Individual Investor
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.
JBK - "A tender offer has been made this security ending: Friday, February 8, 2019"
We don't know what they want to do or at least I don't.
Let's hope they get it done.
Good luck.
jers,
How many claims sold for how much?
I guess we'll know soon.
We know they took $126B and left many hanging.
GL
Motion for Auction Approved.
Docket #59928 posted 9/11/2019
What more do they want, cotton?
We're way past the 5-year deferral and they've re-allocated to other classes not guaranteed payment ahead of subordinated notes.
I'm not an attorney so that keeps me out of Court and discussions with many on this Board.
I do find you agreeable, however.
mojo
What is there to do?
Fail files stuff everyday.
Other distributions went to parties not guaranteed payment ahead of subordinated debt.
And, politicians wanted to change the CTs after the filing.
mojo
Thanks, JOVI.
It looks like a $260M+ mistake and claw back.
And, we're at 11 years.
Anyone else disgusted?
mojo
jovi,
Update on mid-augustus lbl hearing?
mojo
cotton,
Also, there is this from #59893:
"Judge Chapman found that the statutory interest payments qualified as “other consideration provided on the corresponding Primary Claim” under Section 8.13(a), and, therefore, that the Guarantee Claims were to be “deemed satisfied.” (Hearing Tr. 34). Having resolved the parties’ dispute in this manner, she found it “[un]necessary to debunk or address in detail any . . .
Pg 14 of 30
15
. . . additional arguments made by the parties.” (Id.). For avoidance of doubt, however, Judge Chapman made clear that her interpretation of the Plan was also “consistent with the single satisfaction rule.” (Id.).10"
Doesn't this show our Guaranty is holding up?
What are we waiting for?
mojo
joe,
<<. . . and cancellation of debt recorded, . . .>>
According to toogoodfella post 84534:
"THE INDICATIONS THAT LEHMAN IS COMING BACK IS THAT LEHMAN IS RAISING NEW CAPITAL INVESTMENTS IN ADDITION TO NOL;
1. As a result of the implementation of the Plan (POR) Debtors have sought a ruling from the IRS that no COD income to cancel the NOL.( I’ve been shouting this for ten years). . . "
Do you understand the CTs?
Do you understand the POR?
Do you understand what was filed in Court?
mojo
Judge asked for an order to be submitted by Mr. Fail for the Court and Mr. Wu, Mr. Gregory and the joinders.
They are going to work on it to find out if there is a direction they can go.
We'll see.
mojo
Ok, joe.
As we've said a hundred thousand times on this Board, the Courts needed the CTs to trade for the NOLs.
So, liquidate LBHI and maintain the tax withholding account as a credit.
All remaining interests in profitable subs have to be taken "in-House" if they aren't going to purchase the CTs and OBS; it's like they'll buy the remaining LBHI carcass without the liabilities and leave the taxes Stateside.
They weren't involved with all the political garbage of Aurora and the subprime mess so why should the debtholders underwriting that business be bailed out?
LBHI was restricted from doing their job of foreclosing on real estate assets for their Creditors.
Why should their politicians changing CT covenants and prospectus agreements be paid any tax revenues? They screwed up! They want to go in another direction now. They want to change the rules. So, pay it forward.
So, the US Government provides the subs the incentives to liquidate the LBHI Holding and any jobs and future tax revenues stay overseas.
When done, distribute the proceeds from the account to the CTs first and then the rest of the OBS. Then, charity if anything.
BNYM will distribute as they receive any proceeds and all other proceeds go to Debtors in the wind down.
What happens to everything else will be of no concern to any CT or preferred shareholder. Same with the debtholders past a certain point.
It's not hard to liquidate the Company after all employees were let go and the attorneys operated a fire sale.
I've read the entire Court record a number of times.
The Judge is doing the best she can and, until there is another party that will step up to take it in another direction, this seems to be how they want to resolve it.
So, do it!
They don't need more help. They don't need more time.
It should have been done years ago.
mojo
If the Waterfall is in Europe, let the European Office buy the CTs and OBS.
When that deal is done, they can work on a deal for the other claims subject to compromise.
Judge should push the attorneys for it.
They are holding things up with delays and not keeping with prospectus covenants and losing business.
Dodd Frank and Warren don't want TBTF Financials and the IRS is willing to eat the taxes on it.
So, why keep the Holding Co in the US?
I don't know what remains after they BK a Holding Co and not let it re-capitalize but it doesn't look like US regulators and Trustees are letting it reform.
So, let the equity out! They didn't include us in all their Reindeer Games anyway!
How competent of a system do we have in US Courts that doesn't honor Corporate Guarantees and deferment covenants for Tier 1 Capital while their politicians vote to change regulation on the security class?
Additionally, the Court allowed all the Sub Debt coupons to be re-allocated to other Claim Classes, including some claims that did not have right of repayment over the Sub Debt they've been stealing from.
And, our politicians have made all this mess because they didn't want to do a bailout they ended up doing after Lehman filed as per their request.
They couldn't do it cheaper than they could at this time, unless they did it within the initial 5-year deferment period.
mojo
I know you want people to understand what they own, joe.
They've BK'd the Parent Holding Company and have shown signs of re-capitalizing as toogood suggests. However, they aren't "funneling up" the assets as far as I can see.
But, if they don't, it looks like the Plan will sell everything with a tax withholding account from the NOLs that will be credited to the CTs and OBS.
COD will not happen for Senior Creditors according to the plan. They can make other arrangements as can remaining Sub Debt, maybe equity in a new holding company. They're mostly "Big Boys", sitting at the Discount Window with Fed Rates dropping, some of whom have been working with the Judge's instruction to buy & sell claims all along.
But, the old equity and equity hybrids will be out of the Estate and "paid in full". If they've broken prospectus covenants to address all concerns, they'll pay for restitution.
What this means for any other OBS interests isn't clear: 0% - 100% for common to cumulative preferreds, some with particular capital structure covenants. The Attorneys are on it. When the Indenture Trustee gets something earmarked for the CTs, they'll distribute it.
It looks as though this is what they want to move forward with and start a new holding co with a new charter someplace.
IMO, it depends how it pencils for the Attorneys and others in control of the politics and agenda.
Good luck.
Trump is doing the best he can.
The lawyers are only looking out for their hours and gravy train.
You know it, jersey.
mojo
jersey,
If you want to be pissed at Trump about something, it would be the Tax Reform that cost us about $11B in tax credits as they brought the rate down from 40% to 21%.
Who doesn't have OBS?
But the wuss attorneys didn't get the job done for 9 years and now they want relief! LMFAO!!
I hope the Judge doesn't give it to them without a solid reason.
Even if they get relief, they can have trouble.
A 4th of July parade with tanks at the Capitol?
It will be great. Jets, too!
Happy 4th!
mojo
To me, this is a very technical legal document regarding jurisdiction of all case information researched, studied and argued in the Court.
It seems to be a political document where Administrators, Attorneys and Debtholders want relief for the information they used and stored.
Equity holders were assumed to reject the POR.
So, why wouldn't the POR Architects look to cover their bases with a Relief Motion like this?
I'm not an attorney. This is a BK with some of the best attorneys in the business.
But, I am tired of one-sided, legal diatribes, ignoring the rights of my investment prospectus to address all other concerns of the case, and keep attorneys on the gravy train while I politely ask questions.
mojo
Good!
There was a list of interest and charges to accompany the CT claim filing as part of the contract or guarantee and the Indenture Trustee is working on getting that back to me.
Good luck with the letter.
mojo
jersey,
I think he took his best shot.
The reason I didn't file a motion or joinder is that I don't feel there was enough information provided by an Indenture Trustee or the LBHI Estate to warrant filing a motion at this time.
I would if it would be helpful but I'm really hoping the investment is successful.
It is likely Mr. Wu's motion was helpful on some level even if it wasn't granted or approved at this time.
There are other ways to make this investment and re-structuring work out than by filing a motion but I'm not an attorney.
Good luck.
mojo
newflow,
Thanks for the information but I believe the attributes you are identifying need specific itemization in the prospectus to actually be pertinent to LBHI Capital Trusts.
In other words, some TruPS Preferred and CTs could have 5-year deferment periods while others could have 5-years plus the additional years up to 12 years total.
In order for this to take hold, there may be process requirements.
I have to check our LBHI CT prospectus again but I don't think this has been mentioned.
I'll also check the particular documents filed with the claim as our CT "Charter" originally administered by Chemical Bank would likely list any enhancements featured in their document that were available, not in the Austin document you referenced.
If different attributes were granted by the Court, there should be restitution made to the CT shareholders, particularly those shareholders prior to any POR confirmation enabling the action.
mojo
jersey,
JG checked the right box for the claim that "required additional charges or interest . . . based on a Derivative Contract or Guarantee. Include a schedule."
So, I think they did it and the Indenture Trustee Rep thinks they did, too.
I've never seen a copy of the schedule. Maybe I can call them and ask for it this week.
Sorry to hear about your hospital visit, jersey.
I have an ankle that is locking up on me in high impact exercise. I've learned to ice the heck out of it to break the inflammation. Sometimes it needs an ice bucket 2 or 3 times a day for 20 - 30 min.
New flow is posting good stuff about the CT enhancements. I'll re-read the prospectus between some ice baths.
Cheers!
mojo
newflow,
<<What Indenture Trustee did not file was CTs claims under gurantees.>>
The Identure Trustee claims they checked the right box and filed the claims with the guaranty correctly.
I hope you're correct and that they will survive with the NOL.
My question is they haven't been paid yet and what needs to be done for them to be paid?
Why haven't the NOLs been used yet?
mojo
newflow,
Great post!
<<ASSETS -LIABILITIES WERE AROUND $26B AT THE TIME OF FILING.>>
Yep! They've always had the money to pay CTs.
They've also been paying Class Claims for 11 years that are NOT guaranteed payment ahead of subordinated debt, many without guarantees. Think about that for a minute.
The Lawyers & the Estate also stuck a finger in the eye of the IRS demanding $55B in NOLs for equity and insisting the Debtholders should not claim COD as has been proclaimed for 10 years.
What would our Indenture Trustee need to file a motion for payment?
It doesn't seem like they have pursued legal recourse for the CTs. They have contested nothing.
It seems LBHI & our Indenture Trustee choose NOT to work with CT shareholders nor answer all their questions.
It also seems that after Obama sided with the Unions and abscond with all the GM debtholders rights for repayment, the US Trustee seems to side with debtholders and fleece employees, corporate management and equity in some companies while guaranteeing backstops and low rates for others.
Has anyone asked why secured Senior RMBS/Aurora Debtholder claims should be paid ahead of other less-problematic and more profitable, conservative and traditional LBHI sub debt?
Why penalize the whole balance sheet for a subsidiary in an industry that became political?
What do they need to solve this?
All they're trying to do is swamp us again.
mojo
joe,
Are you handling Border Crisis negotiations for the House, too?
They can't enforce laws. They can't make reforms.
All they can do is give away $4.5B for charity.
Why keep CTs trading for 11 years? You want to take the $11B - $21B in tax credits with CT qualifications and give it to charity of your choice?
That seems ridiculous, even if you are managing another $15B in subordinated debt.
Maybe the creditors were waiting for other decisions to be made in Court before they were certain of their exposure and willing to create a legacy with specific roles.
Get it done.
mojo
PS - Probably on Argus' "Ignore Button" now.
Aurora Case on Inforuptcy today, June 25, 2pm.
Judge Chapman presiding.
There may be a cycle of activities the Judge is managing to address all concerns and provide decisions for the best solutions.
If Lehman was allowed to manage their business like the other Banks, they would have benefitted from the market up turn from a $7k Dow as well as the real estate market up turn to the new highs across the Country.
That would have been huge for LBHI. Many were jealous.
But, Lehman was not allowed the normal process for whatever reason: Foreclosure rates were high, CDS, JPM/Dimon collateral calls, etc. Then, they gave all the Banks & AIG TARP with the rest of the billions.
Thus, the fire sales, employee terminations and tax adjustments were implemented.
So, here we are, holding shares in a Trust that, by law, qualify the Estate for billions in tax credits approved by the Court and, some say, our shares aren't worth anything. They have to find $50B.
And, the attorneys & Estate want to discredit the Global Guaranty of the LBHI BOD as well as anyone who brings it up.
Lastly, the Estate has been paying for 11 years claims that are not guaranteed payment ahead of the subordinated CTs.
Are we caught up?
Maybe the filings will prove something different. Maybe the Judge is asking for more information from the Estate & Weil.
Get it done.
mojo
You can call, too, woo Wu.
Then do it!
It should have been done years ago, toogood.
Jimzin is getting low on his mash.
mojo
<<Do you really think this select group of posters here know something others that do distressed debt for living don't?>>
Debtholders are not equity.
So, as per POR, no NOLs for you. No COD.
If you're a debtholder, you'll take a loss on the rest. That is what happens when debtholders quit.
LBHI can wind it down and liquidate all the rest.
There will be an approximate $11B credit that will go to CTs and then the OBS.
The rest of the debt is subject to compromise and you get nothing more.
So, there you have it. It is what you wanted for years, joe.
It is what many CT owners didn't want, preferring a re-structured entity with the business charter, cache, employees and tax roll.
You, joe, have always argued for the liquidation for debtholders to be fully paid before the CTs or preferred.
As Judge Chapman said yesterday, "She doesn't always decide in favor of the debtholders."
So, good luck!
I can't say it any nicer than that. I had always wanted something more reasonable and, instead, I've invested in a workout with some of the most rude attorneys and Estate managers in the business.
They'll probably take this post down, too.
Some on this Board have always wanted to abscond with everything no matter what others efforts are to hold them accountable.
mojo
<<This is a bankruptcy, folks. Some debtholders don't get paid.>>
LBHI presided over a $630B - $670B Balance Sheet before filing Chp 7 & 11.
Over approximately 11 years, the Estate distributed $126B and seem to think there is $30B+/- left on the non-GAAP Operating Statements & Balance Sheets provided to the Court.
That leaves $474 - $514B somewhere!
Go get the money and pay CT & OBS shareholders using $55B in NOLs as confirmed in POR.
It's around some where.
"No money" excuse doesn't hold water.
More filings with FINRA & SEC are in process.
mojo
joe,
Why not?
Fed allowed it.
Are you shooting down drones today?
CTs covered by NOLs anyway in Court approved POR.
I'm over doing it.
Good luck.
mojo
Anyone following this case through Inforuptcy?
Case Title: Aurora Commercial Corp.
Court: New York Southern Bankruptcy Court (nysbke)
Chapter: 11
Judge: Shelley C. Chapman
Filed: 03/24/2019
Last Filing: 06/20/2019
Asset: Yes
Vol: v
It's in Judge Chapman's Court next Tuesday, June 25 at 2pm.
To be clear, the CTs are Tier 1 Capital and unsecured claims used for general capital purposes.
I doubt they have anything to do with Aurora at all other than the LBHI Estate is using the Courts to determine the costs of Aurora.
mojo
It's the swamp, jersey.
They're swamping the business so no one gets involved.
But, some do anyway.
mojo
By the way, jersey.
How does an Estate and their Attorneys make $126B in Distributions through liquidation and winding down of a $670B Estate Balance Sheet, then say they haven't applied the $55B in Tax Credits that was the intent of the POR?
They're picking and choosing and should be thrown in jail.
mojo
What do you want, goodie?
NOLs could have been applied for the past 11 years, before the Tax Reform Act last year that brought the tax rate down from 40% to 21%.
Now, I'm not sure what all these questions are about?
This could have been done years ago!
Yet, everyone wants to post questions on this Message Board and need help computing percentages?
Good luck.
mojo
new,
Some quick thoughts in response.
<<DO THE TRUSTS 3,4,5,6 FOLLOW THE CH11 PLAN?.>>
They were assumed to reject the Plan yet trade to qualify the Estate for NOLs that has BK'd their Holding Co. The CT 3,4,5,6 were all Tier 1 in the Holding Co. So, if they wind down the Holding Co. in A&M "Administration," then they will follow the Plan "in Administration."
In this POR, COD is out, it would seem.
<<ARE THESE TRUST IN BANKRUPTCY?.NO.>>
Five entities, including LBHI Holding, remain in BK Administration per the Court approved POR. It seems if LBHI wants to do anything, they need to follow the POR or take it to Court for the Judge's Approval.
<<THEN WHY WOULD THE CTs SHOULD FOLLOW CH11 POR?.>>
Because the Court approved it. If there is another way, they'll need Court approval to do that, too.
<<WHY NOT RELY ON THE BOD DECISION MADE ON PARTIAL GUARANTEES TO FULL GUARANTEES AND PROSPECTUS?.>>
Good question as those are strong guarantees that seemed to be overlooked (at least temporarily by the Court) to address all concerns.
In this event these guarantees were overlooked, concealed or infringed upon, it seems the Court should make restitution.
I'm not a Lawyer or employed by LBHI or the Court. I'm not included in all communications in the Estate, Courts or Attorneys.
This is my opinion only for shares I hold in my name.
mojo
If there was fraud, looting and concealment, it impaired the CT shares bought after 2008 BK filing and before the 2011 POR ratification.
The owners of those shares can file the grievances.
In my settlement hypothetical, I make provisions for those shares to be settled constructively.
I also believe the CTs bought after should have a constructive settlement as should the OBS since the NOLs support the valuations based on income preserved from tax payments in the event of fire-sales and liquidation.
This is part of the POR signed off by the Court, Estate & Legal Representatives.
It could have gone other ways but didn't.
It seems this is the only way the Courts will move forward now.
So, if they're going to liquidate and wind it down, do it and settle the CTs and OBS out of the tax savings.
The other $8.914B in subordinated debt aren't equity and aren't our problem.
Good luck.
mojo
P.S. - I'm pleased to hear Mr. Fail was respectful to Mr. Wu et al who filed the Motion & Joinders. Maybe he is learning to be polite.
letgo!
Who didn't buy the CTs in 2009 - 2010 without the Guarantees?
Of course they did!
The bigger question is, "Why would you sell them after you bought them?"
mojo
Judge Chapman's Schedule -
6/18/19:
11:30 AM 17-12493-scc Yosi Samra, Inc. Ch. 7
Doc #278 Order to Show Cause Why an Order Should Not be Entered Fixing Hearing Date on Shortened Notice and Designating Form and Manner and Limiting Notice of Trustees Motion for an Order (I) Authorizing Trustee
6/19/19:
10:00 AM 17-12414-scc Spud Partners LLC Ch. 7
Adversary proceeding: 18-01138-scc Silverman, Esq., as Chapter 7 Trustee of Spud Part v. Russian Standard Vodka (USA), Inc.
Pre-Trial Conference
08-13555-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Ch. 11
Adversary proceeding: 16-01019-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. 1st Advantage Mortgage, L.L.C. et al
Pre-Motion Conference
Adversary proceeding: 18-01754-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. Goldwater Bank, N.A., as successor to Community Ba
Pre-Motion Conference
Adversary proceeding: 18-01825-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. SUBURBAN MORTGAGE, INC.
Pre-Motion Conference
Adversary proceeding: 18-01839-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. Imortgage.com, Inc. et al
Pre-Motion Conference
Adversary proceeding: 18-01842-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. PMAC Lending Services, Inc., individually and as s
Pre-Motion Conference
Adversary proceeding: 19-01018-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. Network Funding L.P. et al
Pre-Motion Conference
Adversary proceeding: 19-01020-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. The Crossfire Financial Network Inc.
Pre-Motion Conference
19-10132-scc In Sook Sterling Ch. 7
Adversary proceeding: 19-01111-scc Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. Sterling et al
Doc #10 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding filed by Gerard DiConza on behalf of Jay Entertainment Corp
Adjourned Reset for 07/23/2019 at 2:00 pm
Adversary proceeding: 19-01111-scc Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. Sterling et al
Pre-trial Conference
Adjourned Reset for 07/23/2019 at 2:00 pm
11:00 AM
19-11352-scc 45th Street Park Avenue Shoe Repair Inc Ch. 7
Doc #10 Motion to Convert Chapter 7 Case to Chapter 11 filed by Ehsanul Habib on behalf of 45th Street Park Avenue Shoe Repair Inc
08-13555-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Ch. 11
Doc #59614 Motion for an Order Enforcing the Modified Third Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its Affiliated Debtors for Purposes of Distributions filed by Rex Wu
19-10318-scc Zvah Inc. Ch. 11
Doc #19 Motion to Extend Time to Assume or Reject Lease filed by Brian J. Hufnagel on behalf of Zvah Inc.
Adjourned Reset for 06/26/2019 at 2:00 pm
Doc #20 Motion By Yivtech Trust For Relief From Automatic Stay filed by Scott A. Steinberg on behalf of Hudes LLC
Adjourned Reset for 06/26/2019 at 2:00 pm
Status Conference
Adjourned Reset for 06/26/2019 at 2:00 pm
19-11182-scc Convivium Catering Inc. Ch. 11
Initial Case Conference
Adjourned Reset for 06/26/2019 at 2:00 pm
19-11294-scc All American Taxi Management Inc. Ch. 11
Initial Case Conference
Adjourned Reset for 06/27/2019 at 10:00 am
Doc #10 Motion for Joint Administration
Adjourned Reset for 06/27/2019 at 10:00 am
19-11297-scc Julissa Cab Corp. Ch. 11
Doc #10 Motion for Joint Administration
Adjourned Reset for 06/27/2019 at 10:00 am
Initial Case Conference
Adjourned Reset for 06/27/2019 at 10:00 am
19-11298-scc Christian Cab Corp. Ch. 11
Doc #10 Motion for Joint Administration
Adjourned Reset for 06/27/2019 at 10:00 am
Initial Case Conference
Adjourned Reset for 06/27/2019 at 10:00 am
19-11299-scc Liasilv Taxi Inc. Ch. 11
Initial Case Conference
Adjourned Reset for 06/27/2019 at 10:00 am
Doc #9 Motion for Joint Administration
Adjourned Reset for 06/27/2019 at 10:00 am
jersey,
I ask-eth if you thought a lot was going on.
Then, I checked to see 7.7k shares traded today or 0.016% of the float!
People seem to be hanging on to them.
Board messages stating to do the same.
Who knows who is getting the 7.7k shares?
21% of $55B is $11.55B.
mojo
jersey,
I asked them if they contested any POR and filings and they said, "No."
They said they filed the necessary claim.
They know how much they need to see for the claim to be paid.
They do more of this Corporate Trust business than anyone else.
They also have tranches of Senior Debt claims.
Our question from this is, "Is it enough?"
Maybe my contact was "too low."
It is possible the pertinent negotiations are at a higher level.
That is what I'm banking on as well as the volume or work being filed and processed.
Don't you think a lot is going on?
Who do we turn to for more answers?
Fail & the rest of the attorney's are up to their eye balls in work and I doubt the Estate wants to pay them any more than what is necessary, if not claw back some for hanging up on their shareholders.
mojo