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.
They've made a mess.
If so, our rights may not exist during the POR & stay.
This is one reason for the Wu & Waske suit.
So, why wouldn't the sub debtholders want to see our Guarantee expunged?
It would move them ahead in the gravy train, wouldn't it?
It's the 'Honor of Expungement' like the 'Honor of the Holocaust' Biden stupidly referred to in Jerusalen yesterday.
mojo9
Will cotton answer my question?
Highway & Swiss are now arguing about an expungement clause from 2011 that was part of the Administrator's Plan deemed rejected by CT shareholders and invalidates the Global Guarantee.
I think this is why we are tied up until all subs are closed out of BK and the Holding has a new position on the open market.
So, until then, Behnke & other A&M reps take their pot shots until they are out of the picture.
mojo9
cotton,
How are you?
Wouldn't that depend on whether the sub debt has the Global Guarantee?
mojo9
Interesting Swiss.
Thank you.
If they exchange the Js for the ECAPS, it moves the debt to LBHI.
Why would they negotiate that without securing the repayment of the Js as well as the CTs & other preferreds?
mojo9
Swiss,
There is a theory the Js would be used in a new IPO.
Now, you are saying they will be exchanged for ECAPS.
And, you say this because, " LBHI is offering ECAP holders J shares (as per the J share and ECAPS prospectus). The issuance of the shares wasn't denied because of the contracts being rejected under bankruptcy but it was because, under the plan, the plan never stated they could issue shares."
Can you explain this? This isn't clear to me.
What Court document shows you Js are to be exchanged for ECAPS?
mojo9
What more do they want from us?
Is LBI now closed?
Besides LBHI, what is open?
Judge Shelley Chapman's Schedule
Wednesday, June 29, 2022
2:00 PM
08-13555-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Ch. 11
Adversary proceeding: 08-01420-scc Lehman Brothers Inc. Status Conference
Adversary proceeding: 08-01420-scc Lehman Brothers Inc.
Doc #15375 Final Motion of James W. Giddens, Trustee for the SIPA Liquidation
of Lehman Brothers Inc., for an Order Authorizing the Abandonment of Certain
Records and Systems of the Estate and Other Related Relief
Adversary proceeding: 08-01420-scc Lehman Brothers Inc.
Doc #15376 Thirty-Ninth Application of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP for
Allowance of Interim Compensation
Telephonic Case Status Conference
***ALL HEARINGS BEFORE JUDGE CHAPMAN WILL BE HELD TELEPHONICALLY USING COURT SOLUTIONS. PLEASE REGISTER AT WWW.COURT-SOLUTIONS.COM***
What about this sticks out, Swiss?
You know the $25k> claims were offered a process or last distribution.
Of all the remaining claims, the most 'at risk' claims should be those involved in structuring the highly speculative lending programs if those programs were not able to collect collateral in foreclosure, IMO.
Even if they were debentures.
Anyway, they continue to do what they are doing while everyone can't wait until they are done.
mojo9
What about this sticks out, Swiss?
You know the $25k> claims were offered a process or last distribution.
Of all the remaining claims, the most 'at risk' claims should be those involved in structuring the highly speculative lending programs if those programs were not able to collect collateral in foreclosure, IMO.
Even if they were debentures.
Anyway, they continue to do what they are doing while everyone can't wait until they are done.
mojo9
Swiss,
At some point, LBHI is going to turn to BNYM.
Barclays knows this.
All 3 should capitalize on the opportunity to make a top tier IB.
mojo9
I think that is right.
For example, the derivatives platform was a huge business.
That alone might be why the settlement is taking longer, especially if the suits have not been resolved.
Then, there is a complete list of real estate assets left out of the Barclays deal Lehman would not sell.
Eventually, LBHI did sell assets such as 1271 6th but I saw that went to Rock Center.
So, how do you keep those assets off the balance sheets in BK court?
Someone might know how to do that but not me.
mojo9
toogood,
If they redeem with fv + cumulative payments, it is all they are obligated to pay for CTs.
However, Barclays has signed off on all corporate guarantees of Lehman.
I hope we are covered and paid ASAP.
mojo9
PS: Thanks, cotton. You're welcome.
cotton,
<<. . . in response to the Collins Amendment provision under the Dodd-Frank Act which disallowed the treatment of trust preferred securities as Tier I capital even though the phase-out period for these securities from Tier 1 regulatory capital only begins in January 2013 and extends until 2016.>>
Now that we have the SCOTUS decision that corporate contractual obligations must be enforced, I just can't believe House Finance Committee members Chris Dodd & Barney Frank cannot be held accountable for such an outrageous impairment to shareholders.
mojo9
Everybody happy with their BK lesson for the last few weeks?
Go ahead.
Keep posting.
mojo9
I don't know either.
How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb, Jersey?
mojo
cotton,
Will you post a screenshot of this?
Thanks.
mojo9
Joe,
99.99% of bankruptcy claims don’t have CTs.
mojo9
swiss,
It could but it ultimately depends on how much Barclays was contracting to acquire.
Paulson wanted a merger of LBHI & Barclays and advised Barclays would be given incentives.
The NOLs are the incentives provided by the CTs continuing to trade as well as others.
What is your explanation for Barclays not finishing the deal by this time?
mojo
cotton:
'LBHI Has an Obligation to fulfill their "CT Executory Contract", Period.'
Haven't they been assumed by Barclays with all other guaranteed debt?
mojo
swissy,
You say, "the issue is no money."
According to the last quarterly statements, LBHI is expecting $19B+ in claims from overseas subs.
Additionally, billions in distributions to these overseas subs has already been made which could mean more equity to LBHI, possibly and logically.
I am pretty sure LBHI knows this as well as the overseas subs, Barclays and the US Trustee as well as all the sub debt holders.
So, why jeopardize your M&A deal for the subdebt, ECAPS & CTs, especially if Barclays signed off on all guarantees?
Or, how can you close your deals in LBI & LBT without a fair price from Barclays or the overseas subs if they are sold?
Yes, we have been waiting.
mojo
Good read.
You & I read the same English language.
mojo9
Yes, jim!
Again, "How do $69B in assets move to a party in an M&A Deal which assumes General Guarantees for $1.9B?"
There were $670B in assets on the balance sheet in 2008 that now reads about $30B+/- in overseas subs after $129B in distributions.
To me, the issue is all the other businesses that had to be restructured in the Courts before consummating the Deal.
And, they're late IMO and the Trustee can't interfere nor make any distributions without indemnification.
Good luck! mojo9
This Trustee letter was written after their review of the following documents from LBHI-Barclays Agreement as well as the WGM LBHI Balance Sheet filed in Court earlier this month.
I have posted the thread on this message board and can post the documents again here:
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
The main question I posted to the Trustee was, "Have you contacted Barclays to resolve the Trust?" and, apparently, they have not and cannot but believe they have filed all necessary documents for a settlement as required by the Courts.
Besides, how does a $69B account transfer to Barclays in a $1.9B deal?
I have no idea what the 3 or 4 Ws will continue to do or why. It is not in my control and I have not been retained by anyone to act on their behalf.
I am a shareholder and have been since 2010. I also have an idea or two about the underwriting of the securities but never had approached LBHI directly about my business.
Good luck! mojo9
It seems the links to ECAPS issues are not working at the LSE, swiss.
I will be reviewing the RSM agreement when I have time; it may identify some ECAPS characteristics that you are looking for. I believe my copy is 11 pages.
I might have downloaded an ECAPS prospectus but I haven't found it.
I own CTs. I don't own the ECAPS; so, I read what I own.
Another interesting issue is the list of assets not included in the LBHI Barclays Agreement. I don't know the status of these assets now nor whether LBHI is expecting payments from these 'claims'.
That is it for now. I have other deadlines at the moment but can continue the discussion when I can make the schedule clear.
mojo9
No, the ECAPS are not the same as the CTs.
They may have both been subordinated but they are different issues servicing different holdings with different structures.
Good luck.
Goodie,
They were called ‘impaired’ in Court.
They still had the General Guarantee, the deferment clause, traded to qualify for NOLs and Barclays signed off on their assumption.
Get over it.
mojo9
They are not CT shares, Swiss.
Get it over with!
mojo9
cotton,
The AGR derivatives motion will continue.
This might be an appropriate settlement for post POR shares bought after 2011.
mojo9
Was the repo & long positions of $69B all LBI or LBHI?
It looks like it isn't mentioned either.
They could have been aggregated in the agreement for $1.7B.
mojo
Am I a mind reader, highway?
Provide the text and legal document.
What I am saying is the purchase agreement didn't say that and Barclays signed off on assuming the liability.
Re-read the Release of Guarantees by LBHI.
It is in black & while and the English language.
If you don't agree or have questions, fine.
Just provide another document for your opinion.
Thanks.
I hope that means we are closing!
And, closing soon!
You're correct!
I have asked for the information and they have not provided it.
It is why people go to Court but I am not a Lawyer and have been hoping the Barclays deal works out.
What else am I to do?
It's posted for all to read.
All I can say, toogood, is for you to re-read 'Release of Guarantees'.
How does it exclude the CT LBHI General Guarantee?
It is in black & white and in English.
It is an assumption of liability by Barclays written into the purchase agreement by LBHI attorneys, WGM.
If you have questions, I understand, but it is all in black & white.