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.
jw,
I would have liked that classification, too, but it doesn't account for the deferment or the subdebt.
You may say, "Who cares? They are late!"
And, I agree with you but they did what they did with the approval of the Court until something has to change.
If the British Judge is getting the issue and approving it's merits, we should be getting approvals in short order, too.
So, I doubt LBHI, WGM, BNYM/JPM & the SDNY think Waske & Wu came out of thin air.
Some of us have worked in different ways than going to Court with a motion in hand, not that we haven't been asked to write the Court.
I have a lot riding on this and a lot of pre-POR shares.
So, they need to find the money; find it quick!
mojo9
highway,
Are you conveniently forgetting the deferment clause because you don't mention it?
Are you saying they never should have had the deferment because of the Guarantee & Parity-Clause?
I don't think I would agree with that; they filed for Bankruptcy and under the terms of the CT Prospectus, they get the 20 quarters.
Is that hard for you to understand?
Since the 20 quarter expiration, we have been asking for re-instatement.
What isn't clear is how CTs will be re-instated. They have avoided re-instatement and restitution with Court ordered stays.
So, we will see.
Good luck.
mojo9
highway,
If they can’t organize a class of claims as subordinated, how are they supposed to organize the classes?
mojo9
highway,
Denying a motion to reclassify is different than denying a motion to honor the guarantee.
All subordinated debt were placed in 10B whether they had the guarantee, parity clause & deferment period or not.
That is part of the “ins & outs” of capital structure for which sub debt and their financing programs are a part.
We’ll see.
mojo9
highway,
"What is interesting to me is that the guarantee should have been enforced all along. Weil and LBHI just chose to look the other way."
That is true but what is also true is that the CTs have a 5 year deferment clause in the event of Bankruptcy.
Has it been 7 years since the deferment? Yes and Waske has been working at this for years as have RSM and others.
So, it has been more for the grist mill.
Why people are comparing WAMU for a Lehman settlement is weird.
Apples & oranges, IMO.
mojo
I like Waske.
He argued with the cook about why his order was taking so long.
Mojo
toogood,
". . . and is returned fully as a solvent entity to the control of directors to be managed as a going concern for the benefit of the
Shareholder."
As with Jimzin, I hope its true.
I don't know if they can pick and choose what creditors are going to participate but I hope they can make it work!
Same with the Debtors.
mojo
jersey,
Who is listening?
I think they are moving around to talk with people they like, paying off who they choose.
For the first time, a Judge in London thinks they should pay and received payments while the Judge in SDNY says they don't.
It has been unfair for a long time. Criminal.
But, they are allowed to get a way with it so far.
Why hang with it? The guarantees.
I don't know how Peck, Chapman, the Trustees or Weil & Lehman et al live with themselves.
I don't.
mojo
Frankly, "None are so blind as those that will not see."
Other than LBI, Barclays has left everyone hanging for 12 years.
And, even in LBI, they were stealing at a fire-sale.
mojo
Barclays bought LBI.
Do they want the Holding?
Argus,
Can you please post the article text?
Thank you.
mojo
toogood,
It isn't all about Waske. It never was.
mojo
toogood,
Does RSM know?
It looks like a Judge in London thinks otherwise.
Thanks.
mojo
Joe,
There you go again talking about the 2011 POR.
ECAPS were not going to get anything either and they are getting a distribution, Joe.
ECAPS are subordinated debt, have the same guarantee and Tier 1 Capital function as the CTs.
CTs also have the parity clause with all other preferred shares issued by subs or affiliates.
So, Joe, why did they pay the ECAPS they are paying?
GL.
mojo
swiss,
Do we know why they are being paid?
Do we know how much?
Thanks.
mojo
jersey,
I might return to the concrete jungle in NYC in the Spring.
If Lehman works out and I am Manhattan, we'll get to the Oak Room or Smith & Wollensky's.
On me.
Some of my friends are flyin' high in Real Estate right now.
They make money when the market is up or down.
Good luck.
mojo9
Judge Chapman Schedule for Tuesday August 18, 2020:
10:30 AM
08-13555-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Ch. 11
Adversary proceeding: 08-01420-scc Lehman Brothers Inc.
Omnibus Hearing
Adversary proceeding: 08-01420-scc Lehman Brothers Inc.
Doc #15128 Trustees Motion for an Order to (I) Establish a Seventh Interim Distribution Fund for General Unsecured Creditor Claims; (II) Release Reserves from the Fifth Interim Distribution Fund and the Sixth Interim Distribution Fund; and (III) Make a Seventh Interim Distribution to Holders of Allowed Unsecured Creditor Claims with a Record Date of June 30, 2020
Adversary proceeding: 08-01420-scc Lehman Brothers Inc.
Doc# 15133 Statement / Notice of Schedules to Trustees Motion for an Order to (I) Establish a Seventh Interim Distribution Fund for General Unsecured Creditor Claims; (II) Release Reserves from the Fifth Interim Distribution Fund and the Sixth Interim Distribution Fund; and (III) Make a Seventh Interim Distribution to Holders of Allowed Unsecured Creditor Claims with a Record Date of June 30, 2020 (related document(s)15128)
11:00 AM
08-13555-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Ch. 11
Doc #60644 Motion for Relief from Stay re: 8600 W Charleston Blvd. 2138, Las Vegas, Nevada 89117 filed by Melissa Sue DiCerbo on behalf of Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper
Fail's JUNE 2020 POST-EFFECTIVE OPERATING REPORT is posted.
Can anyone identify and explain glaring omissions?
LBI?
LBIE?
LBHI2?
Just a few.
mojo9
LOL!
Then the Debt Holders go on with their 49% NOL share with the Subs.
We'll be out!
Yay!
mojo9
2good,
"LBHI is the largest debtor."
Among subs? Yes.
But there are numerous balance sheets of larger debtors.
What is your point?
LBHI still wasn't given a seat at the Fed Window and all the collateral calls from JD who wanted out West.
If they aren't going to discharge the $130B with $13B for equity & $13B for the Debt positions, why not work with the subs to bring the CTs and equity into a new holding co. in the UK?
Restrict the Aurora liability Stateside?
mojo9
Debtors are bond holders.
Equity holders own equity.
Both are creditors in that they extend credit to LBHI.
2Good: "LBHI is the largest debtor."
LBHI raised capital through creditors in both Debt & equity positions as well as other creditors, too.
We disagree.
2good,
Apparently, you don't think that Debtors have any responsibilities in financing spurious LBHI ops.
Say, Debtors were Senior Creditors involved in the risky LBHI mortgage operations.
Why should they be guaranteed payment ahead of Tier-1 CTs, ECAPS or other higher quality business lines?
The fact is many of these Debtors could have stepped forward over the years and been willing to solve the issues with the CTs and the NOLs and they have failed.
I don't see why these Debtors, managing bonds in risky failed mortgage businesses, should have priority over higher quality operations.
If LBHI takes a loss on them, it should flow down to these Debtors & Senior Creditors, IMO.
Overseas subs had nothing to do with LBHI mortgage subs Stateside.
Why should they be subject to these losses?
All the business changes by the US Congress in the US mortgage business have nothing to do with overseas ops!
LBHI's crown jewels should remain in tact.
Good luck.
d,
Cumulative payments accumulate until paid because of either a deferment period or bankruptcy.
Non-cumulative payments do not accumulate during suspension.
Rather than "paid", I prefer the term "covered" with the NOL tax credits, in this case $130B NOLs that would have to be approved by a Judge. $103B of NOLs would cover the CTs & Preferreds only, not the Common.
So, will the creditors submit $130B in a new LBHI for NOLs to re-capitalize Lehman for a share of the Company?
Court approved only $55B so far.
There would be $13B+/- in capital as a result of $130B NOLs in the Debtor's 49% share once the tax credits are applied.
They have the answers and, when they decide to tell us, we'll know, one way or another.
mojo9
You have to send me your e-mail! I take PayPal payments. LOL!
In my model, I compute the cumulative shares and non-cumulative shares for the CTs and Preferreds.
There were 689M common which are last in line.
So, after the cumulative CTs & Preferreds are paid as well as the non-cumulative Preferreds, there is then enough to allocate to Common.
And, that provides that the CTs can be re-instituted without damages to pre-POR shareholders.
So, at $103B NOL, Common are not covered by NOL tax credits but at $130B NOL there might be $3-$4 accumulating per share.
It begs the question, "Do common shareholders see returns on common shares in Bankruptcy" and, typically, they don't.
However, PGC keeps trading common and Fannie & Freddie are trading their common in receivership.
So, what more can I say without sending you a consulting invoice for $10,000?
mojo
goodie,
My model computes a number for the 689M common after the CTs & Preferreds are re-instated and based on $130B NOLs at a 21% corporate rate with 51% Equity Share.
At $103B NOL, it zeros out for Common.
I would love to sit down with LBHI and program the model with various conditions of their choice but I charge to do this. They have my fee schedule.
I own CTs but run a consulting business and LBHI can hire me to do the job but they have people who should be on it, too.
We don't get to decide a lot of conditions: "Impairment costs" or charges for re-instituting CTs, Preferred allocation, Common split and desired capital raise at the end of re-structuring, among other requirements.
You can't bring back a Holding Company like this to fail again. It makes no sense.
So, what capital do they need to re-establish their core business profitably? And who are their clients? How much can they borrow at the new FED low rates?
The Debtors could be receive a share in the new Company, too, and might likely do better than using a COD, particularly for the Subordinated Debt.
Good luck.
mojo9
So, 51% is equity share and 49% goes to the Debtholders in a new offering.
And, they will capitalize the new offering without debt exchanged for a new offering.
The CTs are what qualify the Estate for the Tax Credits and is why they continue to trade.
Your problem is not the CTs but your insistence on claiming half-truths which is cray with a small, very small, marshy poe-poe.
mojo9-stein
2good,
If you don't think we have talked about NOLs and run those tax credit savings based on $55B - $130B of unpaid debt down to a share price in a new offering, you're cray.
And, we've discussed COD ad nauseum.
mojo9-stein
My blood pressure runs high so I check it every morning as well as take my temp.
"Sheet stained Knickers" made me spit out my thermometer, Viv.
mojo9-stein
You're quite a marshy swamp creature, 2good.
2good:
"THERE IS NO MONEY FOR CTS!! ACCEPT THE REALITY..
THERE IS STILL MORE THAN 130B UNPAID DEBT!!
WAKE UP!!!"
So, how do you go from $639B in assets to distributing $127B and $130B in unpaid debt?
$639B - ($127B + $130B) = $382B?
Pretty big hole, don't you think?
GL
"swag
now there is money in UK however
IT IS NOT BEING RELEASED TO PRESERVE CAPITAL
both leh capital and UK capital
interesting
edbk46"
Exactly, ed.
I believe I read subsidiaries were sent a distribution for the ECAPS but the ECAPS were not able to pay their shareholders.
If there was an additional re-structuring with subordinate interests Stateside in exchange for ECAPS like some have discussed here, I am not sure how that effects the balance sheet yet.
mojo9 (Anti-Joe Biden)
Yes, Argus.
And, the fact there is no mention of a class with these Corporate Guarantees brings up the question as to whether the CTs were classified correctly.
It isn't only a subordinated issue.
Thank you.
mojo9
I know.
I thought you were asking $5? LOL
And, Buffet does the same thing now.
Lehman was first.
2good: "Waske will lose again."
I have been in the deal before Wu & before Waske.
We go in circles with your half truths.
My offer was to help as you had asked.
But, I prefer to not get involved with others who have different qualifications and pursue different motions.
My offer also includes increasing our positions at my cost.
That would be very fair and reasonable.
What more could you ask for?
Go find the money.
Good luck.
mojo
You are telling me to go to Court.
It was your idea.
Where can I send you the invoice so you can get what you want?
mojo
Send me an e-mail and I'll send you the invoice.
If not, you don't know what you are talking about.
mojo
I have stated concerns directly to our Trustee & LBHI.
LBHI have a long list of questions and have not responded.
We have had to settle for half truths like your BS while Tilson parades around NYC in his commercials and demons this Board.
Waske has been late to the game. Same with the Wu Wu.
It is beyond belief why some people seem to get what they want while it turns out to be more fraudulent for the rest of us.
And, if it is fraudulent for the rest of us, why should others be getting what they want?
mojo