
Nowhere does the document mention the Capital Trust issues by name or ticker.
winner,
Got it.
This states the 10B Class of Claims is $10.343B and estimates at 14.9% settlement rate.
If the CT Claims were re-allocated to Class 3 Senior Unsecured, they'd receive the same amount of 14.9%.
I'll be reading the document.
Any other information you can share?
mojo
romang,
I agree. This thesis or statement needs documentation. Among the dockets I checked unsuccessfully was #23023.
There is another claim 66455 that will not successfully search through Epiq for me and Epiq or the Law firm has not forwarded the pdf or returned a call.
Anything posted of interest in the dockets today?
mojo
camaro,
I've posted these numbers before.
The 4 CTs total $1.2B FV, have yearly coupons of $74.73M and require almost 5 years to be brought current plus interest.
The advantage to the Estate to bring the CTs current is the Estate pays less money then calling the $1.2B in FV and lets them float on the market.
They gain control of the issue as well by bringing them current and paying off the coupon until they are called or until maturity.
Its the least expensive way to settle the CTs with all their priority clauses and liability, in my view.
If they don't and go into default, then I don't know what is going to happen with them, what is going to happen with all their priority and any lagal recourse.
And, what happens with the Estate's currency on the Street as they default on another issue and move further down towards 100% liquidation is anyone's guess.
But, I suppose there are attorneys in the case who could care less about the shares if they can cancel all the shareholder equity knowing they have the liability sewn up and there is no recourse for the creditors.
mojo
Think about it, Viva...
The Estate pays off the POR, brings the CTs current & reaffirms their prospectus publicly.
That would cost $360M+ and $75M/year to float the $1.2B issue, provide creditors with capital to invest, secure control, and avoid all the legalese that could slow down a merger, post-BK legacy or whatever.
The Estate then uses the next 12 to 18 months developing business & re-structuring debt and plan to exit BK.
Then, they come out with a new issue to settle the shares in escrow, re-structure remaining debt and capitalize operations.
The plan has merits. What could be better?
I just wonder if the Estate doesn't think they can make it.
Then that is what Lehman should focus on becoming.
Why the Aviation unit & Aurora Banking?
If Lehman is making this kind of money in Derivatives, what are the other types of Financial services and products that complement the Derivative business?
Revenue Generation becoming VITAL!
The $314B in Claims Subject to Compromise can be restructured and the $111B in Total Debtor Controlled Assets is a great collection of money-making properties.
But, the Estate needs to focus on market positions for the business segments to operate lucratively post BK.
Then, they need to turn it over to business operators and managers to run and service with compensation based on performance.
The Lehman Estate needs the revenues.