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.
The Trustee interim report deserves a reading. A detail of assets is available. 27B available, but 14B going to costumer claims (Exhibit 2)
With an amazing sum of pending unsecured claims (Exhibit 3), who bought those claims of LBHI at a 45% FV??
"Does not include $14.189 billion of allowed subordinated claims as per the LBI-LBHI Settlement Agreement, for which the Trustee does not anticipate making any distributions"
SIPA Trust is one thing. The Plan Trust agreement is another one.
About those 19B of the LBI (SIPA). 9B are going to LBIE. 2B to customer claims of LBHI. The remaining money is going to unsecured claims of LBI, that includes, almost 14B of unsecured claims filed by LBHI (some of it was recently sold at 45% FV in auctions), other Unsecured claims involves former employees of the Trustee-.
I don´t see where Barclays can fix. Debt explicitly under the POR, equity side still quoting, similar subordinated guarantees either under Class 12 or rejected; in best case, under a claim on the guarantee trustee, besides we know there was a filing involving BNYM at 2010, and some letters of BNYM regarding CTs and the POR.
Theories about Barclays involved on CTs future are absolutely nonsense. We should follow those claims involving JPM.
Excelent research! Claim 27189 clearly mentions all the CTs in Exhibit C C-1. There is a complaint about this claim, filed by Lehman on docket 30936
Starnes, I don´t want start a new discussion, but when they talked about former employees, probably they were talking about the LBI employees claims. The Trustee had got 10k employees before BK. I don´t see any relation with RSUs.. but who knows.
2. It is not about winning...I just like to chime in and add my 2 cents...you can post all you want as I enjoy reading your chatter but, I do not have to agree with it as I know you dont agree with me...
3. You need a Coca Cola and dont take my constructive criticism personally...
Agree with that. Lets drink a coke and forget unuseful discussions. If you are right, I win money. If not, I win a void chatter.
Little goober, it is just hilarious..no available cash, because of the remaining assets are illiquids...in a POR with a timeframe of 5 years being closed in the first 2 years...ok!! you won lol
once POR ends
Da goober, you should read better the POR...
(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.
It is the PLAN, not after the PLAN. Enough to wipe out every single available cent after the first distribution.
Are our creditors buying on auctions those unsecured claims against LBI as a part of this agreement that you mention? It could be a light of hope.
Wayne, you should read some previous posts about POR and recent posts about Plan of incentives.
POR clearly determines payments after satisfaction in full. Maximum distribution clause, for example. It is mentioned at least three times on the POR.
Plan of Incentives. It is mentioned a lot of times.
Liquidation of assets when it is expected a merger? Who wins selling at 45% value unsecured claims?
I did read previously about a merger, REIT, NOLs, Lamco when :
Aurora Bank, sold out.
Archstone, sold out
EQR and AVL, on sale.
425 park Avenue proyect, actually on sale.
even claims are on sale.
Sure. it could happen. I don´t sell any of my shares. I don´t recommend to sell either. To sell now would be a stupid decision. But the written word doesn´t suggest too much optimism. jmho.
When I said in-action? Imo, the runup with these volumes is not significant at all. Read the posts and you will see who is buying and who is selling.
More and more I read, and less optimistic I am. Incentives don´t distinguish among classes. Incentives plan clearly mentions potential payments well above the 53B mark.
Cts.. the best termometer is pps. Nobody is accumulating here, some long investors are selling their shares to some new investors, all of them reading this board. I also see the first signals of pumping.
The debtors do have an obvious incentive to pay the POR early and to pay more
There is another clue on that Table 1 of incentives. They can distribute more than 20B above the POR Benchmark of 53B.
Im lost with this line of research. Docket 37790 seems to related with Suncal BK and an old settlement with LCPI. it is well explained in dockets 11412 - 11407 -19703 -20014 and 36870. What relation with unsecured claims against LBI?
This ia a good point. Why the hurry? They have enough cash to fill the 53B mark. Who gain and who lose with these sales? With a company emerging, I don´t see the reason to sell at discount now...
Some people were asking about the Real State of Lehman. You can see a list for sale in the following link - xls.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%5D%20commercial%20real%20estate%20listed%20with%20brokers%20as%20of%20april%204%2C%202013&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fadmin.epiq11.com%2FLBH%2Fdocument%2FGetDocument.aspx%3FDocumentId%3D2295443&ei=TmW0Udu4Mqr1iwLu5YCQCQ&usg=AFQjCNE1WBtYXUe5aozgHFY1A2wE1EC5vA&bvm=bv.47534661,d.cGE
It is relevant, imo, that our stake on 425 Park Avenue building, is in the list. (look for Adam Spies broker) You must remember that this is the place where the new tower will be built on 2015.
In fact, it was reported on February.
http://commercialobserver.com/2013/02/lehman-to-sell-stake-in-425-park-avenue/
June 28Th payment is an important target because of LBIE will distribute the money coming from the Trustee /LBI. You must rememeber that LBHI has, after auctions, 2B on secured claims and 10B of unsecured claims on LBI, enough to pay everybody.
LBIE next distribution.
Hi Jimzin, I think the comments released today are about LBI employees claim, the Trustee, and not about LBHI´s RSUs, now equity. But in case the money´s waterfall comes to the OBS, I believe they can´t avoid the priority of preferreds.
I believe they are talking about the Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb Deferred Compensation Plan and/or the Executive and Select Employees Plan (together with the individual agreements that comprise such plans, the “DCPs”), all under LBI Trustee.
http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/opinions/jmp/171441_353_opinion.pdf
SIPC Applauds Lehman Trustee On Milestone 100 Percent Return Of Securities Customers' Property
WASHINGTON, June 7, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --When the distributions commencing today to former securities customers of Lehman Brothers Inc. (LBI) conclude, all securities customer claims will be 100 percent fulfilled, according to James W. Giddens, Trustee for the liquidation of LBI. The Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) today applauded the hard work of Trustee Giddens and his attorneys in reaching this major milestone. With the return of all LBI customer property, no advances from the SIPC Fund will be necessary to make LBI securities customers whole.
This also means distributions from the LBI estate will stand as the largest return of property in history to former customers of a broker-dealer following a bankruptcy and liquidation proceeding.
SIPC President Stephen Harbeck said: "SIPC is very pleased with the Trustee's significant achievement in this historic case. The return of 100 percent of securities customers' property in the largest SIPA liquidation proceeding ever, and the prospect of future distributions to general creditors, including former employees, pension funds, financial institutions, banks, and Lehman affiliates, shows that the SIPA program continues to work well. We also recognize the significant efforts of U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge James Peck, and the cooperation of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) in reaching this important milestone."
Full details on the distributions can be found at http://www.lehmantrustee.com.
ABOUT SIPC
The Securities Investor Protection Corporation is the U.S. investor's first line of defense in the event of the failure of a brokerage firm owing customers cash and securities that are missing from customer accounts. SIPC either acts as trustee or works with an independent court-appointed trustee in a brokerage insolvency case to recover funds.
The statute that created SIPC provides that customers of a failed brokerage firm receive all non-negotiable securities - such as stocks or bonds -- that are already registered in their names or in the process of being registered. At the same time, funds from the SIPC reserve are available to satisfy the remaining claims for customer cash and/or securities held in custody with the broker for up to a maximum of $500,000 per customer. This figure includes a maximum of $250,000 on claims for cash. From the time Congress created it in 1970 through December 2012, SIPC has advanced $ 2.1 billion in order to make possible the recovery of $ 120.7 billion in assets for an estimated 770,000 investors.
It could be related with former LBI employees claims.
I found this reference on last BS related to this subject.
"The Balance Sheets do not reflect certain off-balance sheet commitments, including, but not limited to, those relating to real estate and private equity partnerships, and other agreements, and contingencies made by the Company."
Is there another one? It is a good point in favour of your arguments.
I expect to be absolutely wrong, so I will be rich like all of us. lol
Just thinking, if they are eventually going to cancell the POR and start the waterfall on the OBS, I think it is reasonable to delay all the hearings related with objections about the treatment of the RSUs. Thats why I posted the delay on the hearing with Mr. Schager, who represents a lot of claims about RSUs. Of course, it is just speculation, following the optimism of the board.
In a negative view, I still read:
56. Discharge. Pursuant to Section 13.4 of the Plan, except as expressly provided therein, upon the date that all Distributions under the Plan have been made, (a) each holder (as well as any trustees and agents on behalf of each holder) of a Claim against or Equity....
Im trying to be objective.lol
mmm, another hearing about an Employment- related claims has been adjourned today to a date to be determined..docket 37756
coincidence?
The same paragraph that you remarked is on both 13-G filed by LBHI with its ownership on EQR and AVL
EQR - Page 18
http://idc.api.edgar-online.com/efx_dll/edgarpro.dll?FetchFilingConvPDF1?SessionID=_y9pFbBscBieJfS&ID=9145027
Avalon -Page 18
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=9145039-1614-86522&type=sect&TabIndex=2&companyid=11282&ppu=%252fDefault.aspx%253fcompanyid%253d11282%2526amp%253bformtypeID%253d345
"The sole share of stock of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. is owned by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Plan Trust. Despite this ownership, the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Plan Trust does not have any voting or investment discretion with respect to the Shares reported herein. "
Nothing yet about Mr Schager and his objections to RSUs treatment as equities. Last note on May 05/06, docket 37189 about a postponed hearing.
Thats why I said it is not our case..
Generally by creating this trust, the debtor is treated as having transferred the assets to the creditors, and the creditors then as transferring the assets to the liquidating trust, with the creditors being treated as the grantors and beneficiaries of the liquidating trust. The beneficiaries must report each item of income, gain, deduction, loss, and credit of the liquidating trust.
A good point! A partial Liquidating Trust is a new scenario for me. Some business should be out of this Trust if that is the case. Thanks
and the creditors then as transferring the assets to the liquidating trust, with the creditors being treated as the grantors and beneficiaries of the liquidating trust. Is it our case? I don´t think so.
Take it like a constructive discussion. I want, like all of us, to see money at the end of the road. You are the best poster here.
Imo, an example of the mentioned "going business" is Archstone, or even equities of EQR or Avalon. But the whole picture is they must met all the conditions, thats it liquidate.
THAT is our best shot. A gift. But it doesnt change the fact they must accomplish the POR.
Cotton, that is the actual situation, to hold any operating assets of a going business, but these conditions are not exclusive each other, they must met all of them..
Generally, the IRS will issue a private letter ruling that a trust, created pursuant to a bankruptcy plan under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, is a liquidating trust if the following conditions, listed in Revenue Procedure 94-45, are met:
.01 the trust is or will be created pursuant to a confirmed plan under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code for the primary purpose . . . of liquidating the assets transferred to it with no objective to continue or engage in the conduct of a trade or business . . . .
I agree about our expectancies are related with a waterfall to the Plan Trust. But, for this, I believe that creditors must waive some clauses of the POR.
8.13 Maximum Distribution. POR page 78
(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.
This article explains it very well:
"A controversy is brewing, both in the courts and among legal commentators, regarding the proper rate of interest payable to holders of general unsecured claims in so-called “solvent debtor” cases—chapter 11 cases in which the debtor emerges as a solvent entity.1 Interest rates for moneys advanced in commercial lending transactions, whether under a bond indenture or a bank credit facility, have been considerably higher in recent years than the
federal judgment rate, which courts traditionally have applied to calculate postpetition interest owed on account of unsecured claims."
"Under what commonly is referred to as the “solvent debtor” exception, however, a debtor that proves to be solvent6 in the course of a chapter 11 case generally is required to pay postpetition interest, even on its prepetition general unsecured obligations.7 The premise behind this exception is the deep-rooted
principle that it would be “inequitable” to permit shareholders to retain any value before creditors are made whole"
http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/bdj/24/24.2/Shelley_Noh.pdf
You read what you want...
3.4 (a) Additional Powers. Except as otherwise set forth in this Trust Agreement or in the Plan, and subject to the Treasury Regulations governing liquidating trusts and the retained jurisdiction of the Court as provided for in the Plan, but without prior or further authorization, the Trustees may control and exercise authority over the assets of the Plan Trust and over the protection, conservation and disposition thereof. No Person dealing with the Plan Trust shall be obligated to inquire into the authority of the Trustees in connection with the protection, conservation or disposition of the assets of the Plan Trust.
4.4 Investment and Safekeeping of Assets of the Plan Trust. The right and power of the Trustees to invest assets of the Plan Trust, the proceeds thereof, or any income earned by the Plan Trust, shall be limited to the right and power that a liquidating trust, within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 301.7701-4(d), is permitted to hold, pursuant to the Treasury Regulations and the guidelines set forth in Rev. Proc. 94-45, 1994-2 C.B. 684, or any modification in the IRS guidelines, whether set forth in IRS rulings, other IRS pronouncements or otherwise. The Trustees shall have no liability or responsibility for any investment losses,
8.1
Additionally, no change may be made to this Trust Agreement that would be inconsistent with the purpose and intention of the Plan Trust as specified herein and in the Plan, adversely affect the distributions to be made under this Trust Agreement to any of the Beneficiaries, adversely affect the U.S. federal income tax status of the Plan Trust as a “liquidating trust” or adversely affect the rights of the Creditors’ Committee or this Trust Agreement.
"...by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”), provides for the establishment of a liquidating trust evidenced hereby (the “Plan Trust”) in accordance with the Plan. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806085/000119312511339839/d267202dex101.htm
Cyb, please hide the hammer..you started this..lol