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.
argus,
What is the Docket number for the $2B C claim? #59775?
We'll see more about where Mr. Wu is coming from.
He seems to have reasoning as to where he and his Counsel are coming from even if his contacts aren't particularly explained well or sourced.
mojo
After reading his Objection, can anyone say why the Early Distribution should be delayed?
mojo
New Dockets posted today:
*Docket # 59772 Filed Jun 13 2019
Objection to the Timing of the Early Distribution (related document(s)[59756]) filed by Rex Wu. (White, Greg)
Debtor: 08-13555 Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
*Docket # 59773 Filed Jun 13 2019
Motion to Approve Motion to Demand Service filed by Rex Wu. (White, Greg)
Debtor: 08-13555 Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Would anyone like to comment about these new dockets?
mojo
Are LBHI, JPM & BNYM considering the NOL value drop per the tax rate reform from 40% to 21%?
If the US Trustee signed off on the NOLs as part of the deal, I'd expect they are to be used.
So, how do you cover $10.176B in subordinated debt & an OMBS Preferred stack of $8.53B with $55B NOLs at 21%?
Forget the COD.
The NOLs were the deal signed off by the Plan Trustee and the reason the CTs trade.
So be it.
mojo
<< . . . •subordinate and junior in right of payment to all other liabilities of Lehman Brothers Holdings . . .>>
Legalese.
I don't know what it means or why it is contained in the prospectus.
I'm not sure but it seems fraudulent to me.
So, why have the CTs been trading or even go to market in the first place?
But, you would have to go back to the original intent of the prospectus at all as it is demonstrably false and possibly a clause included in most all CTs. Boiler plate stuff.
Then why would they be Class 10B? Why not behind Common at Class 12?
Quit hiding behind one clause.
By the way, LBHI is one of 5 entities remaining in BK so you're wrong there, too.
Other LBHI subsidiaries around the World have exited BK or are in the very last stages of liquidation.
I don't know what to tell you when you are so disingenuous and false.
Now, about 5 other posters will make posts about how you are on their block list.
Good luck.
mojo
<<Tell me Mojo, the subordination is very clearly stated as well as the limits of the guarantee in the prospectus. Why do you ignore the words in the prospectus? Why do you think you have rights outside of that document?>>
Ignoring words? No, but I am, as well as others here, struggling to understand how the law is being applied in the Court.
You say there were stays and cancellations replaced by approved claims, probably so the lawyers could use more time and latitude re-structuring a replacement entity or liquidating all recovery issues.
Marsal said he would exit BK within 2 years of the filing yet the Court considers "the 5 subs remaining in BK 11 years after filing with Marsal administering outside of BK" is compliant with what he is quoted in 2010 in the AP.
We are mincing words yet the Court is there to make sure the law is followed and enforced no matter how long it takes. The Courts may institute provisions but later reform provisions to make sure all interests are addressed.
This is one reason the hearing on June 19th is significant.
I have many questions and many of these questions go unanswered, some because the Indenture Trustee is in process and some are simply ignored unless I take it to Court. So, I have to move forward with out all the information I'd like.
Good luck.
I understand your position and bias, joe stocks.
Your problem is you continue to mischaracterize and ignore the rights of the CT shareholders in your narratives and bias.
In 2011, the CTs were in a 20 Quarter deferment period.
What were they to contest? The Plan Administrator left open the case the CTs would be paid if they had the money and they needed a process to determine that availability.
Since then, the Court has approved stays while they settle casework of other subsidiaries and address all interested parties.
The concessions the Courts have required while over-looking the rights of CT shareholders in the CT prospectus is not a failure of the CT owners.
The Courts have known the rights of the CT owners and have listened to LBHI legal reps arguments to make restitution in the future for the CTs.
So, if they needed accommodations and concessions, it is time for the Court to tell the Estate to pay for them.
You are not above the law, joe stocks.
mojo
WAMU was one legal misrepresentation and fraud after another by the acquiring firm.
This is why many didn't sell their shares bought before the WAMU BK filing.
WAMU could have had gold in it's corporate accounts and JPM would still say it's worth nothing.
And, Sheila Baer would still tell WAMU to work with JPM on the merger because that was the only one she'd approve.
They said they'd make it up if they had to but they haven't; JPM makes too much money and is too powerful.
This is part of all the corporate welfare we see in the banking business today. The Bankers want FED money at 0.25% and they want all the accommodations and concessions to cover their balance sheets in the event of default with the public.
So, make up the merger deficiencies! Rates are dropping again and stocks are at all time highs.
Same with LBHI. If the Courts and the Attorneys required concessions from shareholders to "address all concerns" then pay them back plus interest and penalties.
No one is above the law.
mojo
ed,
Is there any reason to not ask for treble damages?
These shares have been impaired since 2011 - 2013, the time of the first POR approvals done without our consent yet during the 20 Quarter deferment.
mojo
Yes!
The one thing I haven't noticed in the response YET is the fact distributions have been made to affiliate claims and are ". . . Claims against LBHI asserted by an Affiliate that are not entitled to a priority in right to payment over subordinated debt Claims against LBHI."
Will continue the due diligence-eth.
mojo
Isn't the ticker "JBK"?
Isn't it a Goldman Sachs related ticker?
What does it have to do with the CTs?
mojo
Interesting.
cotton thinks the stays were all about hearing all interests.
I think that is what he infers.
I could be wrong.
Again, what is the Court trying to do about all this?
I don't know.
But, what more do the CT holders need to do about it?
Can they clawback and shut down a Trustee like that?
mojo
Captive audience, here, pal!
What else am I going to do?
They have my fee schedule-eth!
mojo
joe,
<<They have cash flow from cash invested in short term securities, and from liquidation of assets.>>
They could have asked for matching concessions for distributions to claims stc, bought down more valid claims that trade, invested in profitable business operations (derivatives, etc.) and held onto people that were profitable.
<<Lehman is not in the business of anything at this point as the income producing assets have been sold. The last balance sheet shows that. When they did still own buildings and stuff they had rental income coming in. That is no longer the case.>>
You're proving the point LBHI was looted under fire-sales. Unless we see GAAP financials that account for the synthetics, sale residuals and all forensic analysis, we aren't going to know where the assets are and their market value.
<<That senior debt has been converted to claims. Saying that they just need to make up interest payments on debt to become current and back in business shows a complete lack of understanding of the BK process. Again, look at the balance sheet assets. Lehman is not in business and will never be again. The liquidation plan even says if anything can't be liquidated, or any assets left, are to be donated to charity. Says that right in the plan.>>
You're right I don't understand many things about this BK because Marsal & Weil have been moving the goal posts from Chp 11 to more of a Chp 7 without any concern of the equity holders, employees or subordinated debt.
Our Indenture Trustee has done very little to nothing for CT holders so far while they impaired the shares in 2011-2013 and currently trade under restrictive algos.
Somebody posted today about a hedge fund buying 20k. Why isn't it Chase or BNYM scooping up this stuff to recover the Trust as Tier 1?
Good luck.
mojo
score,
LBHI had $679B balance sheet at the high point, with blown-out common in the $60s.
Now they show +/-$30B after distributing $126B. They could have done it differently.
Claims Subject to Compromise are $228.5B as of 12/2018 where $185.5 is Senior Debt.
With $185B+/- in Senior Debt outstanding and $55B in stockholder equity, we're still at only $396B in asset accounting.
Now is the missing $283B fraudulent "White Paper?" What are they turning into the Court? How do they justify "looting?"
The problem with liquidating and not re-structuring is they lose business operations and let people go at their convenience while the attorneys hold fire sales.
So, their assets aren't generating income and aren't worth much on an income basis?
But, this is what the counter-parties likely want: They don't want the competition and would look to write off COD in future tax filings.
However, there are a number of debtors or counter-parties without the same business charter and business offerings.
So, they need a synergistic partner to work with or debtor concessions from debtors who don't want the competition.
We'll see if they are close to getting this done as the hearing for the Wu Motion on the 19th comes closer.
mojo
You didn't answer any of my questions, joe.
I showed you no disrespect. I asked you specific questions.
Maybe there are internal problems developing as my questions identified.
As I noted on the OR, it is only cash receipts and dispersements.
They aren't in business so why do they show any cash flow?
How do you valuate assets or a business charter with no cash flow?
You said in a prior post Senior Debt has to be paid in full before subordinated debt.
No, joe. They have only needed to be current if back in business.
Then, the schedule of payments resume unless altered with the approval of the Courts.
mojo
New OR up on Epic.
April 5 - 30, 2019.
Cash receipts and dispersements only.
mojo
joe stocks,
Do you ever ask yourself, "What is the fraud and when did it start? Am I advocating for fraud and why? Why should the perpetrators get away with the crime?"
What did the CT shareholders do?
The CT holders read the guaranty in the prospectus, bought the shares at a low price, were assumed to reject the POR that impaired the trading value and let the Court and re-structuring divisions pursue what they decided to address all concerns, even if it meant re-allocating to Senior Classes while their shares continue to trade over the pinks.
The shares can be exchanged for other shares in a re-structured firm. The entire subordinated issue totals over $17.65B.
The CT holders didn't change the rules, over ride a prospectus and move the goal posts. They did nothing illegal. They didn't hold the fire sale.
You advocate for the debtors who would abscond with this subordinated position.
Do you ever listen to yourself as you post?
What more can CT holders do?
Good luck.
mojo
jersey,
The motion is a call on $17.65B of unsubordinated debt with $2B trading on the market.
How do they say to the Judge, "We oversaw the liquidation of a $679B Balance Sheet that is now worth +/-$30B while distributing $126B. We don't have the money and we didn't plan for this?"
Pretty ridiculous, if you ask me.
Why are they always arguing for the debtors anyway?
Maybe the $#it is hitting the fan.
I sent in two FedEx packages and I haven't heard. Plus, the SEC complaints were filed sometime ago.
Except what I can piece together on this board and from the filings.
So, we'll see.
mojo
jersey,
Is this BK all about what they want?
Marsal said they'd be out by 2010. Instead, the Court gives him 11 years to "administer a POR out of BK" while depriving shareholders their benefits?
Are we trying to understand criminals?
They could have done things differently and didn't.
mojo
new,
Maybe it will work out and they'll quit putting out crap financials and PORs in the Court for legal consumption.
mojo
swiss,
You could also say CT coupons have been likely re-allocated to pay attorney fees listed as either Class #6A, 6B, 7 or 8.
We're hanging in there.
I think the subordinated debt re-allocation totals over $7.6B after 11 years.
Add all the other cumulative preferred coupons and it's deep sheep dip!
This is why I always hoped for a re-structuring with the business charter and not a liquidation.
Get the interested parties vested in a new capital structure going forward and get in business.
Get out of the Courts!
Additionally, I hoped the attorneys' bark would be worse than their bite as well as any POR "assumed to be rejected by equity holders."
What does everyone want now? Abscond with a new capital structure and pretend the sub debt was never there while impairing the shares since 2013?
They could have done a different deal.
They know and didn't.
Or they haven't revealed it yet.
What else is there to do?
What power do we have as shareholders in the Trust?
mojo
Dan & Julie?
Could be a family affair.
mojo-eth
You're right, jersey.
You know, and I know, you're talking out of the right side of your mouth.
All I can say is our Indenture Trustee does more of this subordinated Corporate Trust business than anyone else.
And, there is a way they do it.
I don't know what they do about certain situations in their business, but they do and they haven't been filing or contesting that I know about.
If, as you say, any shareholder legal action is going to fail, then we are better off sitting tight.
I wish I had more to do on this, but I don't but am waiting for answers and they have my information.
I'm just a small timer who thought there were enough guarantees and structure to build a position that could move ahead if we were lucky.
We've re-allocated during the 20-quarter deferment. We've re-allocated for almost 6-years after that.
How much more do they need?
They're out of BK and administering out of BK some re-structuring and liquidating operations.
What do they have for us 11 years later on $17.6B? Goose eggs? That's it?
If it were only that easy.
Good luck-eth.
mojo
CT divis run approx. $74.73M annually.
After 11 years, the CTs have re-allocated approx. +/-$822M in Distributions to other classes.
Some classes receiving distributions are not Senior to subordinated issues and are not guaranteed repayment. This is particularly likely for Distributions to Classes 6A, 6B, 7 & 8.
Our Indenture Trustee manages a total of approx. $10.176B in subordinated issues totaling approx. $678M in annual payments where $7.45B will be re-allocated after 11 years (although I haven't read each prospectus other than the CT).
So, $17.765B+/- has accumulated in what most consider "impaired accounts" where penalties and damages could be accruing if the Judge is persuaded.
So, how effective is enforcing the Guarantee Motion for the CTs without settling the other subordinated issues isn't clear.
Subordinated issues and equity were assumed to reject all PORs approved.
I hope we find out soon.
mojo
18? Not sure about that but I'll take your word for it, jersey.
It might be one reason of many Trustees stay out of it.
The Tyrannosaurus was my favorite dinosaur: It could just plow through anything while the others were feasting on weeds.
Any who, I'm staying out of things for awhile.
I have a lot of questions going around and, if it's one thing lawyers can do, they like to write letters and sign them after conferring with their clients.
It could even get better. They may be willing to work with people and make money for shareholders after some plans are solidly and reasonably discussed and scheduled.
Lawyers have to make a living, too.
Good luck-eth.
mojo
$0.18 could mean a dinosaur someplace.
Maybe not.
mojo
cotton,
Classes 7, 8, 9 all contain the clause, ". . . Claims against LBHI asserted by an Affiliate that are not entitled to a priority in right to payment over subordinated debt Claims against LBHI."
Classes 7, 8, 9 have been distributed +/- 42.5%, 33.5%, 26.8% of their claims.
Is anyone asking why Capital Trust subordinated debt payments are being re-allocated to pay Claim Classes with a lower right to payment?
Generally, in order for the subordinated notes to be paid, Claim Classes 3, 4A, 4B & 5 must be paid in full.
So, why have subordinated Capital Trust coupons (totaling $865M after 11 years from the CTs & $7.45B from all subordinated debt) been re-allocated to Classes other than 3, 4A, 4B & 5?
How is it that subordinated debt payments are re-allocated to Claim Classes with a lower right to repayment during the Deferment period or after?
What is your answer for that, cotton?
How is that not fraud & looting?
mojo
Thank you for posting this, Argus.
Banjo,
You sound like a "Swamp Creature."
Few have suffered the Swamp like the CTs.
CFPB. 3 PORs. Billions in Financial Industry fines. Post-BK Administration. Stays. Liquidating Fire Sales. Non-Senior Creditor Distributions. Some at 100%.
And "they" do it because they think it's "complicated."
Your like Nadler asking AG Barr to break the law, releasing 6E information in a subpoena, then saying he wants to pursue further discussions while holding Barr in contempt.
Ridiculous.
What do you want?
mojo
The CT prospectus allows re-allocating payments to higher classes under certain bankruptcy proceedings for 5-years or 20-quarters.
It has been 40-quarters, twice as long as permitted under the prospectus.
Why should we feel the past practice of redirecting CT payments is appropriate when the CT prospectus clearly states limitations to the practice?
Why isn't that considered fraud and looting the Estate?
It is the same for the rest of the subordinated issues.
Good luck.
mojo
You may not decide to file something.
I'm considering it.
Good luck-eth.
mojo
I may decide to file a joinder even with his motion of stirrata which we assumed-eth "to be a typo".
mojo
IMO, Ace is a great hardware store for neighborhood DIY.
Home Depot & Lowe's can do a lot more of the large contracting business.
It is also an advantage that the business isn't a great fit for AMZN, who has to charge for delivery and can't check for fit at the location.
You can get a premium for that segment, especially if you had salespeople who knew what they were doing.
And, if you own the property, then all your paying for is property maintenance in addition to supplies and personnel.
But, large contracting? Not a great fit. Sometimes but larger stores can do it better.
In a lot of ways it's the same in the financial sector: Different brands known for different products and with good reason.
Same with attorneys claiming a particular expertise.
Good luck.
mojo
All these BNYM-Lehman issues are subordinated.
Overall, $10.176B approximately.
The question is, working with your contract law legal precept, "Are LBHI legal representatives observing their contractual obligations with BNYM appropriately?"
Your question as to who are the majority holders of the subordinated issues is good. Are they entities whose core investment activities are different from Lehman's Business Charter?
I'd also like to know what the proceeds for the funds were used for if they weren't all used for general unsecured purposes as were the CTs.
Also, were they all Tier-1? Again, I know the CTs are Tier-1 but are the ECAPS?
Is Face Value important? Yes, and so are cumulative covenants and 20-quarter Deferment periods.
I'll be sending a question list into LBHI this week.
I am not an attorney or CPA. I'm trained in Personal & Corporate Finance and Investment.
If I write to the Court and pursue a joinder with you & Mr. Wu, it may not have the same tone. It may include topics not a part of a specific, extricated motion to enforce an Outstanding Guarantee Resolution.
Filings are made daily on this case and LBHI has attorneys to sift through these filings to defend LBHI and their plans going forward.
If I could file something constructive, I would.
mojo
In your opinion, why wouldn't the Indenture Trustee file the Motion to enforce the Global Guarantee or Outstanding Guarantee Resolution?
mojo
It could all stem from #58763.
And, if it did, so what?
So, the motion is denied.
So what?
Have our interests been represented fairly?
They don't appreciate incrimination, claw back requests or defending themselves against politely worded questions about fraud and looting in the LBHI Estate.
But, "assuming equity holders to reject their plan", they are all for that!
Just tell them where they can park their coffin on the gravy train.
mojo
Objection to Wu expected-eth.
Might be worth filing another joinder of record.
How could it be done most constructively?
How are we to keep it clean after all these years?
mojo
Is it open kimono time?
I appreciate your efforts, too, jersey.
wasabi-mojo-eth
You've been listening to "here here", haven't "you you"?