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.
Its in the Courts hands.
They need time to do the things they do so a deal won't come back and chew their fanny...
Thanks for posting, jersey.
I couldn't research anything that was definite so I thought I'd ask.
I don't know anything about Matthew Gold either.
All I know is a big number of claims were cancelled in these names so I would think it is good for the creditors.
Were they related to the Australian or UK units?
Thats another thought and they could be intercompany also.
What EIC or SIC code was used?
Are they a hedge fund?
jimzin,
I've stated the POR needs to be paid in full.
Other than that, I'm not certain about the form of the post-bk structure, including the shares in escrow.
I have a tendency to look at things mathematically not always along the thinking of BK attorneys and Courts.
There is pure reasoning and principles in mathematical approaches, but also computations or extraneous solutions which have no basis in fact or reality.
Our conjectures may be completely different than what the Courts decide with more facts.
Good luck.
mojo
What's there to fight?
Either the Debtors stand to gain more in the restructuring and post-BK entity or they won't.
Bringing the CTs current is less expensive than calling them and provide greater "currency" than a CT default.
The other preferreds can get restructured in a new IPO and I've posted on this.
The common can have a low valuation, too, but likely will receive nothing.
So, the numbers can work.
But, the POR has to be paid and the attorneys and courts need to publish announcements of their intentions and plans.
camaro,
That is not necessarily my conclusion.
But, its possible.
mojo
$66B in Fannie-Freddie Dividends go to US Treasury.
They were never cumulative anyway.
CNBC announced Preferreds may get cancelled.
Hedge Funds are filing a class action lawsuit to prevent cancellation.
Much different BK than Lehman and the CT prospectus contains many more guarantees than the FnF Preferreds.
Good luck!
Yes, robigus, I posted the question to the Board Saturday.
Matthew Gold & Queensferry LLC.
Matthew Gold & Queensferry LLC?
Numerous Cancellation of Claims?
Can anyone post information & links on this?
Debt must be managed.
Large debt may increase with climbing rates.
Together with declining commodity price increases stress.
But, it can be managed.
Next conference call should be interesting.
ABX doesn't have a bunch of crazy politicians spending $17T even if ABX has debt problems.
More DD required, thank you, but I don't see ABX full of agency problems and liability like a BP.
Gold crashing.
Pascua-Lama $5.5B write down.
Job numbers & US Dollar coming back.
FED easing to end.
$.80/share Div yield now about 5.9%.
$1B in div payments per year or 5.5 times the Pascua-Lama write down.
If gold reaches $1000, could the div get cut to $.60 or $.40?
A $12/share cost would cover a $.60 div or 5% yield.
What 1000 day time period is identified and why?
What is the SPV? Special purpose vehicle?
Is the term "likely to sell" mandatory or compulsory in any manner?
I'm not sure if this legalese is an excuse for not filing an Avoidance Action or identifying what has happened in the stay and likely to happen going forward.
Do you suggest any conclusions?
Great post, cotton!
In deal making terms, debtors & creditors are hard to deal with when market opportunities present themselves and they won't act.
Sometimes, it takes more commitment to make it work for everyone.
In other words, when debtors/creditors hit their max and won't "buy it down", the clock keeps ticking and they become dinosaurs.
Like I've posted, the opportunities should go to those debtors and creditors who can keep investing.
This doesn't mean that after cleaning house, all debtors and creditors should go to zero.
Have you read the Sale terms to Barclays clarification letter?
Link: http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Project
devils da 90210 Goober:
"If lehman survives in any form CTs will be there...CTs are designed for that. dat is the parity clause..."
Interesting response to Peru's Ines Defelia da Guinea Pig Goober.
She should buy Rosetta Stone.
IMHO, CTs could emerge in a Aurora Bank spin off as well.
There are a number of reasons for the CTs and re-structuring from a Chp 11 or Chp 7 seems to be one of them.
How this is done will depend on the attorneys and advisors who are structuring a successful exit with explanation or will encounter debtor & creditor committees with their attorneys.
I'm hoping for a solid resolution that will benefit creditors & debtors going forward and keep a good business out of the courts.
Quiet today.
But the run up culminated in low volume trades at the higher prices and wasn't that convincing.
Could have just been traders spending a couple hundred bucks to get people to talk or prove a point.
At the right time, the Estate and administrators will proceed with their plan and announcements as to how that will be done.
I'm looking forward to the last POR payment. Will it be done prior to the deadline? I doubt it since there seems to be no incentive to make it earlier and A&M has never released anything that would say they are capable of exiting BK in a form to capitalize on the markets.
The Lawyers are paid on time and, until they have to make changes, they have the time to do what they need to do.
"Subject to Compromise"?
Who knows, Sixer?
They don't want anyone to know.
Maybe they'll be more detailed soon.
Lehman BK Court schedule this week?
Holiday week.
Anyone?
wayne49:
"The kicker is what is in the POR is non dischargable."
So, your kicker logic is if the CTs are not in the POR, then they are dischargable.
Do we have the legalese to state all items not in the POR are dischargeable?
We do have the CT prospectus legalese that states the CTs are not dischargeable.
Am I reading your posts correctly, wayne49?
The only way I see Barclays changing their position and accepting to assume debt is:
1. BCS is liable for damaging the value of the Lehman Estate.
2. BCS can be incentivized to assume debt and buy more of the Lehman Estate then they agreed to initially.
3. BCS is in litigation to determine the debt they will assume and will assume the debt after the litigation decisions have been made.
However, I've never seen any instance that BCS is doing any of the above yet participate in litigation for the resolution of the Lehman Broker-Dealer Acquisition only without assuming debt.
This could leave the door open for US Bancorp to pursue parts of the Lehman Estate that BCS is not interested in and that other creditors and debtors will not pursue.
mojo
hestheman,
It is true Barclays could agree to assume debt and reaffirm CTs prior to POR last payment or after POR.
But after years of buying the business without the debt, why would they change now?
mojo
True, jersey, very true.
US Bancorp knows if they have influence as a debtor and creditor that maybe they improve their stand in line and/or control.
The same cannot be said for Barclays, who don't look like they know what they're doing, at least publicly.
Many of your observations are why I like to keep aware of "natural numbers" and benchmarks that I've computed and posted.
The viability of these instruments continuing is based on the ability to construct a profitable business entity post BK, not only if A > L nor legalese in a prospectus.
Good luck.
You'll know, kittycat, when jpig blows...
Congratulations devils on da uber 4k LHHMs da coca cherry colas goober hoard!
Thanks, Biz!
Thanks, Biz!
Here's an idea:
1. Combine LHBI with Merrill Lynch Edge
2. Spin it out from BAC in an IPO
3. Keep BAC & JPM as Bankers & Creditors
Does BAC know what they're doing with Merrill?
Doesn't look like it and Countrywide remains a total drag.
Ken Lewis had more balls than brains; how else does BAC assemble 10B+ commons?
lucy,
I'll take cash + 20% for taxes or about $720 for today's close.
Not a bad deal...
I'd take the L's...
Anyone want to trade 2000 Ns for the "stockmojo9" handle?
Speak now!
mik-lachevsky,
Senior class claims settle between 20% to 100% mostly.
There is a large range.
Furthermore, are these settlements payments towards principle or interest?
Then we are waiting again for the red carpet to be rolled out by the debtors...
mojo
Does this notice from BNYM Default Administration in 2011 state the M CTs were in default back in 2011 if they could go without payment for 20 div periods?
On what basis?
The M CTs are in default now that the 20 div period ended in May.
You know, after reading my posts over the last 24 hours, I'm probably more of a stockhack than stockmojo!
Stockbum is catchy...especially after reading we're now considered the "turd in the punchbowl" with the CTs...
Good luck, Stockbum9, & I enjoy reading your posts!
Interesting post! Does anybody know the answer to joyce's question about exempt entities?
This is the same line of thinking Barclays has insisted all along that Barclays was buying a Lehman business and not the debt.
The CTs aren't a convertible issue and cumulative with a dividened.
Does that matter in your opinion?
see other posts.
cat:
If you read the claims sheet chaarles posted, it was a list of claims for services rendered by JPM for multiple credit facilities and transactions for which JPM was LBHI's Banker.
Court documents have shown these types of credit & transactional service facilities were to be replaced by a new Lehman buyer.
It also shows transactions or credit agreements that were late or in default by Lehman and included the penalties.
All these facilities were to be closed out especially if the service or credit agreement was related at all to the liquidated Lehman Broker-Dealer.
This is my take on it as I didn't see anything relating to CTs.
If there is something related to CTs, will someone post?
Regards.
We can see the deposit was made and BCS received cash & securities from JPM.
My questions remain:
1. What were the securities given?
2. Was BCS required to keep the accounts at JPM?
The article answers neither question and with the governance of the issue, there are requirements of Barclays to maintain enough liquid assets to close with Lehman if not remain as Successor Obligor.
So, I think a lot of questions remain.
Thanks.
Who posted the Esquire Lehman Brothers article link.
I have a hard copy from years ago and am moving so it's hard to find.
I'd like to add here, again, the $7B Barclays deposit at JPM that is being held according to the Esquire Magazine article.
This deposit was made by Barclays specifically to acquire a Broker-Dealer in the United States.
According to the Esquire Article, JPM was witholding access to the deposit by Barclays.
If a deposit is made for an acquisition, access to the deposit may be limited or restricted until the acquisition is finalized theoretically.
So, IMO, the claim filing by JPM for the CTs may simply transfer to BCS with the return of their deposit, less banking fees paid to JPM, to pay for the Broker-Dealer and any other transactions of BCS as the Successor Obligor.