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.
"See 13C C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3533.3, p. 2 (3d ed. 2008) (Wright & Miller) (“[A] case is not moot so long as a claim for monetary relief survives”). Ultimate recovery on that demand may be uncertain or even unlikely for any number of reasons, in this case as in others. But that is of no moment. If there is any chance of money changing hands, Mission’s suit remains live. See Chafin, 568 U. S., at 172."
They are do this by expunging our Subordinated Guarantees fraudulently. That is how they are getting away with this. Now the review is before Judge Abrams.
I do not believe that I am. The Release is for nondebtors
Please do not lie. I did not say the motions were a deal breaker. Also, if any of the lawsuits payout, I get 40% of all your gains. 40% of your total. That is what I get.
Its not up to me to educate you. If you want to understand what is going on, do your DD. Lol. I cant believe I am saying this to you. You want to be spoon fed. Lol
An example will be 510a. Where all subordinated guarantees are valid under bk law. What I am saying is you need to read the SCOTUS ruling as it explains everything about executory contracts in Bankruptcies.
To be honest, the BK law you posted does not even apply to CT's circumstances. Did you even read the BK law you posted?
Swiss, if you want to learn about executory contracts as it relates to BK and contract law, READ the Supreme Court ruling. It was handed down on mid 2019. Its recent and is based on BK and contract law. Why do you prefer to guess instead of finding out directly based on a Supreme Court ruling?
Read the SCOTUS ruling on Executory Contracts. That is all I have to say instead of guessing and posting clips and pieces of Bk law which can be offset by other BK laws.
Deleted
Why repeat something that is irrelevent? I like how people when they are backed up against the wall try to make a statement to fit their cause by modifying the words of the law with ..... and ...... lol.
Why dont you post the entire section and subsection and read over everything 100x before I chime in to determine if what you posted is relevent or not.
Don't adopt the strategy of the fraud our guys are bringing before Judge Abrams. Who's side are you on?
If okay to post points to debate but why try to be deceitful and lie about them? You are better than this swiss. Unless you are not.
Ipso de facto? What the F is that? Lol. Cut and paste and combine words from a few sections? Bro? Its come to this from you? Or did someone help you? The quote is nicely and deceitfully put together. It looks really good.
Judge Abrams is going to interpret the SCOTUS ruling here. That is it my friend.
I am not on any of the motions. At one point I wanted to join their motion but, did not.
You should email Rex or Joseph. Their info is on the web.
Send the information to Rex Wu or Joseph Waske.
I bought in around 2015. I gave up on the CTs until I read the lawsuit filed in 2019. That got my interest again and I bought about 80k more shares until they stopped trading the CTs in the US. You can say I hopped on the bandwagon. I don't mind and I am glad I did. Its a gamble swiss.
Again, do some DD into what you are holding. Anyone who look up the claims can tell you the answer.
The claims have its own issues with how its filed.
Judging by your answer you still dont know what happened with the Guarantees..
Do some DD.
I do not need to deflect. Your question is basic. I just choose not to answer it. Anyone who did simple DD on the stay, discharge and corporate BKs will know the answer. You did not do any research at all. Please do your own DD.
Seriously, do some research on discharges. Sue a shell? Bro, you have a lot to learn.
Why are you asking me? I will only answer one question and you come up or DD your own answer.
The discharge is used on a claim by claim basis and is used most of the time near the end of the BK. The discharge releases the debtor of all remaining claims before the stay ends. You can be broke and if the stay ends, they can still sue you. The discharge ends it all.
YOU DID NOT LOOK AT THE CLAIM DID YOU? WHAT YOU STATED IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH!!!
You truly don't have a clue. Do you? WOW.
Admit that you are clueless again, and MAYBE I will explain it to you, AGAIN?
Why are you yelling bro?
I dont know where to start on this but, just to say we can get discharged without our sub debt being returned to us via a listed exchange because we lost that provision when the guarantee was expunged. We lost all our rights under the Guarantee and WE ARE HARMED LIKE ALVIN W.
Lets move on from this discharge talk. Its depressing and not right. I am rooting for the 4 Horsemen.
I dont think this will effect LHBI. But, I think it can effect any class actions filed after the discharge. Hint hint.
That is my point. See my explanation on my other post.
The discharge protects the debtor. The Release protects the non debtors from other parties after the discharge.
I am not an expert on this. I will admit that. But, based on my DD, LBHI is a debtor and 3rd party releases are for non debtors.
An example would be lets say after our discharge from LBHI, our Trustee can get a release of their fiduciary duty from us from the court. Its between non debtor entities.
They have something like this so, nondebtors will go with BK plans without fear of getting sued later. Its not just between trusts relationships. It can be between other nondebtor entities.
Debtors like LBHI uses discharges. The Release is not for debtors.
If you want to refute this, you can. I am telling you why based on my DD.
LBHI do not deal with releases because they are a debtor. They use the discharge. Releases are for nondebtor entities.
LBHI is allowed and said they will use the discharge as allowed by the bk. All liabilities subject to compromise is likely to be discharged at the end of the bk. That includes our CTs. That is a part of the their planning when they pursuaded Judge Peck to expunge our Guarantees. They expunged our non discharge provision as well as all our guarantee provisions that were meant to protect us.
Lets hope this can be changed.
The "Release" is not applicable to our situation. Its between nondebtors. LBHI is a debtor.
If you want to have the limited discharge protection, you will need the non discharge provision offered by our guarantee. As of now, its expunged and disallowed.
Is it a bankruptcy law or us it an exception? I thought I read that judges said its an exception. I think that is why interpretations differ between judges? How does this effect us?
Is LBHI following this?
I also read that its between non debtors? So, does it even effect LBHI?
Thanks,
"Unlike the discharge of the debts of the chapter 11 debtor, a third-party release extinguishes claims between two non-debtor entities. Third-party releases are also distinct from exculpation provisions, which release claims against professionals and other fiduciaries of the bankruptcy estate."
How does this effect us? Thanks.
So, sum it all up for us with this release. How does it effect us? If its valid, is LBHI following it? Please explain. Thanks.
Can you just say what the article is about? How does it effect us? Thanks
Who are you? Hey Swiss, who is this guy? Nothing you said to date have any value. That is the truth. And who are you calling stupid?
read it 100 times. You should get it by then. look at all the details.
one glaring point is chapman on recent controversies. Did you opt out of voting? Do you comprehend what you read?
Did you opt out of the claim? Did you even look at our claim?
And no, LBHI do not need our permission to discharge us.
Double post
After your last post stating that we need to approve the discharge, it further reinstates my point that you are clueless.
As of late 2011 our Subordinated Guarantee got expunged and disallowed by Judge Peck. The Order was issued in 2011. The Plan Administrator at the time argued that our CT's Subordinated Guarantees are at the level of LBHI's preferred shares. He supported that claim by the now infamous edits of the prospectuses which deleted words relating to the parity provisions. The Plan Administrator then followed up the edits my stating something like wer are only in parity with LBHI's preferred shares. This shows the intent to deceive. Not only did they edit the parity provision, they also stated in a separate statement that we are no better than the LBHI preferred shares therefore, Judge Peck should order to expunge and disallow our Subordinated Guarantees. Wu argued any of our guarantee provisions can prove that we are not the same as LBHI's preferred shares.
The Covenants disallowed enabled LBHI to carry forward with the BK without any impunity.
Alvin W's letter touches on how it harmed all of us. That was only one aspect of harm and its huge because it links the Trustee into this.
Wu also showed my doing so, LBHI was able to look the other way while Neuberger Berman redeemed all their preferred shares. This allowed ECAPS and all other affiliates that eventually paid their preferred shares to do so while LBHI can dodge their commitments to our Subordinated Guarantees while reallocating our distributions to higher classes.
By expunging the Guarantee, LBHI was able to defeat one of the Ws Motion to Compel the statements of compliance from BNYM. Virtually all the motions that were filed by the Ws were defeated simply because the Guarantees does not exist anymore. This effected standing, the covenants, parity provisions, etc. Including the limited no discharge provision. By expunging the guarantee, it now clears the way for LBHI to discharge us without having to compensate us. And By expunging the guarantees, it took away all our protection.
That is a brief summary of the Motions to Reconsider based on Fraud. Fraud is heavily relied on material misstatement in BK cases, Wu also proved intent. That is why the current Plan Admin did not want to respond to the Motion and the dismissal circus happened with Wu's motion. They thought Wu was Pro Se and would not catch how they dismissed the Motion. They were wrong, Wu appealed right away to the 3 panel of judges and added the SCOTUS ruling. You are going to have to read the motion and letters for that background of the SCOTUS letters.
Wu's revived and reinstated Motion for Reconsideration is based on the fraudulent dismissal of our guarantees and the rights we have under the SCOTUS ruling.
This is my unjust description of the Motion. I recommend you take the time to read all that has happened. He touched on the UK Litigation and gave examples.
Waske did the same. Waske went further and described the micro effects of fraud that happened. To me, its a good macro, micro layout of Fraud they both presented.
I recommend you read all the material on the SCOTUS ruling. That is a big one and a good argument that was brought up. Chapman eluded to it.
This is how I read the motions and letters. If I misinterpreted them, its not intentional and anyone feel free to correct me.
Everything that the W's argued leading up to this point was moot because our Guarantee was dismissed. No matter how good of an argument all the previous motions had, they were dead on arrival. But, it lead to the Motion to Reconsider in Abrams Court which addresses everything including what was said to J. Peck to have him dismiss our Guarantees .That is what is matters. The two enforable motions from the 4 Ws are these two remaining motions before Judge Abrams.
Everything we talked about on this board was moot until the Motion to Reconsider. You folks wasted a decade here. The Guarantee is where our "standing" is. That was gone in 2011. Good thing is the 4 Ws caught it and filed the Motions to Reconsider with Abrams.
We were all grossly harmed by the expungement of our Guarantees. That freed LBHI to proceed with the BK. This is huge.
And you are talking about ECAPS? w t f? ECAPS are good. I am not taking anything away from them but there are better remedies.
I think you need to read that article 100 times. Maybe you will then understand what it is saying.
It is amazing with all the misinformation that is going on here.
Swisscheese is all about ECAPS. I looked up his posts and he is all about ECAPS. That should show how much he knows about the CTs.
The guy wants to be paid like ECAPs. Lol. I dont. Getting paid like ECAPs is like not getting paid at all. Whatever man.
Deep down inside I have a qyestion about payouts. But, I never asked the Ws. Idk.
Lol. It goes to show you do not know what is going on. You think the lawsuits are about the ECAPs? Lmao.
ECAPS? Lol. Lol again. You have no clue my friend.
Did you even read any of the motions? ECAPs were mentioned but the lawsuits are not about the ECAPS.
No one who remotely knows what is really going on care about the ECAPs. You know nothing about how ECAPs payout relates to the CTs. I read your post to Cotton. I can tell you are blindly here and clueless.
If you admit you are clueless, I will explain it to you.
ECAps? Lol. Yeah right.
Swiss, remember the bet. If any lawsuits win, I get 40% of all your gains. Seriously, you registered with ihub, so its not hard to find you.
I was going to let it slide and be cool about it but, you brought it up. V.
Its all good. I will take another 40%.
Its narrow minded to want to be paid out like the ECAPS. To me, I get a sense the 3 amigos are beyond the ECAPs. ECAPs are just one example, right? I want to get paid put like Neuberger Berman preferred shares. Forget the ECAPs.
I want to get paid out like all the equity holders of the subs or affiliates that are guaranteed by the SEC and BOD's guarantees which most are foreigh subs or affiliates of LBHI. ECAPs?
The 3Ws, WWW or the 3 Amigos. Its weird. The person who wrote the letter also have a last name that starts with a W. Our fight is fought by the Ws instead of our Trustee. That is not right. They should proceed with the class action.
Did you read that letter? I am HARMED too! That is a good supportive letter. Do we need to write one?