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.

An interesting article about Postpetition interests:

http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/bdj/24/24.2/Shelley_Noh.pdf

After satisfaction in full under the POR, I read that money will keep flowing to creditors till the end....

POR, page 68

(a) Each holder of an Allowed Claim in an LBHI Class 3 or LBHI Class 7 shall be entitled to receive its Pro Rata Share of the Plan Adjustment until such Allowed Claims are satisfied in full in accordance with Sections 4.3(b) and 4.9(b) of the Plan, as applicable. In the event that holders of Allowed Claims in LBHI Class 3 or LBHI Class 7 are satisfied in full, Distributions (including the Plan Adjustment), 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 each Participating Debtor for the exclusive benefit of holders of Allowed Claims in such Participating Debtor’s Contributing Classes and, 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 agree with you. Money is flooding from everywhere really fast. Almost 5B last week!

(3) if payment cannot be made, declare bankruptcy, which would allow the TRUPS holders the right to liquidate the holding company’s assets, including the subsidiary bank, in a bankruptcy proceeding and use the proceeds from the liquidation to satisfy the payment of the debt.

This reference is closely related with the famous "Excess proceeds" on exhibit 10. The same paragraph that says- disturbing expression- no satisfaction in full, no excess proceeds. Is there or not excess proceeds? Why the POR says there won´t be satisfaction in full?. It was discussed a lot of times, I remember some good explanation from toogood about the subject.

"Lehman is likely to try to sell the rest once a new 60-day lock-up period expires, assuming market conditions are supportive."

The priority tax claim of IRS- 2.2B - reflected as restricted cash in MORs and BS was already solved.

From BS

The IRS filed a Proof of Claim on December 22, 2010 in the amount of approximately $2.2 billion against the Company with respect to the consolidated federal income tax returns LBHI filed on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries in the 2001 through 2007 tax years. The IRS’s claim reflects the maximum claim amount for numerous disputed federal tax issues that the Company has since resolved or plans to continue to attempt to resolve through the administrative dispute resolution process and litigation, if necessary. In March 2012, and again in October 2012, the Bankruptcy Court approved an interim settlement of certain audit issues raised by the IRS during the course of its audit of the LBHI consolidated group’s pre-petition taxable years. Following the October 2012 settlement, only two federal tax issues with respect to pre-petition tax years remain unresolved: (i) stock loan (currently in litigation) and (ii) a withholding tax issue. The IRS’s claim does not reflect the five-year carryback of LBHI’s consolidated net operating loss from 2008. The IRS has commenced an audit of the 2008-2010 consolidated federal income tax returns of the LBHI group, including the amount of the 2008 net operating loss. Further, the LBHI consolidated group is due a refund of several hundred million dollars from the IRS for the tax years 1997 through 2000 and 2006. The IRS’s $2.2 billion claim takes into account a reduction of the IRS’s claim for the 2006 tax year refund, but it has not been reduced by the refund for the tax years 1997 through 2000 (which is approximately $126 million plus interest) owed to LBHI because the IRS has not indicated which tax claims it intends to offset against this portion of the refund.

Details are available in Docket 31113, with approval in Docket 31313

LBHI’s ultimate tax liability for the 2001 through 2007 tax years cannot be calculated with precision at this time as: i) such liability will be reduced by other tax attributes, including LBHI’s election to carry back its 2008 net operating loss five years;4 ii) one unresolved issue is currently in litigation;5 and, iii) the ongoing Non-Income Tax Audit has not yet been resolved.6

4 The IRS is currently auditing LBHI’s 2008 through 2010 consolidated income tax returns, which include the 2008 net operating loss that LBHI has elected to carry back five years.

5,800 Acres of Kau Land Up For Auction
A foreclosure auction for more than 5,800 acres of Kau land is scheduled to be held at noon on May 21, 2013 at the First Circuit Court Building in Honolulu. The land includes pastures, coffee farms, coastal land, as well as several homes and lots. The county appraised the value at $13.6 million and the remaining mortgage is $59.7 million. There is no upset price on the property.
How did such a large amount of land end up in foreclosure? Well, it all started in 2006. Alan Worden led a resort development group which included Windwalker Hawaii and WWK Hawaii Holdings to purchase the Kau land. They had planned to subdivide the land into 20 acre lots, build infrastructure such as roads, and acquire permits to construct high-end homes on farm land. In order to develop the land Windwalker Hawaii borrowed $44.7 million from Lehman Brothers Holdings against the property.
In 2008 Lehman Brothers filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (the largest bankruptcy in US history) and stopped funding the loan. Without the required monies Worden and his development group were unable to continue developing the project or even pay many contractors who had already done a fair amount of work for them.

5,800 acres of Kau land for auction, Photo by The Kau Calendar
Worden’s group filed a motion with the US Bankruptcy Court in New York asking permission to seek an alternative form of funding. The motion stated, “Lehman’s failure to fund the project’s operating costs has thus severely disrupted the project’s ability to obtain necessary permits and has been so devastating that the Hawaii borrowers’ damages may exceed the amount borrowed.”
After six years of struggling the project has finally come to a halt and the Kau land will be auctioned off. Chris Manfredi of Windwalker Hawaii said, “I was here before Lehman, and I will be here after… The community has treated me as `ohana, and I will continue to do all I can to continue to advance our community through agriculture.”

Lehman Brothers wins Ka’u land auction
Lehman Brothers was the top bidder earlier this week in the auction of 5,800 acres of land in Ka‘u that went into foreclosure.

The investment bank bid about $12.25 million during auction Tuesday in Honolulu, said George Van Buren, the case’s commissioner.

Court documents list WWK Hawaii Holdings as the major owner of the land, split up at three locations defined as Waikapuna, Honuapo and Moaula.

The owner had previously planned to use a $105 million loan with Lehman Brothers to build high-end homes on large lots, but that deal was shelved when the bank went into bankruptcy in 2008, Pacific Business News reported last month.

Lehman Brothers attorney David Paulson couldn’t’ be immediate reached for comment on what the company plans to do with the property.

The land is assessed at $13.59 million.

The remaining mortgage on the properties is $59.7 million.

Competing bidders will have one more chance to come out on top.

http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/local-news/lehman-brothers-wins-ka%E2%80%99u-land-auction.html

Because it has a mortgage of 59M owned by Lehman. You can´t deduct they will be on business because of they paid 13MM in a property. They bought a big stake on Archstone, and everybody, including me, were thinking in a REIT company. We know now how that chapter ended. Every branch, commercial bank, real state, derivatives, even some claims, are being liquidated. Maybe it will end when they pay the remaining of POR, but I see last auction of claims unnecessary for this target.

Lehman Brothers wins Ka’u land auction
12:05 am - May 24, 2013 — Updated: 12:07 am - May 24, 2013

Lehman Brothers was the top bidder earlier this week in the auction of 5,800 acres of land in Ka‘u that went into foreclosure.

The investment bank bid about $12.25 million during auction Tuesday in Honolulu, said George Van Buren, the case’s commissioner.

Court documents list WWK Hawaii Holdings as the major owner of the land, split up at three locations defined as Waikapuna, Honuapo and Moaula.

The owner had previously planned to use a $105 million loan with Lehman Brothers to build high-end homes on large lots, but that deal was shelved when the bank went into bankruptcy in 2008, Pacific Business News reported last month.

Lehman Brothers attorney David Paulson couldn’t’ be immediate reached for comment on what the company plans to do with the property.

The land is assessed at $13.59 million.

The remaining mortgage on the properties is $59.7 million.

Competing bidders will have one more chance to come out on top.

George Van Buren, the case’s commissioner, said next a hearing will be held to finalize the bid, at which time other offers can be made.

The hearing must be held at least 18 days after a motion is filed, he said.

A motion will likely be made in the next few weeks, Van Buren said.

http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/sections/news/local-news/lehman-brothers-wins-ka%E2%80%99u-land-auction.html

I don´t follow you..I expect 4B on equities -10% discount, but the offering has a discount of -1%. 10B coming from LBI/SIPA...on post 24123.

Lehman Selling Part of Equity Residential, AvalonBay Stakes (1)

“Our guess is that Lehman thinks it is selling enough to relieve the burden of the overhang, while providing it a still sizable opportunity to sell the rest at a higher level,” Anderson wrote. “We believe Lehman may be committed to holding the remaining shares for an extended period.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-22/lehman-to-sell-portion-of-equity-residential-avalonbay-stakes

80% owned by Lehman.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-22/blackstone-prologis-said-to-buy-portfolio-of-warehouses.html

I was wrong, there are other objections filed against 130th and 312th omnib. docket 30253/30123

Im tracking his objections. He was the only attorney objecting RSUs treatment..

Who knows..maybe, maybe not.

Mr. Schager just disappeared. lol (docket 37189)

The bottom line is the money that will be available

10B pending from LBI, unsecured claims, a recovery rate with a floor on 45% level.Imo, close to a 80%. The trustee has a reserve related with Barclays, a pending litigation. It is no including 2B on customer claims.

2B on last auction of low priority unsecured claims.

5B on restricted cash, some of it being released after last agreement with LBI and LBF. Im trying to find the docket related with the reserves of cash, but I think it is close to a 25% of the claim.

1B on a pending claim with Intel.

Unsecured claims with LBF- derivative contracts. The source of 1B/month coming to LBHI.

Some real state pending. A tower with a price close to 1.5B.

4B on shares, with a potential discount abt. 10%?

2B on priority tax claim reserve with IRS. It doesn´t involve NOLs recovery, but I don´t know how the priority works on this case.

Pending litigation with JPM-

4B

It will be interesting to read the next MOR. 1.8B this morning and maybe 2B now coming from this offering , Lehman probably closed the 9B pending of POR with some restricted cash released after the last agreements and some money coming from subsidiaries. Will be June The month?

Nellaform, Hi. I rememeber your comments about present value of payments under POR. This link could be of your interest.

http://www.srr.com/article/cramdown-interest-rates-under-chapter-11-valuation-expert%E2%80%99s-perspective

LBI is plenty of liquid assets. Total assets are close to 25B.

"If approved, the Settlement Agreement will result in, inter alia, allowed net equity customer claims for the LBHI Entities in the aggregate amount of $2,320,056,346.00 as of the LBI Filing Date; an allowed priority unsecured claim for LBHI in the amount of $240,000,000.00; allowed non-priority general unsecured creditor claims for the LBHI Entities in the aggregate amount of $13,983,800,000.00, comprised of allowed nonpriority general unsecured creditor claims for the LBHI Entities of $12,483,000,000.00 and an allowed non-priority general unsecured creditor claim in the amount of $1,500,000,000.00 in satisfaction of all claims for which LBHI is subrogated to a claim of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. or any of its affiliates (“JPM”) against LBI; and allowed subordinated claims for the LBHI Entities in the aggregate amount of $14,188,924,097.00."

"The holding company said in a statement it had sold low-priority general unsecured claims"

LBI has a lot of liquid assets.

http://dm.epiq11.com/LBI/Project

http://www.pwc.co.uk/business-recovery/administrations/lehman/seventh-annoucement-in-respect-of-the-settlement-of-the-omnibus-claim-14052013.jhtml

More than 10B pending, hopefully with a better recovery. Is there any doubt it is a liquidation?. They sold this package really fast.

Lehman, five years later May 17, 2013 at 9:06 am


http://jsandber.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/cftc-rulings/

http://blog.rivast.com/?p=7204

I agree with you, first is POR, specially to know the fate of CTs. But the scenario is very different with a liquidation on years, even with a prompt discharge or a new company emerging from ashes. What is better for us? it is not so clear. Maybe a discharge and some dividends meanwhile remaining assets are liquidated and they settle claims, that could take 3 to 5 years more.

With 10/15B surviving, the 2d grade math is the same: liquidate, pay CTs, preferreds and something to RSUs..

I think Lehman doesn´t match with this case, but It deserves the reading:


Reorganization plan qualifies for bankruptcy exception to NOL limitation rules

Morrison & Foerster LLP
Thomas A. Humphreys, Anna T. Pinedo, Stephen L. Feldman, Remmelt A. Reigersman, David J. Goett and David N. de Ruig

April 30 2013

USA

In another recent private letter ruling,19 the IRS ruled that an ownership change pursuant to a bankruptcy reorganization plan qualified for an exception to the general rule limiting net operating loss ("NOL") carryforwards under Section 382(a).

The transaction at issue concerned a reorganization of a holding company, the common parent of an affiliated group of corporations that filed a consolidated federal income tax return. As part of the reorganization, the parent holding company’s creditors became equity owners — an ownership change under Section 382 of the Code. The parent’s principal operating subsidiary, which did not declare bankruptcy, carried on a business in a regulated industry.

However, to preserve the parent corporation’s net operating losses, the bankruptcy court approved a stock and claims trading order that provided for various requirements designed to allow the parent corporation’s plan of reorganization to fall within the scope of Section 382(l) (5), the so-called “bankruptcy exception” to the NOL loss limitation rules set forth in Section 382(a).

Typical of reorganizations designed to maintain NOLs, the trading order contained the following provisions: 1) requirement that substantial equity holders provide notice of their ownership percentage to the parent company; 2) requirement that substantial equity holders notify the bankruptcy court of any transaction that would increase or decrease their ownership of the parent; 3) right of the parent company to file a reporting notice with the bankruptcy court, requiring any claimholder to report its holdings; and, 4) option by the parent company to file a request for a “sell-down” order with the bankruptcy court, authorizing the parent company to require claimholders to sell down a certain percentage of their claims (ostensibly to meet the 5% stock ownership cutoff under Section 382).

After reviewing the salient features of the parent company’s trading order and plan of reorganization, the IRS determined that the change in ownership resulting from the bankruptcy reorganization, although an ownership change for purposes of Section 382(a), would nonetheless qualify for the bankruptcy exception under Section 382(l) (5). As a result, the parent company’s NOLs would not be subject to an NOL loss limitation upon exit from bankruptcy.

The IRS also ruled that because the parent’s operating subsidiary maintained its operations throughout the bankruptcy, the subsidiary’s activities qualified as a significant active trade or business of the parent group for purposes of Treasury Regulation Section 1.269-3(d), which provides that in the absence of a significant active trade or business during and subsequent to the bankruptcy, the IRS is authorized to disallow the benefits (i.e., NOL preservation) afforded by Section 382(l)(5).

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f71556d7-32f2-4165-9541-6a2e01349637

Entry of a final decree closing a chapter 11 case should not be delayed solely because the payments required by the plan have not been completed. Factors that the court should consider in determining whether the estate has been fully administered include (1) whether the order confirming the plan has become final, (2) whether deposits required by the plan have been distributed, (3) whether the property proposed by the plan to be transferred has been transferred, (4) whether the debtor or the successor of the debtor under the plan has assumed the business or the management of the property dealt with by the plan, (5) whether payments under the plan have commenced, and (6) whether all motions, contested matters, and adversary proceedings have been finally resolved.

We won´t see a Final Decree in the short term, even with a satisfaction in full of allowed claims. Discharge and liquidation of residual assets?

Maybe

11 USC § 1328 - Discharge

(a) Subject to subsection (d), as soon as practicable after completion by the debtor of all payments under the plan, and in the case of a debtor who is required by a judicial or administrative order, or by statute, to pay a domestic support obligation, after such debtor certifies that all amounts payable under such order or such statute that are due on or before the date of the certification (including amounts due before the petition was filed, but only to the extent provided for by the plan) have been paid, unless the court approves a written waiver of discharge executed by the debtor after the order for relief under this chapter, the court shall grant the debtor a discharge of all debts provided for by the plan or disallowed under section 502 of this title, except any debt—
(1) provided for under section 1322 (b)(5);
(2) of the kind specified in section 507 (a)(8)(C) or in paragraph (1)(B), (1)(C), (2), (3), (4), (5), (8), or (9) of section 523 (a);
(3) for restitution, or a criminal fine, included in a sentence on the debtor’s conviction of a crime; or
(4) for restitution, or damages, awarded in a civil action against the debtor as a result of willful or malicious injury by the debtor that caused personal injury to an individual or the death of an individual.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/1328

The delay on discharge of the claims is only possible if it is a liquidation process:

Effect of confirmation,

(2) A discharge under this chapter does not discharge a debtor who is an individual from any debt excepted from discharge under section 523 of this title.
(3) The confirmation of a plan does not discharge a debtor if—
(A) the plan provides for the liquidation of all or substantially all of the property of the estate;
(B) the debtor does not engage in business after consummation of the plan; and
(C) the debtor would be denied a discharge under section 727 (a) of this title if the case were a case under chapter 7 of this title.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/1141

http://www.jacksonbankruptcyattorney.net/completion-of-a-chapter-11-bankruptcy.php

Liquidation or not, my point is the final decree and BK close could be delayed a long time after satisfaction in full of creditors under POR. In fact, there are pending issues: US Trustee should be discharged first? and some pending claims. It seems we are going in that way, with JPM trial still pending and satisfaction in full around the corner. So..

"The question is.... can/will the CTs/preferreds/commons still get paid under this scenario?" I believe yes, even in a liquidation process, I cant find a link suggesting that after POR satisfaction in full, the reallocation persists until the final decree, that could take years.

Imo, it is not the core claim of JPM against LBHI. It is an allowed General unsecured claim against LBI and transferred to LBHI under SIPA agreement and the Collateral Disposition Agreement with JPMorgan (CDA)signed in 2010, "related to, but not limited to, clearance exposures and derivative exposures pending resolution of these items."

Experienced Jackson Bankruptcy Attorney

The Chapter 11 Discharge and Final Decree
Chapter 11 debtors are subject to a lot of oversight while their reorganization plan is being negotiated. The business is not free to make its own decisions or to control its own operations because it owes a fiduciary duty to its creditors that must be protected by the Bankruptcy Court. Thus, certain business decisions including obtaining more debt are overseen by the Bankruptcy Court.
In many cases that oversight continues until a final decree is issued in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. A final decree is different than a bankruptcy discharge and the Chapter 11 discharge is different than a discharge in other areas of bankruptcy. Therefore, it is important for Chapter 11 debtors to understand the difference between the discharge and the final decree.
Discharge: Confirmation of the Reorganization Plan
In most cases, a Chapter 11 discharge occurs when the reorganization plan is confirmed. All of the debts that arose prior to the date the reorganization plan was confirmed are considered discharged and the debtor is obligated by the new terms of the reorganization plan.
There are a few exceptions to this general rule concerning Chapter 11 discharges. For example, the previous debts will not be discharged if: (1) The debtor is an individual and has not yet made all of the payments required by the reorganization plan; (2) The debtor is an individual and the debts are non-dischargeable debts (such as student loans or priority debts such as taxes, spousal support or child support); or (3) The debtor is a business and the Chapter 11 plan is a liquidation plan, rather than a straight reorganization plan. In this case a discharge will not occur until the liquidation has occurred and the proceeds have been distributed among the creditors according to the terms of the plan.
Final Decree: Completion of the Bankruptcy Case
The final decree well after a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case has been discharged. A final decree occurs once all of the elements of the bankruptcy reorganization plan have been implemented and completed. There is no set time frame for this and it often depends on the size of the business and the terms of the reorganization plan. In some cases, a final decree can occur months after a Chapter 11 discharge and in other cases it takes years to get the final decree.
Once there is a final Chapter 11 decree, the debtor is once again free to make autonomous business decisions and all obligations to debtors included in the reorganization plan are complete.
Both the bankruptcy discharge and final decree mark are important events in a Chapter 11 case. Yet, they impact a Chapter 11 debtor and creditors differently. It is, therefore, important for all parties to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy to understand how the terms apply to their specific case even before a bankruptcy petition is filed. An early and accurate understanding of the different milestone and potential completion of a Chapter 11 case can help you make an educated decision about whether or not to file for Chapter 11 protection.

We know that discharge takes effect in the commencement day, and it was only delayed with taxes purposes. About the final decree:

RULE 3022. FINAL DECREE IN CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION CASE

After an estate is fully administered in a chapter 11 reorganization case, the court, on its own motion or on motion of a party in interest, shall enter a final decree closing the case.

Notes

(As amended Mar. 30, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 30, 1991, eff. Aug. 1, 1991.)

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1983

Section 350 of the Code requires the court to close the case after the estate is fully administered and the trustee has been discharged. Section 1143 places a five year limitation on the surrender of securities when required for participation under a plan but this provision should not delay entry of the final decree.

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1991 Amendment

Entry of a final decree closing a chapter 11 case should not be delayed solely because the payments required by the plan have not been completed. Factors that the court should consider in determining whether the estate has been fully administered include (1) whether the order confirming the plan has become final, (2) whether deposits required by the plan have been distributed, (3) whether the property proposed by the plan to be transferred has been transferred, (4) whether the debtor or the successor of the debtor under the plan has assumed the business or the management of the property dealt with by the plan, (5) whether payments under the plan have commenced, and (6) whether all motions, contested matters, and adversary proceedings have been finally resolved.

The court should not keep the case open only because of the possibility that the court's jurisdiction may be invoked in the future. A final decree closing the case after the estate is fully administered does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to enforce or interpret its own orders and does not prevent the court from reopening the case for cause pursuant to §350(b) of the Code. For example, on motion of a party in interest, the court may reopen the case to revoke an order of confirmation procured by fraud under §1144 of the Code. If the plan or confirmation order provides that the case shall remain open until a certain date or event because of the likelihood that the court's jurisdiction may be required for specific purposes prior thereto, the case should remain open until that date or event.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/rule_3022

Well, I did ask the same question and LD gave me his point of view: no chance of some recovery without discharge. I asked for a possible scenario of satisfaction in full and a delay of discharge to take advantage of NOLs, specially if Lehman is in a liquidation process instead of a reorganization. But it seems that priority still would apply without a discharge. IMO, it is a liquidation.

Hi Wayne. I believe it is good, If Im right about this claim was a priority claim with reserve cash restricted for 2B. I copied the paragraph in BS related with that money. But Im not 100% sure, because of it seems there are other pending claims involving Citi. I suppose we will see it on Next MOR. It will be interesting its reading, with a better picture about free cash after last distribution, CDA agreement with LBI involving JPM, Citi and other issues.

Ups, it seems that litigation with Citigroup is not close.

Citigroup Inc. can be granted a $1.2 billion claim against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s defunct brokerage and will pay an affiliate of the Lehman parent $167 million to settle a dispute over amounts owed on foreign- exchange transactions, a judge ruled.

The disputes arose from Citigroup’s role in clearing and settling foreign exchange transactions for Lehman and its affiliates before and during the week of Lehman’s September 2008 bankruptcy.

Larger sums than those settled remain in dispute, the parties said in the document, published in an order signed Tuesday in federal court in Manhattan.

Overseen by a new board since its emergence from bankruptcy in March 2012, Lehman is resolving disputes and cutting claims to continue paying approved creditors. The brokerage, being separately liquidated, is planning its first payment to its former clients.

The dispute with Citigroup is Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. Citibank N.A, 12-0l044, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/FinanceNews/Citigroup-Lehman-Settle-Trades/2013/05/15/id/504601#ixzz2TTBwosnh
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

I was reading some dockets about Citigroup´s litigation and recorded reserved against the cash deposited. I believe now this agreement releases almost 1B from restricted cash. Without considering the disputed unsecured claims, I read that almost 3.5B could be released from restricted cash:

Cash pledged to JPM (CDA) 316B, with recent LBI/LBHI agreement involving CDA.
Priority Tax claim - IRS, 2.2B ( NOLs are not included in the claim)
Citigroup, almost 1B (2B-(1.2B-167M))from recent agreement.



Cotton, what do you think? thanks

Im not sure about it is good news or not. It seems related with the 2B line on restricted cash summary. In last MOR:

(5) Represents cash deposited on or prior to September 15, 2008 by the Company in connection with certain requests and/or documents executed by the Company and Citibank N.A. of approximately $2 billion and HSBC Bank PLC of $30 million, including interest earned thereon. The Company is in discussion with HSBC Bank and commenced litigation against Citigroup regarding these deposits.

Citigroup and Lehman Settle Dispute Over Currency Trades

Citigroup Inc. (C) can be granted a $1.2 billion claim against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s defunct brokerage and will pay an affiliate of the Lehman parent $167 million to settle a dispute over amounts owed on foreign-exchange transactions, a judge ruled.
The disputes arose from Citigroup’s role in clearing and settling foreign exchange transactions for Lehman and its affiliates before and during the week of Lehman’s September 2008 bankruptcy. Larger sums than those settled remain in dispute, the parties said in the document, published in an order signed yesterday in federal court in Manhattan.
Enlarge image
The disputes arose from Citigroup Inc.’s role in clearing and settling foreign exchange transactions for Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliates before and during the week of Lehman’s September 2008 bankruptcy. Photographer: Scott Eells/Bloomberg
Overseen by a new board since its emergence from bankruptcy in March 2012, Lehman is resolving disputes and cutting claims to continue paying approved creditors. The brokerage, being separately liquidated, is planning its first payment to its former clients.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/citigroup-and-lehman-settle-dispute-over-currency-trades-1-.html