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.
Swiss, The difference between the ECAPs and LBIE bonds is more that semantics. They have different risk profiles. Just like LBHI senior bonds and the CTs. ECAPs were never mentioned in any of the posts you link. And the one you imply that you did that you said was deleted I quote you >>"didnt put in the hard work to buy LBIE debt when you knew it would reach a 100% recovery." <<
You wrote in one post >>"how come you didnt try buying lbi and LBIE debt?" <<
The whole discussion was about LBIE and LBI bonds. ECAPs was never mentioned.
You said I said "“it was obvious from the very start that ECAPS would see a recovery”
I said I don't think I ever said that about the ECAPs. Then you post several examples with no mention of ECAPs to prove I am wrong. Fine. What makes you think I care if you think I am wrong? Think that if you want.
Weird.
Note that none of these posts reference ECAPS. You must have remembered me posting about LBIE and LBI, and not ECAPs.
Swiss, I don't recall saying that. You have that in quotes. Can you post the link to when I said that?
Best I recall is once the European courts ruled that the LBHI bk and LBIE BK would remain separate I never looked at anything LBIE until cotton started talking about the ECAPs. I don't know how I would said it was obvious that they would receive a recovery.
I could be wrong. You have a quote. Post a link and prove me wrong.
In that example there is not one time that I ASKED someone to sell. I don't know if English is your second language, but if I ASKED someone to sell it would be said like this; "Jersey, would you please sell your shares." that is asking. On the other hand, I said "and if you do own, sell." That is more of a demand or tell someone to sell. Words mean things.
Before you call someone a conman, you should at least have some basis for saying that. I simply disagree with you about the prospects for the CTs. I have always said sell since I last sold back in 2012. I think I may have had something like 400 shares in another account that I don't watch and may have sold those in like 2015 or so when I noticed I still had some. There is not one time that I have suggested buying after 2012.
SA, I wasn't asking people to sell. I was telling people they should sell. I have no idea what you mean by "then buying on other.."
What other? If I knew how to buy ECAPs and they were cheap, I might take a look. And if there was an opportunity to sell CTs and buy ECAPs I might have suggested that. That said, the CTs should have been sold when you had a chance. They are worthless with NO possibility of seeing any recovery.
Like LBHI, I traded the WAMU preferreds years ago. At some point I backed away thinking the easy money had been made. I have not looked at in years. As I recall when I looked at it last I thought it was over. Could be wrong.
I have traded COPP and have a small position currently.
>>why are you keeping track if you don't have any?<<
Good question. You never get too old to learn. The Lehman BK has so much going on in so many aspects that I have an interest in following along. It would be a guy like me that would write a book on the Lehman BK. No financial interest, but a huge fan in watching the twist and turns of the largest bankruptcy in history. Right now I am especially interested in what LBIE does with the surplus and how it relates to the ECAPs.
Anyway, I will follow along to the end just because it interest me. Some follow sports teams. I like following public companies and special situations like Lehman.
I know the GM BK well. On the GM BK the creditors got about 10 cents on the dollar. The government really screwed them! They gave what should have gone to the creditors, equity in the newco to the UAW. I don't recall if there was any preferreds other than exchanged traded debt.
I did okay on the bonds. I bought at about 5 cents on the dollar. But, I expected much more and never expected the government to gift shares to the UAW over the creditors.
LBIE is still in administration (UK term for bankruptcy.) Still in administration as they clear up some pending claims. All the creditors have been paid in full (not satisfied in full). When ALL claims are cleared the company will be turned back over to the directors. Since no longer in BK it is technically a "going concern." That does not mean that they are back to business as usual. They have no ongoing business like LBHI. They will probably continue to wind down the remaining assets and distribute to shareholders. I seriously doubt that the directors will now try to raise capital to again become an investment bank.
This will not impact the CTs in anyway. Any funds derived from LBIE for LBHI will be distributed to more senior creditors.
https://www.pwc.co.uk/business-recovery/administrations/lehman/lbie_25th_progress_report_13_apr_2021.pdf
BTW, the next report for LBIE is due out any day.
Cotton, Nobody misconstrues the meaning of these filings better than you do. You can't pick and choose excerpts without context to get the full meaning. The first excerpt is for final distributions to creditors. The second for a qualified distribution to LBHI shareholders. I say "qualified" because you should have highlighted this statement included.
Swiss,
The Maverick situation has nothing in common with the CTs.
Those here see the word guarantee and they think surely the Cts guarantee entitles the CTs to a recovery. That is not the situation. Maverick basically had a brokerage custodial account with LBIE and LBHI by guarantee. They was a customer, not a creditor. This is a good link to read about Maverick and LBIE/LBHI.
Just more nonsense from Cotton who has been wrong about LBHI on every turn. Like JPM said in court, Cotton has misconstrued the facts.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5bc07c5a98a6200cfc3495bf
If that is what you want to believe but it does not provide any proof. The link is about a shareholder who owns debt from the company he is a shareholder of.
You throw out copy and paste that have no relationship with the Lehman situation. Lehman is to be totally liquidated per court order. There was no small print in that order that said, "well not everything!"
You speak of share/equity capital. What equity? There is none.
Why do you think that with an exception of the posters here, that no one with any credibility that has the bucks would pay almost nothing for shares? I am not the outlier here. You guys are. You are now the bagholders. And in denial as well.
If after reading this you are thinking what I thinking you are thinking, you are wrong.
" provides that a capital contribution by a shareholder of the corporation’s own debt "
"by a shareholder..." That doesn't apply to Lehman. What shareholder?
That is an opinion so there is no link. I don't understand however why that if Lehman holds a claim against their own estate that receives no distributions, why you all see it as something of value. In my opinion it is purely a technicality that those shares have not been effectively cancelled.
Thanks for the link.
Although I know we will disagree with what that means as to them holding claims against themselves.
>>the claims are not cancelled but they are excluded from distribution <<
If that is the case then they are effectively cancelled if they don't have rights to distributions. They are claims in name only, and more than likely waiting till the end to be cancelled.
If the claims do not receive distributions then they are worthless. You say "equity/capital/stock". In what? The company is basically no longer and everything will be gone. equity/capital/stock in nothing, is still nothing.
Link please for the 8K. I read the motion?order for the voluntary final distribution. Found no such language.
SWISS, If you would be so kind to provide a link to the 8k for which you reference and the quote is taken from. I know they hold claims against LBIE, or at least they did. Did not know that they would show claims against themselves. To me that makes no sense. But, I could be wrong. Link please.
>>So, Distribution 23 is the FINAL Distribution (please see the Docket which contains that verbiage) to all the Creditors with 'Eligible' claims (ie the guys who have been receiving Distributions on their claims till now)<<
It does not say this will be a final distribution to all those with eligible claims. It says that this will be a final distribution for all those that volunteer to agree to take a final distribution.
2good, That motion from 2010 says that the NOLs will be saved. But alos saved for the benefit of the estate. Here some 11 years later now the NOLs are expected to all be used. In 2010, which was before the POR, little was known about the ability of the estate to settle how much of their debt. Now we see they will fall well short and all the NOLs will be used.
>> they will be the holder of allowed claims against itself more than the $31 billion it is currently at.<<
When LBHI buys back claims the claims are cancelled. That is a fact.
You can't have claims against itself.
But let's say in your bizarro they were not cancelled.
If the claims were in fact still valid LBHI would receive distributions. Those distributions would go in to the LBHI estate. They would be used for distributions to creditors. This would be circular and distributions to LBHI would eventually all be redistributed.
BUt the fact is that LBHI holds no claims against LBHI.
>> 'left out' the Fact that the Creditors are doing a Sell-Back <<
The creditors are not taking a "sell-back." They are taking an early and final distribution that allows them to end there involvement in this BK. LBHI is simply paying forward estimated final distributions. There is no sell-back. LBHI states this;
Here is what Lehman just wrote in their quarterly report. I don't see how anyone can read this and still think the NOLs will not be used by the discharge of debt.
These shares now only trade in the "expert market."
https://blog.otcmarkets.com/2021/03/25/understanding-the-expert-market/
No Swiss, it is not a reorganization. Plan of reorganization (POR) is a generic term used for all plans to exit bankruptcy. Even the judge has used the term. Lehman's POR has zero mention of reorganization. The plan is all about liquidation. The plan must include a plan to reorganize if reorganization is the objective. It is not with LBHI.
I would suggest you spend more time studying investments instead of looking for quirks in what I may have said 7 years ago. In the context at the time I could say POR. But after posters like yourself got hung up on the term and started saying "so you do think LBHI will reorganize!" I then started to use the term as the plan as identified, the 'modified plan' or liquidation plan. When a POR goes as far as saying that anything left will be don't to a non-profit as the LBHI plan does, how could anyone read that as being some form of reorganization??
BTW, I don't know if I ever have asked that a post of yours be removed. Unless one taunts me with my daughter and granddaughters passing I usually don't mind. Foul language directed at myself or others on public platforms may be another reason. There are others that don't care for such postings if they don't add anything to the discussion. Perhaps that is why they are removed.
GLTA.
Jersey, Half shot is a little light. Probably more like 75%.
Due to covid complications as to timing and the expensive 1.5 year NIMBY lawsuit, the Rockdale Art Farm is making some adjustments. Big announcement coming up on the 23rd of October with a partnership I formed that will change our mission a little. And for the better in my opinion. A change that is getting widespread support. Stay tuned.
Thanks, The Godfather! That steak dinner sounds good!
Joe
No worries. When you are my age you have learned jealousy is an inefficient use of mental capacity. And as Jersey says, mine is diminishing rapidly.
However, I know 100% that the CTs will see zero recovery. There just isn't a pathway for that to happen. Obviously the market agrees.
I do wish everyone good fortune. It just won't come from the CTs. No chance.
No more bids or asks. Good! About time the SEC put a stop to the trading of worthless stocks like these here. It was about 5 years ago I wrote the SEC and recommended that they stop the trading of the CTs as uneducated investors were being led to buy by seeing nonsense being spread at online trading sites.
Well, if no one can now buy my work is done here. I will be checking in from time to time. And when the quarterly balance sheet comes out reflecting the October distribution not showing a $50 bil drop on debt subject to compromise, I will be looking for an acknowledgement from Swiss that yet again he was wrong. And, as well as others when the CTs come to an end and ALL know that they were truly worthless as JoeStocks has said for 10 years now.
I wish you all well!
So why the hypotheticals? Why did you not ask directly about the Lehman bk?
Mr Kahn, As a creditor I own junior subordinated debt in Lehman. The court has ordered total liquidation of Lehman's assets. Those assets will come up about $130 bil short of paying off creditors including me as a creditor.
1. Will Lehman's $50 bil in NOls be expected to be fully utilized as the company has reported due to COD?
2. Do you think there is a chance that the $130 bil shortfall can be exchanged for equity in a liquidated company with no remaining assets?
I agree.
I agree.
I understand your confusion and responding with deflection and obfuscation. Obviously you don't have the experience and maturity to grasp a perspective from a FASB point of view, and I find it foolish to debate with you further.
Bottomline is debt on the balance sheet - debt subject to compromise. Wait for the March/April balance sheet and learn.
I agree. I did not word that properly. Like I said, I was trying to explain that paid in full is different than satisfied in full. Both are settlements but one does not reduce the debt owed per the financial statements debt subject to compromise line as you noted. If these bondholders taking the voluntary final distribution were paid in full you would see a reduction in debt subject to compromise.
Like I said, it will be easy to see who is right in March or so.
>> “paid in satisfaction” it is satisfied In full. <<
Same thing. I was simply trying to show why it is not "PAID in full" and shown as per Lehman "in full and final satisfaction of your claims against LBHI" Paid in full would reduce the debt subject to compromise. Satisfied does not.
>>WOW so LBHI owes $130bil?? if all eligible creditors choose to opt in for their final distribution, the amount owed will be approx $50bil!! <<
Doesn't work that way. The final distribution only reduces the debt subject to compromise by the amount of the distribution. A distribution final or not is not a settlement of debt. It is not paid in full. It is paid to satisfy debt as to the limitations of what the liquidated estate can pay towards that debt.
Paid in full means the creditors as been paid in full. Paid in satisfaction means the creditor as been paid to the extent of the estate and may claim funds still owed as a tax deduction which generates cancellation of debt income to Lehman which offsets any tax assets (NOLs) they may have.
Those taking the voluntary last distribution can now claim losses if they have them. Many don't as the debt was transferred to them, with the original holder taking the loss, and the buyer of the deby more than likely now having a profit.
>> If the guarantee trustee fails to enforce the guarantee trustee's rights under the guarantee, any holder of related preferred securities may directly sue Lehman Brothers Holdings to enforce the guarantee trustee's rights under the guarantee without first suing the trust, the guarantee trustee or any other person or entity.<<
In this court case, the judge may ask you why you did not sue within a timely manner. Within the statues. Obviously the Cts were not getting dividends from 2008. Lehman was not making interest payments to the trust. Don't you think that someone holding the CTs and equally ranked paper would have sued if they had a case.
What has changed since that you feel you have a case now, 13 years later? Lets say, according to you, that LBIE and Neuberfer Berman were paid. They were paid before more senior debtholders than the CTs under LBHI. Why wouldn't the court say THEY were incorrectly paid and two wrongs don't make a right.
You guys are not hearing anything from REX because he/they have no case.
You still haven't posted what you call the CTs covenants.
Post or share a link?
"LBHI's extra cash flow would be more restricted today."
What does that mean "more restricted?"
My bet is that REX and crew are shopping their classaction suit with lawyers and not finding any takers for this worthless lawsuit idea to sue BNYM. The only way it can move ahead is if they file themselves. BNYM did exactly what they were suppose to. The got the CTs a class 10b claim against the estate. Beyond that there is nothing else they can do.
Otherwise known a big bagholder.
2good,
>>Former creditors that now owns the majority of lbhi from the sell back of about 30B new Capital...<<
As I wind down my involvement here as the CTs go dark, I want you to know that I have always thought of you being the most clueless here. Over and over again you have proven that. So out of touch with this liquidation process that I often wondered if it would be possible for anyone to be more out of touch with reality.
JoeStocks