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.
I read your comment about the subject, and thats why I did that comment to Starnes. I think that your contribution on this matter could change the landscape about NOLs and could explain a lot of things. But, like you mention, there are different opinions about it.
About the JPM Claim, I believe you should contact directly to JPMSI(JPM securities INC). This the subsidiary involved.
I posted yestardady a complete update with all the amounts pending of settlement with Lehman, with a detail of every JPM´s subsidiary involved. It is dated on 2011. I don´t see any pending amount that involves JPMSI on the 2B level quantity. In case it was transferred between subsidiaries, I believe it should be reported. But all of it is my speculation.
Why we follow JPM when they transferred the claim?
Do you want to read about JPM/ Lehman claims?
http://cdn.jenner.com/lehman/docs/jpmorgan/
Highly confidential (Should I hide me in Equador embassy? lol)
Those 1.7B on page 2
http://cdn.jenner.com/lehman/docs/jpmorgan/LBEX-JPMC%20000199-000209.PDF
In the event that the Debtors do not have enough money to pay the CTs allowed claim filed by JPMorgan within the POR
Within the POR? Class? I always thought it was outside the POR.
I believe it is included in the CDA..
or is it a LBSF claim? If that is the case...wait for that Class 12 classification..
I don't know why we haven't mentioned NOLs in a while
Starnes...another sensible subject! It was discarded after some DD lol
The CDA: Collateral Diposition Agreement with JPM. Docket 7269
Some contacts:
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
245 Park Avenue
12th Floor, NY 1-Q653
New York, NY 10017
Telecopy: (646) 534-6399
Email: kevin.c.kelley@chase.com
Attention: Kevin C. Kelley
and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
383 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10179
Telecopy: (212) 622-4556
Email: ann.kurinskas@jpmorgan.com
Attention: Ann C. Kurinskas
with a copy (which shall not constitute notice) to:
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Telecopy: (212) 735-2000
Email: hsnovikoff@wlrk.com and arwolf@wlrk.com
Attention: Harold S. Novikoff and Amy R. Wolf
If to any Debtor:
c/o Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Email: william.olshan@lehmanholdings.com
Attention: William Olshan
with a copy (which shall not constitute notice) to:
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
Telecopy: (212) 310-8007
Email: harvey.miller@weil.com and michael.lubowitz@weil.com
Attention: Harvey Miller and Michael Lubowitz
"the debt will not be discharged once the POR has been satisfied"
I remember I asked to the board about if there is or not a chance on this situation, in reference to NOLs..
But..was or not that claim settled and tranferred to LBHI/LBSF?
Cotton...
BNYM CLAIM # 22123
I take your post to remember to the board my point of view about the subject. Thanks.
I didn´t sell any of my CTs shares. I have a lot of CTs and preferreds.
I don´t recommend to sell either. Imo, it is not a wise decision. It is black and white till the end for me.
Im not interested on buying more shares. Im not bashing anybody looking for more shares. I have got enough shares in my portfolio.
I just disagree with the course of the last week posts. I read some pumping in the middle of an excesive optimism.
" I posted tons of info "with links" concerning "market value leverage" and how companies use it to extinguish cancellation of debt income incurred, in order to retain NOLs in a reorganized company" Sure, I remember that. It is your merit, but it was after your 300B company theory, and before a post suggesting you would do more DD about some chance of keep those NOLs...
" Makes me wonder if there isn't some loophole/scheme that Lehman could initiate to save NOLs. Of course CT's would still qualify as old/cold debt in such a scenario and a reorganization/merger effort, and thus would need to be kept alive in some capacity." post 21922..
"Thanks mik....I will do more DD on this more this week when I have a chance. Would like to know how much debt was cancelled and the amount of NOLs they preserved etc. I read the article you provided tomm...getting ready to log off and get some shut-eye. Thanks again, I believe I now remember it was you that first told us about Solyndra. Have a great Easter Sunday everyone"...post 21930..
Are you getting nervous?
"market value leverage theory" you should read Nellaform posts, man.
By the way...SHE is not my buddy and her name is Ines.
"doing nothing" Where is the circus? Should I rememeber you that I posted the link to the Plan Trust agreement on this board, or the APA BCS/LBHI agreement that you recently did comment about assets being transferred? Or the reference in the Plan of compensation about payments above the 53B. Or the references in the POR about satisfaction in full and ulterior distributios? Or the treatment in BK about post petition interests? Maybe you were reading the links of PWC about LBIE distributions or the link of Wilmington Trust and Class 3 notes..
Please, keep doing some research about BCS. I admit that this theory was better than the last one. I enjoy your posts. lol
If you believe that BCS line of thinking deserves a research, it is your time. I have nothing against it. But the fact that you mentioned two days ago was only a whisper. I can explain it to you either in english or spanish. What do you prefer? lol If you believe, after five years of good DD (?), that following the Barclays lead is ok...please go on. It is a free board!
MikeJones
I did forget to mention the most important discovery of this week. In fact, the discovery of the year, imo. Mr Chaarles´s contribution. JPM settled the guarantee claim against LBHI. What that mean? Its quite simple, JPM kick us out of its field! So, if some CTs owners want to see JPM involved again, we must litigate. We know now where the JPM road goes. jmho.
Im ok with your DD (?) In fact, I dont rememeber any post of you with any kind of link or information...but I can be wrong lol
If you are right, Ill be rich. If not, I will win a discussion in a board...so, keep dreaming for all of us.
There was a lot of noise this week with some fantastic theories about successors. Some people suggested that CTs were out of this BK and waiting for a payout from BCS! Now, it is all back to BNYM and JPM claim supported in a letter, available in the net since 2010, lighting the road up in the same way than a month ago..
Im skeptic about CTs, but actually not more or less than OBS. You are right. I support the first theory of Cotton about CTs eventually being classified like Class 12. Every clue suggests that. All the notes in parity are being classified like subordinated claims, under LBIE or equity here. Even if it is a LBSF claim right now, they have to pay first LBT notes, a LOT of money...Under every scenario the chances are slim.
I always thought that OBS had a good chance of recovery after the POR was satisfied in full. LD and Joice were always the most clear guys saying that..first cancell the POR. But there is some clauses in the POR, and it is not my invention, that support the idea that they can keep distributing money well above those 53B: interests, plan of compensations, mention of distributions after satisfaction in full..so I lowered my optimism with the hope that Cotton is right about the phrase "remaining distribution" that he found out in a docket.
I don´t care what the board believes! Is a theory weaker because of there are few followers supporting it? No DD? Man, you must be following BCS footprints too! lol
I remember that letter.... Terms add more confusion:
"It is not anticipated that the Debtors will have sufficient assets to satisfy in full the claims of those senior classes,"
I pointed out a lot of times that No final payment under the POR is a real possibility. There is a lot of speculation on this board and people are ignoring what the POR says. When there isn´t a clear answer to our liking, then conspirancy theories start...
You are right! Only one person in the world speaks and reads spanish...lol lol
By the way, are you looking for BCS link too? Fortunately, it was discovered soon enough that CTs are under the POR...again.
The most simple answer usually is the right one. Because of in this complex BK, probably newbies are in the front desks answering newbie questions.
Because of in the spider web that this BK is, nobody believes that these guarantees have any chances. If the money must come from LBSF, they have to pay to LBT first...
what a waste of time-
A great contribution you did today!
A question, if the claim is under Class 5A of LBSF, why not distribution so far?
Could the answer be in the BS and the CDA agreement?
Note 6 – Subrogated Receivables from Affiliates and Third Parties - JPMorgan Collateral Disposition Agreement
The Company and JPM” entered into a Collateral Disposition Agreement that became effective on March 31, 2010 (the “CDA”). The CDA provided for a provisional settlement of JPM’s claims against the Debtors and LBHI’s subrogation to JPM’s alleged secured claims against LBI and certain other Affiliates. It also provided for the transfer of a portion of the collateral held by JPM that relates to LBHI as subrogee to LBI (the “Subrogated Collateral”). LBHI has receivables as of December 31, 2012 from certain Affiliates of approximately $7.3 billion (the “Subrogated Receivables”), comprised primarily of $5.1 billion from LBI and $1.7 billion from LBSF.
The estimated fair value of the Subrogated Collateral (excluding the RACERS Notes) as of December 31, 2012 totaled approximately $258 million comprising of inventory positions (residential mortgage-backed securities of $146 million and corporate loans of $79 million) and restricted cash of $33 million. As of December 31, 2012, approximately $197 million of cash collected on certain Subrogated Collateral was applied to reduce the LBI subrogated receivable. The ultimate recovery on the Subrogated Receivables will be determined by a number of factors including the distribution percentages by LBI, LBHI, LBSF and LCPI to their respective unsecured creditors, the resolution of the JPM derivatives claim asserted against LBSF and LBHI and the proceeds from the Subrogated Collateral. It is likely that the ultimate recoveries will be substantially less than the total Subrogated Receivables value, and accordingly, adjustments (including write-downs and write-offs) may be material and recorded in future Balance Sheets. In February 2013, LBHI and LBI entered into an agreement to settle all intercompany claims between them (Refer to Note 18 – Subsequent Events for additional information).
I suggest you to read the APA agreement between Barclays and LBI/LBHI with a detail of the assets sold.
Agree again.. but I want to see the end of the POR first. After that, I will believe in everything you want! lol
Thanks for sharing.
Nothing new, at least for me. SIPA payments has no relation with LBHI, till the waterfall reach to unsecured claims filed by LBHI.
CTS always were under the POR, waiting for its own waterfall.
Beyond that none of us realized what went down like you say - it is not relevant- I would ask why these guys with their team of attornies didn´t see it being so evident...and sold out their shares...and reported a detailed background to investors..
Did you read the APA link? Nothing at all suggesting we have a successor here wating for this liquidation...but I said before..who knows...
Even being old news, It seems that this people didn´t know that Barclays were the surviving entity taking up all CTs...outside of the BK! so, they sold out, reported to SEC and all their investors. Striking with so much information supporting "the fact"
A lot of work classifying employees claims as Equity in docket 38050.
There is an interesting reference about BCS and Lehman agreeement on this docket. For those that follow the BCS line of reaserch:
"Asset Purchase Agreement among LBHI, LBI, LB 745 LLC and Barclays, dated as of September 16, 2008 (the “APA”)."
You are right
http://www.pwc.co.uk/business-recovery/administrations/lehman/lehman-brothers-international-in-dministration-notice-of-declaration-of-dividends-19june2013.jhtml
"LBI Settlement Agreement and Settlement of the Omnibus Claim – 19/06/2013
Further to the update dated 14 May 2013 regarding settlement of the Omnibus claim and the announcement on 7 June 2013 that the Common Terms Effective Date had occurred, the Administrators can confirm that LBIE has recovered the majority of the cash and securities from LBI and continues to work with LBI to transfer the residual balance.
LBIE has now executed sell trades in respect of approximately 90% of the aggregate value of securities received or to be received from LBI (based on the values as at 28 March 2013 reflected in the Seventh Update).
As noted in the 14 May update, the Administrators intend to provide a further announcement before the end of this month regarding the timing of the first interim distribution under the Common Terms, the population expected to participate and the updated indicative outcome.
If you have any queries in relation to the content of this update, please call your existing LBIE contact or send an email to generalqueries@lbia-eu.com."
Ok man, in this chatter between slow fellows, I expect that BCS will pay everything to us after this liquidation lol. It is interesting the fact that BCS will inherit only these guarantees..but who knows? lol
This is really funny. This smart people recently discoveried that Barclays is the successor, after 5 years of bankruptcy, because of they find out that BCS bought all assets of US Lehman branch, from 5 years old articles, and thats why, BCS inherits these guarantees that are being reallocated, under a POR liquidation, like subordinated guarantees in every branch of Lehman. Smart people to say the least.
Of course Im paying attention at all the recent chatter. More funny is that after 5 years of extended DD, you are discovering NOW that Barclays is the successor and now you have 10 links to support it! LOL that is hilarious. Either the last 5 Years research was bs, or now people discovered the sun. lol lol
It is absolutely possible to pump some stock on the grey market. You move the pps with 5k per day....
Keep pumping, I just read...
We are in circles. Meanwhile, some people try to pump the price, with bid and ask coming from posters of this board...lol Who will turn off the light?
Docket #38043 reference is not new. It was posted by Cotton a long time ago, about that UK notes, still trading. Subordinated guarantees of Euro notes, in parity with CTs guarantees, are subordinated unsecured claims at the end of the waterfall. You can follow ISIN XS0282978666, mentioned on the exhibit and Docket 37808. That is the value of these guarantees. Some of them are being classified like Class 12, some like unsecured claims under LBIE.
So, as Cotton mentioned, CTs, under its guarantees, will probably be reallocated under the POR, something that doesn´t happened yet. Everything else about Barclays is nonesense chatter. Everybody knows that Barclays bought only US and Europe assets, and LBHI trustee and LBIE are following the liquidation of Lehman. Succesor? There is no succesor so far, except that people of this board were right about a going concern and Lamco, something that there is no clue at all, with a lot of evidence against it.
So, I drink a Coke and expect with a lot of hope that the POR will be cancelled with those 53B...
Which is the source of that paragraph? Thanks