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.
At the bottom (last page) of each claim there is an amount for interest accrued. Remember that at the time they filed the claim, there wasn't a lot in back divies due (yet), but there was some. I believe their calculation takes into account the # of days since the last divy payment was made for each CT, and then prorates it accordingly.
On the 20% idea or getting gus-the-bash-king to use up his limit of posts???? I'm not sure which one I would prefer more at this point!
There is an existing claim that LBHI has against LBI (#6359) that is for $240M and is listed in the recent LBI docket (#8885) dealing with setting reserves aside. The LBHI Claim is to be a Priority Reserve Amount according to the Motion. This claim is tied to the Settlement agreement between LBI and LBHI last year.
Just to get Gus to use at least one more of his 15 posts for the day, I'm going to say my SWAG is that it will cover a 20% payment of the CTs. (20% x $1.2B = $240M).
8885 05/08/2014
Motion to Authorize / Trustees Motion for an Order Pursuant to Sections 105(a), 502(a), 502(c) and 726 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 3009 (I) Establishing a Final Reserve for Secured, Administrative and Priority Claims, (II) Allowing Certain Secured, Administrative and Priority Claims, (III) Authorizing the Trustee to Satisfy Allowed Secured, Administrative and Priority Claims, and Related Relief filed by Christopher K. Kiplok on behalf of James W. Giddens, as Trustee for the SIPA Liquidation of Lehman Brothers Inc. with hearing to be held on 6/19/2014 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 621 (SCC) Responses due by 6/5/2014, . (Kiplok, Christopher)
6359 LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC 06/07/2013 $240,000,000.00 No Image
Creditor Address:
ATTN: DANIEL J EHRMANN
1271 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, 40TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10020
Debtor:
08-01420 SIPC vs. Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Amounts:
Allowed Priority: $240,000,000.00
Claimed Priority: $0.00
Remarks:
Allowed pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court Order entered on April 16,
2013.
THIS CLAIM IS ALLOWED
Related Dockets
Docket No. Docket Date Docket Text Related Documents
6020 04/16/2013
Order Signed on 4/16/2013 Approving Settlement Agreement Between the Trustee and the LBHI Entities. (Related Doc # [5784]) (Nulty, Lynda)
Case: SIPC vs. Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Related: 5784
Document
Totally agree Jersey! What's the bottom line with that lawyer-talk??? With that said though...I do like what's in the parens below...
"equal the Allowed amount of such Guarantee Claim (or such amount as may be agreed to by a holder and the Debtors) shall, in each case, be deemed satisfied in full as to such Allowed Claim or Allowed Guarantee Claim against the applicable Debtor"
The creditors did agree to a haircut, so technically they can be considered satisfied in full based on that agreement...
8.13
Maximum Distribution.
(a)
An (i) Allowed Claim that receives Distributions (excluding Distributions
contributed to the Plan Adjustment on account of such Allowed Claim) in the Allowed amount
of such Claim or (ii) Allowed Guarantee Claim that receives Distributions (excluding
Distributions contributed to the Plan Adjustment on account of such Allowed Guarantee Claim)
that combined with Distributions or other consideration provided on the corresponding Primary
Claim (excluding Distributions contributed to the Plan Adjustment on account of such Primary
Claim) equal the Allowed amount of such Guarantee Claim (or such amount as may be agreed to
by a holder and the Debtors) shall, in each case, be deemed satisfied in full as to such Allowed
Claim or Allowed Guarantee Claim against the applicable Debtor. To the extent that an Allowed
Guarantee Claim is deemed satisfied in full, LBHI shall be entitled to receive future
Distributions or consideration on account of the corresponding Primary Claim as subrogee
pursuant to Section 8.14(a) of the Plan to the extent of LBHI’s Distribution on account of such
Guarantee Claim less any amounts received by LBHI by way of disgorgement thereof. Except as
specifically provided with respect to LBHI’s rights of subrogation set forth above, nothing
contained herein shall in any way affect the rights of the holder of a Guarantee Claim with
respect to a corresponding Primary Claim against a Primary Obligor that is not a Debtor.
(b)
In no event shall (i) an Allowed Claim receive Distributions (excluding
Distributions contributed to the Plan Adjustment on account of such Allowed Claim) in excess of
the Allowed amount of such Claim or (ii) an Allowed Guarantee Claim receive Distributions
(excluding Distributions contributed to the Plan Adjustment on account of such Allowed
Guarantee Claim) that combined with Distributions or other consideration provided on the
corresponding Primary Claim (excluding Distributions contributed to the Plan Adjustment on
account of such Primary Claim) are in excess of the Allowed amount of the Guarantee Claim (or
such amount as may be agreed to by a holder and the Debtors).
(c)
To the extent that any Debtor has Available Cash after all Allowed Claims
against that Debtor have been satisfied in full in accordance with Section 8.13(a) of the Plan,
each holder of each such Allowed Claim shall receive its Pro Rata Share of further Distributions,
if any, to the fullest extent permissible under the Bankruptcy Code in satisfaction of postpetition
interest on the Allowed amount of such Claims at the rate applicable in the contract or contracts
on which such Allowed Claim is based (or, absent such contractual rate, at the statutory rate)
until such time as all postpetition interest on all such Allowed Claims has been paid in full.
(d)
For purposes of determining whether an Allowed Claim has been satisfied
in full in accordance with Section 8.13(a) of the Plan, all Distributions or other consideration
provided by a Primary Obligor in a currency other than the U.S. Dollar shall be converted to the
U.S. Dollar applying the existing exchange rate derived from Reuters existing at approximately
3:00 p.m. GMT on the Confirmation Date. Nothing contained in this provision shall affect the applicable exchange rate for determining the Allowed amount of any Claim under section 502(b)
of the Bankruptcy Code.
(e)
The Plan Administrator may, in its sole discretion, request that a holder of
an Allowed Guarantee Claim, except holders of Allowed Guarantee Claims for which a
Subsidiary Debtor is the Primary Obligor, certify in writing and provide evidence reasonably
satisfactory to the Plan Administrator to confirm whether: (i) the Primary Claim has been
Allowed or disallowed against the Primary Obligor, and, if Allowed, the amount of such
Allowed Primary Claim, (ii) the Primary Claim is disputed or subject to objection by a Foreign
Administrator or other party, (iii) the consideration, if any, received to date on account of such
Allowed Primary Claim from the Primary Obligor, (iv) such holder has been notified by or on
behalf of the Primary Obligor of any future distributions or payment anticipated or estimated to
be made on account of such Primary Claim from the Primary Obligor; or (v) the holder (A) has
sufficient assets to satisfy an order or judgment to disgorge any Distributions received with
respect to such Allowed Guarantee Claim if it is ultimately determined that such holder is
required to disgorge all or a portion of such Distributions and (B) will submit to the jurisdiction
of the Bankruptcy Court for purposes of such order or judgment and will not contest the
enforcement of such order or judgment in any foreign jurisdiction. If the holder does not also
certify, in addition to the foregoing, that the holder has sufficient assets in the United States of
America to satisfy an order to disgorge any Distributions with respect to such Allowed
Guarantee Claim, unless the Bankruptcy Court orders otherwise, the Plan Administrator may
require that the holder post security for any obligation to disgorge Distributions made to such
holder on account of such Allowed Guarantee Claim as a condition to the receipt of future
Distributions on such Claim if the Plan Administrator reasonably determines that such security is
necessary to ensure the recovery of any amount of Distributions made by LBHI to such holder
that is ordered to be disgorged. If (i) the Plan Administrator determines, based on the foregoing,
that an Allowed Guarantee Claim has been satisfied in full in accordance with Section 8.13(a) of
the Plan, then unless the Bankruptcy Court orders otherwise, no Distributions shall thereafter be
made on account of such Allowed Guarantee Claim, or (ii) a holder of an Allowed Guarantee
Claim does not comply with this section, then unless the Bankruptcy Court orders otherwise, the
Plan Administrator shall not be required to make Distributions on account of such Allowed
Guarantee Claim, provided that nothing herein shall preclude a holder of an Allowed Guarantee
Claim from challenging the determination of the Plan Administrator in the Bankruptcy Court;
provided, further, that the Plan Administrator shall reserve Distributions with respect to such
Allowed Guarantee Claim and, unless such Allowed Guarantee Claim has been satisfied in full
in accordance with Section 8.13(a) of the Plan, promptly after compliance with this section the
Plan Administrator shall remit to the holder of such Allowed Guarantee Claim the lesser of (x)
the amount reserved pursuant to this section on account of such Allowed Guarantee Claim or (y)
the amount necessary to satisfy such Allowed Guarantee Claim in full in accordance with
Section 8.13(a) of the Plan.
(f)
Any portion of any Distribution made by LBHI to the holder of an
Allowed Guarantee Claim that is recovered pursuant to Section 8.13 or 8.14 of the Plan, whether
by way of subrogation, disgorgement or otherwise, shall be treated as Available Cash of LBHI
and distributed accordingly.
Good point :) Maybe I'll ask myself how much the CTs will get paid and when while I'm at it!
Great info Cotton! Would you agree that anything owned by the LBHI Plan Trust is not destined for the creditors as a POR distribution?
The P's and G's are normal preferred shares, and therefore equity. No claim is filed for equity holders, just the creditors...
I agree...I think it would take moving into the dollar range for someone to accumulate even 1% of the OS at this point. And then to get another 1% would take it to multi-dollars based on folks seeing that something BIG is up, and not selling yet...
Hopefully we'll see some massive buys at some point to know something really is up. I noticed on the other board you mentioned 48K is 1% of the OS, but it's really .1% if my math is correct. One percent would be 480K shares. So with that being said, it is still hardly registering on the volume scale...
I hope you're right Jimzin, but I'm sure we would all feel better knowing there was an EC watching out for the OBS's best interests. I'm still confident that the NOLs belong to equity and are non-transferable.
I would also disagree. I believe he checked into the board back in Dec 2013 and stated he's still holding 100% of his CTs.
Not sure - it looks like he and others put forth another attempt (Docket #10208) at the EC soon after the first attempt was shot down, but prior to the Disclosure Statement being approved. This one seemed to fall on deaf ears though without anything further on the docket concerning the EC request.
I took a look at the letter from the US Trustee declining the request for an equity committee, and her last sentence reads:
"Based on the current status of the LBHI bankruptcy case, and applicable law, the US Trustee declines to appoint an official equity committee at this time."
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Document/GetDocument/1182614
Seems like the door may have been left open for a committee in the future???
It would be good if a renewed effort for a committee was made at some point...
Hey robigus - I just found out myself about what seems to be an extended docket. It looks like each of the adversary proceedings have their own numbering system, that's why the docket entries you were asking about were in a lower range.
You can include all the adversary proceedings by checking the box "Include Adversary Proceedings" at the bottom of the case selection window. When you do a search for "Scheduling" as cotton suggested, you get entries in date order, but with different number ranges being used because they come from different adversary proceedings.
No more just searching on the main LBHI case from here on out. It looks like good info is being posted on all the other case #s as well...
robigus - try removing the "Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc." in green text from the docket search page. That will open it up to all the cases associated with LBHI.
Here is the link for Docket #76 as an example:
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Docket#DocketNumber=76&RelatedDocketId=&ds=true&maxPerPage=25&page=1
Otherwise you just get single Docket #76 for the LBHI case specifically, which is just a Notice of Appearance blah blah blah...
Actually this link doesn't even bring up the document you wanted, you still have to remove the "Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc." in green text and hit "Search" again...
just a joke...I'm not suggesting lawyers fees will be added to 10B...just a joke...
What will not happen? This is what was in my post:
"From what I read, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has a running total of $1.8B in fees that are being paid back by the Plan, so $26M is just peanuts. It will be interesting though to see if any changes to the Plan are made based on the implied/explicit attitude of Judge Sullivan towards the Plan and its writers.
This is where cotton's gems come into play..."
I was not saying the $1.8B would be discharged...
Cotton - do you think the Committee got the judge's rebuke, and, if so, do you foresee more changes to the Plan than just 6.7 being removed?
Thanks for bringing focus to this issue!
That's a good thought! Maybe they'll fall for it, more money for them might be all they care about LOL! Hey guys, we can keep the $26M, we just need to bring Class 10 into play. MoMoney MoMoney MoMoney!
From what I read, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has a running total of $1.8B in fees that are being paid back by the Plan, so $26M is just peanuts. It will be interesting though to see if any changes to the Plan are made based on the implied/explicit attitude of Judge Sullivan towards the Plan and its writers.
This is where cotton's gems come into play...
Not sure how to remove it. But I do understand your frustration at this whole process and and how long it's taking etc. Sometimes it must seem like everyone is against us!
I hope he's NOT reading the board!
Viva - I think you're putting way too much blame on Judge Sullivan for anything. I read his decision several times and I can't find anything close to a negative attitude for the CT holders. If anything he is against the Official Committee for the way they tried to backdoor some of their expenses, etc. Maybe you meant to direct this toward Peck???
I would say Judge Sullivan is more on our side than not, but the fact is this whole thing is about a measly $26M in fees the Creditor Committee wanted paid as part of the Plan. Inside his decision (which I believe was favorable), cotton picked out a few gems that he's been posting. Seems the judge saw some backdoor activity that he didn't agree with. Here is my summary of what it's all about:
- Members of the Unsecured Creditors Committee wanted the fees they paid to hire their own attorneys ($26M) to be paid in full according to Plan Section 6.7. The fees associated with the payment to the official committee members are considered "administrative expenses" and must be paid. However, the $26M refers to fees that individual members spent hiring their own professionals.
- The UST Tracy Hope Davis countered that $26M in fees should not be paid in full to members who actually help write the Plan (including 2 Trustees (BNYM and ?)
- Apparently the UST objected to that portion of the Plan during the Plan Confirmation process, and agreed to defer her objection until after the Plan had been confirmed.
- Judge Peck denied the UST argument on Feb 15, 2013
- The UST appealed Peck's decision on May 1, 2013 to the US District Court
- District Court Judge Sullivan "vacates the bankruptcy decision and remands to the bankruptcy court to determine whether Individual Members' professional fee expenses qualify for payment under Section 503 of the Bankruptcy Code"
- Judge Sullivan states that the $26M are not not administrative expenses. He also states "the Court finds that Section 6.7 is invalid".
- Section 503(b)(4) excludes professional fee expenses for official committee members
- Section 6.7 puts those fees back in, even though they are to be excluded based on the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act in 2005
- "If the expenses could be paid under 503(b) on the basis of committee membership, section 6.7 would not have been necessary
- Section 6.7 is considered a "backdoor" for getting paid
So Judge Sullivan agreed with the UST about these $26M in fees not getting paid by the Plan, and has sent it back down (remanded) to the Bankruptcy Court for a fix/update to how these $26M in fees will be handled. The gems that cotton has been posting have been good tidbits and show the background for how Class 10 should be treated equally and get payments along with the other classes.
I don't have PACER acess, but here is a post from robigus that has links to the docs associated with the APs...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=102039019
As he posted, there doesn't seem to be a connection between the extended stay and the CTs...
Excellent DD robigus! Those docs you referenced are CT-FREE!
Thanks for digging deeper on this!
Here's a link to the docket showing the notice(s) for the conferences with US Bank, BNYM, etc...
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Docket#DocketText=scheduling&RelatedDocketId=&ds=true&maxPerPage=25&page=1
Looks like they were planning the "Conference" leading up to yesterday's Court date...
"PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a scheduling conference regarding the above- captioned adversary proceedings will be held before the Honorable Shelley C. Chapman, United States Bankruptcy Court, Alexander Hamilton Custom House, One Bowling Green, New York, New York, Room 621, on May 14, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time) (the “Conference”)."
Not sure, it just says "extended as to the Non-Distributed Actions to thirty (30) calendar days after the date on which the Court enters a scheduling order governing the Non-Distributed Actions (the “Non-Distributed Actions Scheduling Order”);"
I guess it depends on the date the Court entered/enters a scheduling order...
Looks like a request to extend the Stay 30 days was made at the court yesterday for a few of the Avoidance Actions and it was granted...
44333 05/15/2014
Order Extending Stay of Non-Distributed Avoidance Actions and Granting Certain Related Relief Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code signed on 5/15/2014. (Chien, Jason)
"A scheduling conference (the “Conference”) having been held before the Court on May 14, 2014 with respect to each of the adversary proceedings identified on Exhibit A hereto"
ORDERED that the Stay (as defined in the Stay Orders) imposed by the Stay
Orders is hereby extended as to the Non-Distributed Actions to thirty (30) calendar days after the date on which the Court enters a scheduling order governing the Non-Distributed Actions (the “Non-Distributed Actions Scheduling Order”); and it is further ORDERED that the defendants in the Non-Distributed Actions shall not be required to answer or otherwise respond to the complaints in the Non-Distributed Actions until provided in the Non-Distributed Actions Scheduling Order or as otherwise agreed by the parties; and it is further
ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) calendar days of entry of a scheduling order in the action captioned Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of America National Association, et al., Adv. Proc. No. 10-03547 (SCC), the Chapter 11 Estates shall file and serve a proposed Non-Distributed Actions Scheduling Order (the “Filing Date”); and it is further ORDERED that any defendant in the Non-Distributed Actions shall file any written objection (an “Objection”) to the proposed Non-Distributed Actions Scheduling Order within fourteen (14) calendar days from the Filing Date (the “Objection Deadline”); and it is further ORDERED that the Chapter 11 Estates and defendants in the Non-Distributed Actions shall meet and confer to discuss the proposed Non-Distributed Actions Scheduling Order; provided, however, that no defendant in the Non-Distributed Actions shall be required to participate in any meet and confer; and it is further ORDERED that, if any timely filed Objections have not been resolved by seven (7) calendar days after the Objection Deadline, the Chapter 11 Estates shall, within the next twenty-one (21) calendar days thereafter (the “Notice Date”), notice a hearing for the Court to consider the proposed Non-Distributed Actions Scheduling Order at the next omnibus hearing date that is at least fourteen (14) calendar days after the Notice Date (the “Scheduling Order Hearing”), subject to any adjournment of such hearing ordered by the Court; provided, however, that if all Objections are resolved prior to the Scheduling Order Hearing, the Court may enter the Non-Distributed Actions Scheduling Order without a hearing; and it is further ORDERED that, in the event that the Chapter 11 Estates notice the Scheduling Order Hearing as set forth herein, the Chapter 11 Estates shall file a reply to any Objection by no later than two (2) business days prior to the date set for the Scheduling Order Hearing; and it is further ORDERED that nothing contained in this Order shall constitute a determination of any issues with respect to the content of a litigation protocol for the Non-Distributed Actions, including the order in which issues are to be addressed, and the rights of all parties with respect to such issues are preserved; and it is further
ORDERED that, except as set forth herein, all other terms and provisions of the Stay Orders shall remain unaltered and in full force and effect; and it is further ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising
from or related to the implementation of this Order.
Dated: May 15, 2014
New York, New York
/s/ Shelley C. Chapman
HONORABLE SHELLEY C. CHAPMAN
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
The extension pertains to:
Adversary Proceeding
10-03542 (SCC) Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al.
10-03544 (SCC) Lehman Brothers Financial Products Inc. v. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., National Association, et al.
10-03545 (SCC) Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, et al.
10-03809 (SCC) Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association, et al.
10-03811 (SCC) Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of New York Mellon National Association
Perhaps these are related to the CTs...
Hey Joisey!
Just a little more info on the underwriter thing. The lawsuits against the underwriters were for "misrepresentations and/or omissions" with respect to a number of offerings. Here is a sample:
- Oct 24, 2006 offering of 5.75% Subordinated Notes Due 2017
- Jan 12, 2007 offering of 5.25% Medium Term Notes Due 2012
- Mar 23, 2007 offering of Medium Term Notes Series I (52517PW31)
- Aug 14, 2007 offering of Series D - 6.85% Notes Due Aug 16, 2032
- Feb 5, 2008 offering of 7.95% Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series J (52520W317)
And many more.
The underwriters had costs associated with these lawsuits and filed a claim against LBHI for those costs. The judge gave the PA authority to classify the costs as either Class 11 or Class 12 depending on if the Note involved was a debt or equity instrument. You can see our J Prefs listed above so those would be considered Equity (Class 12) like we know, but the other notes are considered Debt so they go into Class 11.
Looking forward to meeting up with you one day and looking back on this long road we've traveled together! We're getting close!!!
The associated Motion docket (#43972) spells it all out pretty clearly. Underwriters were sued and they wanted LBHI to cover their costs as a result. Their claims were subordinated into either class 11 or 12 based on the judge allowing the PA to decide which parts were debt-based (class 11) and which parts were equity-based (class 12). The judge isn't the one that needs to get into it at that fine a detail, so she expects the PA to handle it, which makes sense to me at least.
In any case, lots of excitement about how the end game is being played out! I'm as optomistic as ever!
The underwriters were defendants in a number of lawsuits where the plaintiffs were ticked about losing money on some securities (including the J preferreds). The underwriters filed a claim against LBHI to cover the costs incurred for those lawsuits, and an objection to those claims was made by the Plan Administrator. The judge sided with the PA today and those claims are now subordinated in classes 11 and 12. This has nothing to do with the CTs...
5.5 years ago Lehman bind = Barclays windfall. Has the table now been turned???
Good luck Deanna, I hope we both do well with the CTs. I'm not going to spar with you anymore, but you'll be happy to know I won't ignore you either...yet!
He ain't gonna see it. I tell ya he ain't gonna see it. I think you need to stop orbiting planet EGO and come back down to good ol earth for awhile...
Wow - what would that Docket entry look like????
Ummm hate to break it to you, but being on ignore means he won't see your reply. I know, it's a tough one to fathom. Happy sailing...
I've always heard that big BIG news (like we want) breaks on Saturday or Sundays.
Still ain't going to hold my breath though. It will happen when it happens if it happens :)
I think there will be news about Barclays this Friday morning (5/9), followed by major Lehman news on Sat 5/17.
But I aint holdin' my breath :)