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.
Investors on these CTs kept their shares for 5 years in most cases. So, who is selling at 0.5 when it is written in documents that they can expect FV more interests? Money is flowing of course, we can see new people on this board coming from every dead stock on otc markets, hunting opportunities..no doubt about it. But, who is selling with most shares are under banks sleeves and the end is so close? End of september?
I shared my opinion a long time ago. I don´t sell either. I dont´t suggest that too. It is time of wait and see. Show me the end of POR and I will be the first believer. Im scepctic for now.
I enjoyed too lol. It was an inspiring source of research. i learned a lot about BKs..I was talking about those big banks with a lot of shares..
Shorting? I NEVER said that. We should know soon if there is some kind of strategy behind this uplisting. In the meantime, I only read some pumpers and newbies buying our dream.
"holding them so tight" ?
Imo, it is garbage in their portfolios. Nobody is holding them tight. There is no market to sell it off. Thats all. You are reading accumulation, some conspirancy theories to buy CTs shares. I don´t believe on that. I want to see satisfaction in full first, later some money on the Trust, to believe there is post BK life for any kind of shares.
It is no relevant who is buying. All of them are on this board. It is relevant who and why is selling...
There is another side. They can be selling. Im not saying it is the case. But I don´t believe on partial redeem theory before seeing more evidence.
mmm. I don´t want to think that JPM after the waterfall of emails thought that could sell some shares to these retailers...
I was surprised with that pink "upgrade", but people should read everything.
UK notes, on parity with preferreds, and probably CTs, still quoting, have not buying at all. European investors are not reading this pumping.
What is going on with ex-employees? Nobody posted this news.
http://www.bna.com/second-circuit-rules-n17179875215/
There is no trace of some recovery on commons.
I don´t know if it was posted before. Im lost with so many traders´s posts lol
In June operation report released on Jul 30, Lehman reported 10.6K B of free cash....Docket 39083
I think they should. I would´t sell any CTs share. It is gambling, and it is till the end.
There was a mistake with the address reported. In LHHMQ site it is reported 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020, and oops, Richard Fuld is the CEO. Deja vu! lol
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/LHHMQ/company-info
Thats why I believe they settled the guarantee claim a couple of months after the CDA was signed by the court. I posted all this information on June, but the board was upset with my line of thinking..
There is an agreement involving JPM funds
http://bankrupt.com/misc/LBHI_JPMorganFundsSettlement.pdf
This is the CDA agreement, involving JPM and related with your recent research.
You should read docket 7269
You should read the CDA agreement. It is interesting to note that the settlement of 1.5B made with JPM (that Chaarles´s posted) in relation with the original claim of JPM against LBHI, was in those days, but after the CDA. I think the guarantee claim was settled, and thats why the subsidiary of JPM related (JPM securities Inc) is not objected later.
"as all postpetition interest on all such Allowed Claims has been paid in full. "
I mentioned this subject before. It is out of the POR and it is a LOT of money. I would be careful about the 53B mark.
8.13 Maximum Distribution.
(c) To the extent that any Debtor has Available Cash after all Allowed Claims against that Debtor have been satisfied in full in accordance with Section 8.13(a) of the Plan, each holder of each such Allowed Claim shall receive its Pro Rata Share of further Distributions, if any, to the fullest extent permissible under the Bankruptcy Code in satisfaction of postpetition interest on the Allowed amount of such Claims at the rate applicable in the contract or contracts on which such Allowed Claim is based (or, absent such contractual rate, at the statutory rate) until such time as all postpetition interest on all such Allowed Claims has been paid in full.
The key factor of that docket is the Automatic Stay. I did read different opinions about dividends on this board, and if it is legal or not to reallocate these dividends under the POR. The absence of an automactic stay, will enligth us. Fireworks or the burial of a dream?
Im convinced now that Lehman needs 9B to close the estimated distribution under the POR (the difference between % already distributed and % estimated). The restricted cash is related with claims outside the POR, so it doesn´t add. They are at 4B so far, and added another 2B on those auctions. It won´t be ready till september without a distribution coming from LBI.
It could be a game changer. If USB wins this objection, we finally will see the light about some issues that were discussed a lot of times, like dividends, reallocation or not, priority. We are not the only ones in darkness:
"Numerous key questions remain, including whether the waterfall provisions are contained in the swap agreement, whether transactions were effectively terminated, the impact of when the Notice of Termination was given and the impact of the Letter, dated November 25, 2008, from Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (which demanded that the Trustee and other third parties cease and desist taking actions pursuant to the transaction documents). The full extent of this Court’s rulings (and perhaps the scope of appellate rulings) will not be fully explored if these Avoidance Actions continue to be stayed."
Lehman probably will send the debt into the toilet with the rest of POR, under the suposition payoff happens. But in relation to the guarantee, I want to see how they settle, in case it wasn´t settled yet, with JPM, the bunch of 8B of guarantees and derivatives claims, and what priority this guarantee will have. All the case is sustained in an emerging company.
In a liquidation scenario, they can discharge debt, settle claims or even win/lose the case against JPM. We should expect to see how JPM treat this guarantee. There is evidence that they already settled 1.7B of similar guarantee claims, so it is quite possible. And I already posted that Lehman didn´t objected JPMSI, the counterpart on this Security law claims.. It is suggestive to say the least.
I think you are right. But there is no way of dumping that package of shares..
I always said that sellers and buyers are people of this board.
We should start a discharge of Banks on this BK...lol BNYM, JPM, who imo settled the claim, BCS..
US Bancorp (it seems is the biggest bagholder).. No comments..
In a couple of months we have GS on the headlines..
Come on..no relation at all with CTs..
Lehman Settles $13B Dispute With Luxembourg Affiliates
The trustee winding down Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s brokerage unit has reached a deal with the failed investment bank's Luxembourg unit that resolves a $13 billion dispute between the banks. ...
http://bankruptcynews.dowjones.com/Article?an=DJFDBR0020130627e96rj4rxe&cid=32135012&ctype=ts&pid=310&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2fbankruptcynews.dowjones.com%2fArticle%3fan%3dDJFDBR0020130627e96rj4rxe%26cid%3d32135012%26ctype%3dts%26pid%3d310
Note of Wilmington Trust to Note holders, dated Jun 2012. I tried to contact W. trust, but they didn´t respond my request.
"The Debtors estimate that Class 3 claimants will recover 21.1% of the allowed amount of their claims after all the distributions have been made pursuant to the Plan."
all underlined in the original note.
http://www.wilmingtontrust.com/lehman/pdf/Lehman_Notice_to_Holders_of_CUSIP_524908NF3_dated_06_13_12.pdf
This Trust reported a lot of CTs on 2009.
Sincerely, it sounds like a formal sentence, but who knows. It is interesting they said "and" any successors. A partial succession maybe?
Why do you think there is a successor? Is there evidence of that? BCS and Nomura bought some assets and Lehman Trust is on chapter 11 paying liabilities. They didn´t discharge inmediately after POR, so BK code is clear it happens with a liquidation following Chapter 11. I didn`t find out any evidence suggesting there is a successor so far.
the Plan of Reorganization subordinated these claims and nothing will be paid on them.
Guster..imo, it doesn´t say anything new. I read under the Plan, and we already knew that.
Lehman Derivative Litigation Still Looms Large
http://reaction.orrick.com/rs/emsdocuments/FinancialIndustryWeekInReview/17June2013/Lehman.pdf
I think that it is a waste of time to write emails to all the players involved, because of they will tell you a lot of things that are not true, trying to hide the real target: All these attorneys are buying in the grey market all the CTs available. It seems to be a big conspirancy with the same significance of Lehman`s Repo and only Mr Anton Valukas could explain what is going on. He is the man.
Bizreader, the line of research of CTs being classified like Class 12, like any other notes in parity (UK), is, imo, the more credible line of research. I think the guarantee matter will give us an unsecured claim against LBSF like happened with UK notes on LBIE. The chance of receiveing some money from that kind of claim is absolutely slim. If Cotton is right about a payout with 53B, and some clauses of the POR are ignored so, we can see some money, either emerging, or in a final distribution. IT is an assumption.
Dear little. I won`t start another discussion of this. I believe it was written too many times. Maybe you are right, but the emails sent are recieving a negative answer for us from different sources, and it is not my assumption.
Cotton is the cleverest guy of this board, without discrediting a lot of valuable people. He was following different lines of research, a couple of steps forward of all of us. I share some of his ideas, some not. I believe he is optimistic and it is good for us. It is not a competition.
I mentioned before the references on POR about post satisfaction in full distributions and post interests after satisfaction. It is true that POR mentions discharge too. Im not making assumptions on this. Im just quoting answers of emails that people of this board sent. POR has another reference about the satisfaction in full matter on Exhibit 10 in relation with Classes 10. All the case is sustained with the going concern issue.
Ignoring signals
From Epiq "paid the full claim amount"
From BNYM "not satisfaction in full" (?)
From Weil Gotshal "no discharge"
From POR, post petition interests, post satisfaction distributions..
What do you read? I read liquidation, but Im the negative guy..
Excellent, imho. All the questions in one shot. Thanks
You are dealing with lawyers, newbies or not. So, we should read carefully what they are answering to your request:
They are still not expected to receive a recovery due to the fact that the Debtor’s obligations in other classes that have priority over this class have not been paid their full claim amount.
Is full claim amount the settled claim under POR?
I appreciate your words. I would be vary happy being rich like all of us!. Im just trying to keep my feet on earth.
The Claim 66455, with a reference to CTs, were partially transferred in an amount of 1.7B to LBHI and against LBSF. There is no certainty about CTs were or not involved on this transference. But we have some clues:
The counterpart on that Claim, in relation to CTs, is JPMSI (JPM securities Inc.). The claim involving CTs is called Securities Law Claims.(Page 8)
There was a complaint and objection against claim 66455 filed recently. Docket 30936 (09/24/2012). This objection involved a lot of claims... 66451, 66453, 66454, 66455, 66462, 66470, 66472, 66473, 66474, and 66476, But it is interesting to note, that the Objection involved all the subsidiaries of JPM mentioned in 66455 claim...except JPMSI so I think that Lehman didn´t object that partial claim!
"allege the following against defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMCB”), J.P. Morgan Markets Limited (f/k/a Bear Stearns International Limited) (“JPMM”),J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. (“JPMSL”), J. P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation (“JPMVEC”), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“JPMC & Co.”), J.P. Morgan Bank Dublin (f/k/a Bear Stearns Bank Plc) (“JPMBD”), Bear Stearns Forex Inc. (“BSFX”), and Bear Stearns Credit Products Inc. (“BSCP” and collectively with JPMCB, JPMM, JPMSL, JPMVEC, JPMC & Co., JPMBD, and BSFX, the “JPMorgan Entities”):
The claim 66455 involving JPMSI:
JPMSI/LBHI security law claims: JPMSI and its affiliates have contingent contractual and non-contractual indemnity...This filing is intended to include, all the claims described above in the preceeding paragraph, but not limited to, all such claims related to the offering described in Exhibit C.
I believe that those 1.7B are mentioned on the BS under CDA agreement and LBSF.
I can infer, and it is only my speculation, that the 1,7B partial transferece of docket 10036 involved, and settled, the Security Law claim of CTs.
I believe you will confirm it after contacting JPM. If that is the case, the claim actually is an unsecured claim against LBSF.
jmho