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.
I don't like it when my CT-knowledgeable son uses the term frickin', but this is too frickin' funny!!!
Sorry CT-knowledgeable son (if you see this)...
Translate that he's busy buying back those same 100K shares at .50. Once he gets those, he'll sell you those .50 shares at .30 LOL!
You know he just may fall for that same gimmick like before! Sucker's playing right into their hands LOL!
You're probably right, you da man!
Either it means nothing and is purely wild speculation, or now's the time to keep the board quiet while they gitterdun. I hope it's the latter!
What if all these ex-Lehman execs are going to be a part of a reorganized Lehman Bros/LAMCO, with a connection to Barclays new US-based Holding company that they need to form to satisfy Dodd Frank.
With the details of the original sale to Barclays still being finalized in litigation etc, and the CTs possibly part of those details, it just seems like a few pieces of the puzzle are coming together. And with all of this happening in the final few weeks prior to the stay being up just makes one go Hmmm...
Another ex-Lehman employee (Lehman's co-head of mergers and acquisitions) is leaving Barclays....Hmmm...
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/barclays-confirms-its-head-of-mergers-is-leaving/?_php=true&_type=blogs&partner=yahoofinance&_r=0
Barclays confirmed on Monday that its global head of mergers, Paul G. Parker, was leaving – the latest prominent departure from the British bank.
The move was announced in a short internal notice. A spokesman for the bank declined to comment.
Mr. Parker is one of a string of senior executives leaving Barclays as it prepares to reduce the size and costs of its investment bank. Last week, three other bankers – Hugh E. McGee III, the head of the firm’s Americas unit; Ros Stephenson, the global chairman of its investment bank; and Robert Morrice, the head of its Asia-Pacific arm – also disclosed their impending departures.
Revolving Door
Barclays has been moving to scale back its investment bank, reflecting tougher new regulations and fallout from a rate-fixing scandal that led to the departure of Robert E. Diamond Jr. as chief executive. The bank is expected to reveal its outlines for its newly reorganized investment bank this week.
Word of Mr. Parker’s impending departure began to spread on Friday, after Ms. Stephenson and Mr. Morrice announced their own plans.
Mr. Parker, a longtime deal maker, had kept busy even until late last week. Among the assignments on his plate are Valeant’s $45.6 billion takeover bid for the maker of Botox and Comcast’s $45 billion deal for Time Warner Cable.
He joined Barclays in 2008, when the firm took over the American banking operations of Lehman Brothers, where he served as co-head of mergers and acquisitions, and helped arrange the transaction.
Lots of speculation obviously, but maybe the $1.2B is to cover the FV of the CTs in case Barclays doesn't end up taking them on. There are still parts of the Barclays deal being worked out in litigation, so maybe the CT liability is at least part of that...
What Barclays bought was the Brokerage Business of Lehman Brothers, not LBI in its entirety. LBI is being liquidated, the brokerage business is not...
LBI has been in liquidation since Sept 19, 2008...
WA WA WAKE UP!
Gotcha Mojo! Thanks for the pre-announcement heads up though! I agree you shouldn't steal their thunder!
I do remember it, but what are you getting at about the headcounts???
Funny, I was putting together the links for the same news issue and then saw your post when I checked back. Must be some shared brainpower in the stock*9 accounts!
Wonder who/what is going to be this US-based Holding Company???
From http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2014/04/29/barclays-says-us-head-mcgee-quits/
"Barclays blamed McGee's departure on the "great deal of management focus" needed to comply with new U.S. banking rules. Foreign banks have two years to transition to an Intermediate Holding Company, which carries much more stringent federal regulations."
From http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-29/barclays-says-skip-mcgee-to-step-down-as-head-of-america-unit.html?cmpid=yhoo
"Barclays said it’s making the change as the Dodd-Frank Act requires it to set up a U.S. holding company, forcing managers to focus on regulation and compliance matters."
From http://finance.yahoo.com/news/barclays-dealmaker-mcgee-quits-u-171437472.html
"Hugh 'Skip' McGee, one of the British bank Barclays' (BARC.L) highest earners, has quit as head of its Americas business, the bank saying he did not want to oversee the task of establishing a new holding company required under tougher U.S. rules."
It's a claim against the LBI bankruptcy, not LBHI. The claim #s in that format seem to be LBI-based from what I've seen. Here's the link for the LBI case:
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBI/Project#
It's an LBI claim for $3,749,412.23 and the image is redacted...
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBI/Claim#Claim=7002263&ds=true&ex=false&maxPerPage=25&page=1
OK - so that's pretty INTERESTING!
My State Street is still showing just the original dates, but maybe an update is coming???
Exactly! Just one bit of news and KABOOM!
That is a good point you bring up about the volume, and I think they've done a good job keeping that doubt alive. Enough shares could have been accumulated in the past along with shares that the Underwriters might have still had, to where they could keep the ask price fairly low. That, along with the spread between bid/ask, along with a lack of solid optimistic news from the bankruptcy itself, would be enough to keep prices and volume down for now IMO. The CTs having a run up to $5 or so and maintaining that level for a while would seem unrealistic at this point, almost like there really is zero risk involved with these. I, for one, do see a LOT to be excited about, but also don't feel there is zero risk involved (yet).
With that said, all it would take is one bit of positive news or a BIG buyer that "knows" what's coming that loads his boat and that would start the run. Until then we just kinda idle at this level...
I'm wondering if it was someone trying to get the share at the $1.03 just to get something rolling. I tried the same a while back, but ended up getting my shares at closer to the bid price instead of the ask...
It's risky, but you may want to check out the ProShares ETFs on the Bear side. For example, SQQQ is an ETF that has a 3x inverse return of the Nasdaq QQQs. If the Nasdaq goes down one percent, the SQQQ goes up three percent. Likewise, if the Nasdaq goes up one percent the SQQQ goes down three percent.
Thee are other ones that are 1x and 2x and also for the DOW and SPY, as well as precious metals, utilities, telecomm, etc.
These Proshares are good for the short-term trading, but I wouldn't stay invested in any one of them for more than a couple weeks.
The nice thing is they allow you to invest a smaller amount to get the same effect as the 1x index, but like I said there is more risk involved.
Ahhh thanks! I must not of scanned down the rest of the post...
Thanks to you too Cotton!
That is interesting Cotton. I didn't see any reference to Barclays. Where did you see they filed a complaint against them, or is it a theory of yours?
This is what a quick search turned up:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/rule_7007.1
Rule 7007.1 Corporate Ownership Statement
(a) Required Disclosure. Any corporation that is a party to an adversary proceeding, other than the debtor or a governmental unit, shall file two copies of a statement that identifies any corporation, other than a governmental unit, that directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of any class of the corporation's equity interests, or states that there are no entities to report under this subdivision.
(b) Time for Filing. A party shall file the statement required under Rule 7007.1(a) with its first appearance, pleading, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. A party shall file a supplemental statement promptly upon any change in circumstances that this rule requires the party to identify or disclose.
Notes
(Added Mar. 27, 2003, eff. Dec. 1, 2003; amended Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007.)
Committee Notes on Rules—2003
This rule is derived from Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The information that parties shall supply will support properly informed disqualification decisions in situations that call for automatic disqualification under Canon 3C(1)(c) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. This rule does not cover all of the circumstances that may call for disqualification under the subjective financial interest standard of Canon 3C, and does not deal at all with other circumstances that may call for disqualification. Nevertheless, the required disclosures are calculated to reach the majority of circumstances that are likely to call for disqualification under Canon 3C(1)(c).
The rule directs nongovernmental corporate parties to list those corporations that hold significant ownership interests in them. This includes listing membership interests in limited liability companies and similar entities that fall under the definition of a corporation in Bankruptcy Code §101.
Under subdivision (b), parties must file the statement with the first document that they file in any adversary proceeding. The rule also requires parties and other persons to file supplemental statements promptly whenever changed circumstances require disclosure of new or additional information.
The rule does not prohibit the adoption of local rules requiring disclosures beyond those called for in Rule 7007.1.
Changes Made After Publication and Comments. No changes since publication.
Committee Notes on Rules—2007 Amendment
The rule is amended to clarify that a party must file a corporate ownership statement with its initial paper filed with the court in an adversary proceeding. The party's initial filing may be a document that is not a “pleading” as defined in Rule 7 F. R. Civ. P., which is made applicable in adversary proceedings by Rule 7007. The amendment also brings Rule 7007.1 more closely in line with Rule 7.1 F. R. Civ. P.
I've invested here because I believe equity will see something at some point. If they do, CTs get full face value plus back divvies plus interest. Yes, there actually are risks taken in investing. According to and within the POR, it is quite possible the trust won't have funds to pay the CTs. That shouldn't surprise anyone at this point...
Or late spring perhaps???
I like this part of the Prospectus:
"Lehman Brothers Holdings will irrevocably guarantee that if a payment on the junior subordinated debt securities is made to the trust but, for any reason, the trust does not make the corresponding distribution or redemption payment to the holders of the preferred securities, then Lehman Brothers Holdings will make the payments directly to the holders of the preferred securities. The guarantee will not cover payments when the trust does not have sufficient funds to make payments on the preferred securities. "
Granted the last sentence has to be there in case there are no funds available in the absolute end for payment to the trust, but I read it as "if any payment is made to the trust that doesn't end up in the pockets of the CT holders, LBHI will pay them directly as an alternative path of payment". This would prevent our CTs from technically getting paid, just to satisfy that claim, and then having it go to the senior creditors instead.
Joe Stocks - any thoughts on why no one is currently trying to sell less than $1.00? I'm sure it will get back to normal at some point later today, but wouldn't you agree it's a tad bit interesting???
About the stay, are you saying there isn't (and never has been) a stay in place for the CTs? That the only recourse for the Trustee during this default event called bankruptcy is to file a claim? Are you saying the criteria for being hindered by a stay or not is whether a claim has been allowed or not? I think there's more to it than that, and that the trustee is limited right now at what he can do because of a stay indeed being in effect.
You are absolutely right. I just put a sell order for 500 shares at $1.00 and the Ask immediately went to that 1.00. I pulled the order and it went back to $1.73.
VERY INTERESTING!!!!
I can't confirm it, but it doesn't surprise me. Super-sized the risk and exposure, and seems like it was just a matter of time before it hit the fan.
I think the repo deal tied to the Barclays/LBI/JPM financing was along the lines of $15B or so.
Sounds good to me! If the prospectus didn't matter in a bankruptcy, why bother mentioning the bankruptcy scenario in the prospectus to begin with? They are correctly following the prospectus by not paying the CTs until the senior creditors are satisfied. so I am confident they will follow it all the way through as well.
This is from an old post by Cotton back in April 2013:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=87076728
The LBI SIPA Trustee gave LBIE an allowed customer claim of $9.1B against $24B in original claims.
The LBI SIPA Trustee gave LBHI an allowed customer claim of $2.3B against $19B in original claims.
Out of $15B cash (PRE WATERFALL), this is $11.4B for LBIE and LBHI alone.
LBHI had to agree to this for a big big very big reason!
Lets talk about "gave" for a minute. No one is given anything in this bankruptcy. Every party in the LBI SIPA negotiation process settled on the $9.1B and $2.3B for LBIE and LBHI, respectively. Now, we are receiving press concerning possible equity in LBIE with the possible full payout for their unsecured claims.
In 2012,PWC said that it would take 20 years to monetize the LBIE assets. In 2013, PWC has reduced 20 years to 10 years to monetize LBIE assets.
LBHI contributed all of its equity interest in its European asset management companies to LAMCO International.
************
Lamco is the key!
"(i) for LBHI to transfer the
majority of its existing employees, contribute its domestic asset management infrastructure and
make an initial equity contribution of $20 million to LAMCO LLC, and for LBHI to contribute
all of its equity interests in its European asset management companies, LBHI Services Ltd. and
LBHI Estates Ltd., to LAMCO International, pursuant to a contribution agreement (the
“Contribution Agreement”); (ii) for LBHI to enter into a shared services agreement (the “Shared
Services Agreement”) with LAMCO LLC to govern the use of certain contracts, assets and the
services of certain employees; (iii) for LBHI to enter into an asset management agreement with
LAMCO LLC (the “Asset Management Agreement”) pursuant to which, subject to certain
guidelines and protocols, the Debtors’ assets will be managed by LAMCO LLC; and (iv) for the
Debtors to enter into a letter agreement (the “Intercompany Agreement”) for the allocation of
management fees and other costs between LBHI and, among others, the other Debtors."
Cotton - does the following excerpt answer in part your question:
"Hmmm, does the LBHI Plan Trust equity interest own every Lehman Brothers subsidiary, affiliate or entity that pays off their respective creditors 100 percent? (Pump or Dump) Including LBIE? (Pump or Dump) "?
16. Debtor LBHI, a U.S. entity, is the former parent company of both LBI and
the remaining Debtors. LBHI’s principal business was overseeing the Lehman enterprise,
including the Lehman enterprise’s activities in Capital Markets, Investment Banking and
Investment Management. LBHI directly or indirectly held the equity in each of the Debtors as
well as all non-debtor Lehman entities, managed the cash flows of Lehman entities and derived
liquidity from cash generated by the Lehman subsidiaries. (Kiplok Decl. ¶ 12.)
Exactly - this is pretty clear...
"All of LBI’s subsidiaries were transferred to a non-Debtor LBHI
subsidiary prior to the commencement of the SIPA proceeding. LBI subsidiaries included
Debtors Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”), Lehman Commercial Paper Inc.
(“LCPI”), Lehman Brothers Financial Products Inc. (“LBFP”), and Lehman Brothers Derivative
Products Inc. (“LBDP”), along with those entities’ subsidiaries."
Here is a good description of the relationship between LBHI, LBI, and LBSF, as well as other entities:
From LBI Docket 5784:
Motion to Approve Compromise / Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 for Entry of Order Approving Settlement Agreement Between the Trustee and the LBHI Entities 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 4/16/2013 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 601 (JMP) Responses due by 4/3/2013, (Kiplok, Christopher)
III. BACKGROUND
A. The Relationship Between LBI And The LBHI Entities
15. LBI was the principal U.S. broker-dealer and the primary entity through
which the corporate entities comprising Lehman Brothers (collectively, the “Lehman Group”)
offered U.S. customers prime brokerage services. These services included clearing trades,maintaining custody of securities, providing margin financing, borrowing stock to cover short
sales, and providing cash and position reports. LBI had many subsidiaries, which in turn, were
regulated by a variety of organizations and engaged in a variety of financing, banking, and
investment activities. All of LBI’s subsidiaries were transferred to a non-Debtor LBHI
subsidiary prior to the commencement of the SIPA proceeding. LBI subsidiaries included
Debtors Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”), Lehman Commercial Paper Inc.
(“LCPI”), Lehman Brothers Financial Products Inc. (“LBFP”), and Lehman Brothers Derivative
Products Inc. (“LBDP”), along with those entities’ subsidiaries. (Declaration of Christopher K.
Kiplok in Support of Trustee’s Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019
for Entry Of Order Approving Settlement Agreement Between The Trustee And The LBHI
Entities dated February 26, 2013 (“Kiplok Decl.”) at ¶ 11.)
16. Debtor LBHI, a U.S. entity, is the former parent company of both LBI and
the remaining Debtors. LBHI’s principal business was overseeing the Lehman enterprise,
including the Lehman enterprise’s activities in Capital Markets, Investment Banking and
Investment Management. LBHI directly or indirectly held the equity in each of the Debtors as
well as all non-debtor Lehman entities, managed the cash flows of Lehman entities and derived
liquidity from cash generated by the Lehman subsidiaries. (Kiplok Decl. ¶ 12.)
I will miss your presence here also, but DEFINITELY understand the frustration!!!!
For all we know a few bashers here may be loading CTs, not worrying about future reputation since they can then hit the bank on the edge of town before riding off into the sunset with their millions.
I'm willing to keep my chips on the table, speculating that this 150 year old behemoth of a company will not just die and fade away. I'm also willing to bet that ALL equity will not be wiped out, and if that's the case the CTs will get their share.
Lehman was brought down and not given a helping hand, and I think they will come back and have a "bankrupt this" attitude.
Absolutely nothing wrong with speculating in a play like this. Trying to fit puzzle pieces together as we find them just makes sense as we wait.
Not sure if you or anyone here has seen that AFV video where a football team scores a touchdown and 4-5 guys are celebrating/chest bumping in the endzone. Along comes a guy that tries to join in the celebration, and just as he jumps into the middle of the crowd, they split up and late dude lands flat on his face with a thud. That's what I picture with the dude(s) here that say they own shares but are the lead bashers. They'll get to celebrate in the end-zone but not with the rest of the guys that believed from the beginning.
Can you picture it????
Glad to help Gus. I can understand your frustration not being able to think for yourself and all.
Best of luck friend!
Thanks Hestheman! I haven't read the article yet but will later today. So in your opinion, you think there's a definite connection between the CTs, the sale to Barclays, the JPM financing, the JPM claims, the CDA, etc.
Could the CTs get paid in an alternate way at an alternate date based on this info?
Thanks for any help putting these puzzle pieces together!
Also, I forgot to mention that there are 21 docket entries on the LBHI docket that mention the Triparty arrangement:
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Docket#Debtors=1906&DocketText=Triparty&RelatedDocketId=&ds=true&maxPerPage=25&page=1
Some are most likely repeats of the 17 on the LBI docket though...
Interesting how they were all Lehman Program Securities transfers to JPM. There were a bunch yesterday too of the same sort. Haven't seen that many of that type before...