Ok, man. I appreciate your posts, and there is no sense on following this discussion. I believe Im right and the references are there, explicity talking about this Plan. In you favor, I admit they can be talking about liquidation of some subsidiaries and not all of them. It could happen. So, I drink a coke now waiting the best for all of us.

"The Plan Trust shall exercise voting rights associated with the Plan Trust Stock in furtherance of the liquidation of the Debtors and compliance with the provisions of the Plan"

goober, your answer is not an argument. I want to see a link about your DD mentioning going concern with LAMCO...lol


They clearly says the Plan is a liquidation.

Thus, a Chapter 11 liquidation is likely to result in greater recoveries than in a chapter 7 liquidation for all Classes. In addition, the Plan provides that initial distributions from the liquidation of the Debtors could be made earlier pursuant to the Plan, if confirmed, than distributions could be made in a liquidation of such Debtors under chapter 7.

7.6 Wind-Down. After the Effective Date, pursuant to the Plan, the Plan Administrator shall wind-down, sell and otherwise liquidate assets of the Debtors and/or Debtor-Controlled Entities in accordance with Section 6.1(b)(iii) of the Plan. The wind-down, sale and liquidation of each such Debtor’s assets (as determined for federal income tax purposes) shall occur over a period of three years after the Effective Date (it being understood that such liquidation may include the transfer of all or part of the assets of such Debtor to one or more Liquidating Trusts within the meaning of Treas. Reg. § 301.7701-4); provided, however, that the wind-down and liquidation may extend over a longer period of time if the Debtors receive a private letter ruling or other equivalent guidance from the IRS from which the Plan Administrator reasonably concludes that the continued wind-down and liquidation should not

Page 146,about different alternatives.

In a liquidation under chapter 11, the Debtors’ assets could be sold in an orderly fashion over a more extended period of time than in a liquidation under chapter 7. Thus, a Chapter 11 liquidation is likely to result in greater recoveries than in a chapter 7 liquidation for all Classes. In addition, the Plan provides that initial distributions from the liquidation of the Debtors could be made earlier pursuant to the Plan, if confirmed, than distributions could be made in a liquidation of such Debtors under chapter 7.

You should put the word "interests" on green!

"The liquidating plan trust is not necessarily negative depending on where the money waterfall eventually flows" Absolutely right.

Well. I was wrong, It is absolutely clear under the POR:

"In a liquidation under chapter 11, the Debtors’ assets could be sold in an orderly fashion over a more extended period of time than in a liquidation under chapter 7. Thus, a Chapter 11 liquidation is likely to result in greater recoveries than in a chapter 7 liquidation for all Classes. In addition, the Plan provides that initial distributions from the liquidation of the Debtors could be made earlier pursuant to the Plan, if confirmed, than distributions could be made in a liquidation of such Debtors under chapter 7.

THE PLAN AFFORDS SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER BENEFITS TO HOLDERS OF IMPAIRED CLAIMS THAN WOULD ANY OTHER REASONABLY CONFIRMABLE REORGANIZATION PLAN OR LIQUIDATION UNDER ANY CHAPTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE."


http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806085/000119312511239866/dex991.htm

Right, Plan of Reorganization. I didn´t see Chapter 11 Liquidation title. (I saw it in the press) The Plan Trust agreement puts a Liquidation Trust in charge of the whole thing, and now we have a new name, Lehman Brothers Trust.

One-time financial powerhouse Lehman Brothers emerged from bankruptcy on Tuesday and is now a liquidating company whose main business in the coming years will be paying back its creditors and investors.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/us-lehman-idUSTRE8250WY20120306

lol the funny thing is that it is chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization under a Plan Trust liquidation. Confusing?

The most interesting argument in favor of OBS- and I think that CTs guarantees will be there- is the RSUs treatment. Nothing about Mr. Schager yet. lol

There is money available after those 53B. But we cant forget those clauses on the POR about ulterior distributions, and interests in maximum discharge item. It is the written word, the rest is speculation. jmo with feet on earth.

They have a restriction period of 60 days to liquidate the remaining 50%. I posted it before.

Maximize assets sales, a normal practice.

I hope you are right.

It is a good resume. What is new? Well, I know now that everything is under the Plan Trust. A liquidation trust with a clear target: liquidate. I read about going concern, Lamco and all this stuff, and I don´t find out any clue related with that. I hope these comments are right because all of us will see more money, but there is no evidence about it. In fact, there are clear signals in contrarian direction, liquidate assets till the end.

Hi.

Some UK Lehman notes seem to be trading. Unsecured subordinated claims under LBIE.

http://www.quandl.com/NYX-NYSE-Euronext/XAMS_XS0215349357-LEHMAN-6-625-PLD-XS0215349357

It is either ZERO or Face Value- jmho

It is not a minor subject, imo. Everything, sales of assets, BS, satisfaction of claims, are reported under the Trust. A Trust that is a liquidation Trust.

Right!

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=88539602

Yes, I was reading all those form 8K filings under the LBHI Trust, so it seems clear now the whole thing is under the Trust..so I don´t see how the paragraph is relevant:

The sole share of stock of the Reporting Person is owned by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Plan Trust.

Cib, Cotton,thanks, both of you-

Cotton, were all assets previously sold under The Trust? If that is the case, the recent link isn´t a key factor. Otherwise, we are in the last stage of liquidation. What do you think? I remember we did write a lot of posts about the scope of Trustee´s assets.

Im just trying to understand the situation.

So, you really don´t know.

"They have been liquidating plan trust assests for years" and they've all been filed with the SEC by William Fox under ticker LEHKQ.

I think if you are right, they should have reported to IRS the taxes related with those sales.

From Plan Trust Agreement

(f) pay all expenses and make all other payments relating to the Plan Trust and its assets;

We were waiting for this report on Fabruary and nothing came out.

Cyb, I put the link of the Plan Trust agreement on this board a long time ago. But I always believed that all assets they were selling weren´t under the Plan Trust. In fact, I think the Trust hasn´t got assets until final distribution to classes and ulterior liquidation, in case there are some remaining to trust´s beneficiaries. Likewise, I didn´t see any tax report about these sales related with the Trust. Am I wrong?

So, these shares were under the Plan Trust... wow just amazing!. Were some assets already being transferred to the Plan Trust before discharge?

The next question, they started to liquidate Plan Trust´s assets...what´s next? lol

You are right about those 3.9B of LCPI, It is a distribution under the POR. But I still think the remaining debt under the plan is close to 9B. The difference is justified, as you mentioned befofe, by restricted cash added on last distributions but not distributed yet. Thanks

LBIE creditor Update

Creditor Update – planning for the second interim distribution to unsecured creditors – 29/05/2013

The creditor update on 08 May 2013 explained that the Administrators anticipated the second interim distribution to unsecured creditors would be paid on, or around, 28 June 2013.

In order to prepare for this distribution, creditors are reminded of the following:

1. Deadline for claims agreement

To be eligible to participate in the second interim distribution on this payment date, a creditor must have its claim agreed via an executed Claims Determination Deed (“CDD”) (or similar agreement) by Friday 31 May 2013.

Where a CDD cannot be executed by 31 May 2013 due solely to a requirement for the LBI settlement agreement to become unconditional and therefore the Common Terms Effective Date to occur (such as for claims which require certainty as to the settlement profile of LBI pending trades), then provided:

a creditor has returned to LBIE a signed copy of the CDD by 31 May 2013; and
the LBI settlement becomes unconditional during the week ending 7 June 2013 (to enable the CDD to be then countersigned by LBIE);
any such claims will be eligible to participate in payment of the second interim distribution on, or around, 28 June 2013.

http://www.pwc.co.uk/business-recovery/administrations/lehman/creditor-update-planning-for-the-second-interim-distribution-to-unsecured-creditors-29052013.jhtml

Money to fill the gap between free cash and 3d distribution sum, came from affiliates and not for restricted cash. It remains intact besides the last agreements.

Recent Citi agreement didn´t change the line related on Restricted cash resume. The statment reports that there is pending a litigation with Citi about this subject.

2B on free cash, after distribution.

Only 8.8 of 3d distribution were to the POR and 4B were change of hands between affiliates. It explains the fact that still there are 9B pending to reach the % estimated on POR.

3B free cash at end of May, 1.8B coming from auction, 2B from equities, 1.5B on real state. They have the money to payoff the POR (first satisfaction in full).

You must look for ISIN numbers.

These securities are on Class 12. Docket 32652


ISIN XS0282978666

ISIN XS0301813522

The link I posted is about an ISIN mentioned on PWC website, subordinated claims on LBIE. The only one I found with some trading last months.

Are some UK notes still quoting?

http://www.quandl.com/NYX-NYSE-Euronext/XAMS_XS0215349357-LEHMAN-6-625-PLD-XS0215349357

The docket 37582 mentions the purchase of some LBT Notes, Class 4A in POR. Isin XS0184310927. My point is that these notes are under the POR, and in big volume, 3800 series and 34B, with partial payment by LBHI- the guarantee, and the rest under LBSF (I remember to ask you recently about this subject, worried about the discrepancy between the expectancies of recovery, and you enlighted me about the LBSF/LBHI agreement and the waterfall of LBSF´s money to these notes). The fact that LBSF bought this one doesn´t seem involve CTs in any way. jmho.

Well, Im lost again...LBT notes? Cotton, there was a lot of dockets related with transfers of LBT notes- class 4A- last months. I suposse in this case, LBSF is buying it at discount prices before next distributions. It is expected a 27/32% of recovery on these notes, between LBHI and LBSF, and actually I think they are close to a 12%. I don´t see the relation of this purchase with CTs future.

JPMorgan Seeks Lehman U.K. Lawyer Testimony in $8.6 Billion Suit

May 28 (Bloomberg) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co., which is fighting an $8.6 billion lawsuit by defunct Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., told a judge it needs judicial assistance to seek testimony from David Swanson, a lawyer at Lehman’s U.K. affiliate.

JPMorgan, accused of speeding Lehman’s 2008 bankruptcy by demanding too much collateral for loans, said Swanson’s evidence is necessary to show that Lehman in fact defrauded its bank into lending $5 billion against risky securities known as Racers.

At the time, the former investment bank’s own German affiliate wouldn’t accept the securities as collateral, JPMorgan said in a federal court filing in Manhattan on May 24.

The bank’s request to the judge follows a move by Lehman to force Bruno Iksil, a French national known as the “London Whale” trader at JPMorgan, to answer questions. Lehman’s request for international judicial assistance has been received by French authorities, according to a letter filed in court on May 6 by the office that handles such requests.

ii. Lehman Brothers UK Capital Funding LP (ISIN: XS0215349357), Lehman Brothers UK Capital Funding II LP (ISIN: XS0229269856) and Lehman Brothers UK Capital Funding III LP (ISIN: XS0243852562) are funds guaranteed by LBH. Investors of these funds are entitled to submit a claim against LBH for the amount they have invested in each fund. However, the guarantee provided by LBH is subordinated to LBH’s ordinary unsecured creditors and, accordingly, any claim an investor has will be a subordinated claim. Unsecured creditors will have to be paid in full before any distribution can be made to subordinated creditors, thus lowering the likelihood of a dividend being declared to subordinated creditors. The subordinated creditors’ claims will only be adjudicated upon if the Administrators ascertain that a dividend may be payable.

http://www.pwc.co.uk/business-recovery/administrations/lehman/lbh-plc-in-administration.jhtml

Do you expect a different outcome on Credit suisse hearing - 386th Omnibus, than the determined on 379th over UK securities? The only difference seems to be that Credit Suisse is looking for a corporate guarantee...am I right? Too many legal terms to my knowledge. Would it be different to LBSF/LBHI treatment of corporate guarantees in almost all cases?

Lets see if I can follow you..lol Excuse me if I lose the idea on the road..

The docket 33954 about the response of Credit Suisse to the 386th Omnibus Objection seems to be closed with the docket 34457 (order granting) about the treatment to follow with those UK securities and the 379th Omnibus objection (docket 32652). Subordinated guarantee claims are Class 12. A possible wayout.

Docket 36300 refers to the settlement with LBSF."under the Settlement Agreement, LBF will have an allowed claim against LBHI in the amount of approximately $942 million on account of LBHI’s guarantee of certain securities owned by LBF (the “Allowed LPS Claim”). But this is the final outcome of a lot bigger claim:

"the majority of LBF’s claims against LBHI purport to be guarantee claims based upon board resolutions adopted by the Executive Committee of LBHI’s Board of Directors (the “Corporate Resolutions”).LBF asserts that the Corporate Resolutions constitute valid and enforceable guarantees of the obligations of certain other Lehman affiliates, and accordingly, LBF has asserted billions of dollars in claims based on its transactions with, and asserted claims against, these affiliates."

"LBHI has questioned the enforceability of the Corporate Resolutions, and has also disputed the validity of any claims based upon the Corporate Resolutions because applicable law generally requires the purported beneficiary of a guarantee to demonstrate both knowledge of, and reliance upon, a guarantee, and LBHI has not been satisfied that LBF can demonstrate either."

So, I change the angle of my question. It is clear that only this "Allowed LPS claim" did survive the scrutiny of LBHI, after years of negotiations, under the "guarantee resolution".

The original claim was 52.3B (Background: 17. Based on its claims against other Lehman affiliates, LBF has also asserted a claim against LBHI that purports to be a guarantee claim based upon the Corporate Resolutions (the “LBF Corp-Res Claim”). The LBF Corp-Res Claim was initially asserted in the amount of approximately $52.3 billion; LBF subsequently amended its claims against LBHI and as part of these amendments, reduced the LBF Corp-Res Claim to approximately $12.7 billion. Together with other claims, LBF now asserts a total of approximately $15.4 billion in claims against LBHI.·"

..Then, What has this "allowed LPS claim" got that survived? Has the CTs guarantee the same condition? Well, I believe we don´t know. The Corporate guarantee seems to be not enough to determine a similar treatment.

I read it, and I understand your point, my question is related about why similar (?) guarantees, those of UK notes and these of CGR, have different treatment, one being to OBS and the other to Class 5. It seems that those guarantees were not similar, so which one match with CTs guarantees? Im just trying to understand possible scenarios under your DD.Thanks!

Id like to share your optimism. In fact, I add some green perspective in my thoughts reading you about the outcome of this BK. But signals are confusing at all.

I read clear paragraphs about post satisfaction in full distributions. Only interest to seniors are enough to leave all of us out of the field. Not to mention those mud comments about classes 3 and 7 or the lack of excess proceeds. I see, like you, that the 53B mark is there so far, but it could change with a docket next week. About the guarantee, I dont see how it can be on parity with UK notes, so, with a possible inclusion in OBS,and at the same time, being paid because of its parity with these CGR allowed claim...What priority has this allowed cliam? enough to be paid?

From POR

(f) The LBSF Settlement Amount shall be automatically distributed to holders of Allowed Claims in LBSF Class 4A until such Allowed Claims are satisfied in full in accordance with Section 5.21(b) of the Plan. In the event holders of Allowed Claims in LBSF Class 4A are satisfied in full, Distributions, if any, shall continue to be made on account of such Claims as if they had not been satisfied in full, provided that such Distributions shall be made to LBSF Class 5A.

I see your point now. Thanks.

Hi Autotel, I can be wrong but my reading is absolutely different:

"in the case of LBHI, LBHI Class 9A or, in the case of LBSF, LBSF Class 4B, in proportion to, and only to the extent of, its Plan Adjustment contribution."

I read Class 4B and Class 9A are limited to the Plan Adjustment contribution.

Class 3 and 7 are not limited.imo

There are similar clauses on LBSF and LCPI

Cotton, I see you are online, What is your reading about interests and post "satisfaction in full" distributions? thanks again.

First, I admit Im learning every day about this BK. In many subjects, there is people here with better knowledge that will give you a more accurate feedback.

I said before Im negative about CTs, because of I think it is a Chapter 11 POR, but I believe there is a liquidation under way. Dividends, imo, will be reallocated. The guarantee seems strong enough to survive a discharge, and the most convincing argument was posted by Cotton, with a potential parity with preferreds. But it is only my opinion.

Im more worried now about the post Satisfaction in full life of creditors. I read that remaining money could be going to creditors on interests or even post satisfaction distribution. It would be devastating for all of us. I hope to be wrong like I was a lot of times.