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 agree that the LBHI bankruptcy can't go on forever. I just didn't want anyone to confuse the potential LBI distribution in July with the next LBHI distribution in October.
This is for Lehman Brothers Inc (LBI) and not LBHI.
Our turn will come one day...I hope!
1> CTs sub-debt have a claim filed against LBHI
2> JPM has identified themselves as a codebtor to LBHI for securities (inc CTs) listed in Exhibit C (and possibly others not yet filed at the time that they may be a codebtor for)
You want evidence of a claim against LBHI that JPM is a codebtor to
Read #1 slowly, then read #2 slowly
It's really that simple Joe.
Ezetrade wanted to know if JPM is a codebtor to LBHI. The answer is yes.
I really can't make it any easier to understand...
I'm not sure the text of the JPM claim could have been any more clearer. He was obviously wrong on this issue, and probably not able to admit it...
The CTs are still alive and the end-game hasn't started yet!
Read it closer Joe. JPM is filing the claim on behalf of the creditors for claims which JPM is a codebtor of LBHI. JPM doesn't know the names of the creditors, so they filed a claim on behalf of those creditors, knowing that they ARE a codebtor.
CT's are listed in Exhibit C of that claim.
JPM clearly stated in this claim covers the offerings in Exhibit C.
"In addition, JPMSI and its Affiliates, each as an entity that may be liable with LBHI to a creditor that has not filed a proof of claim, hereby files pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3005(a) a proof of claim on behalf of each such creditor covering claims with respect to which JPMSI and the affiliate of JPMSI, as applicable, is a codebtor with LBHI. The name of each such creditor is not currently known"
"This filing is intended to include, without limitation, all Claims of the types described above in the preceding paragraph, including, but not limited to, all such Claims related to the offerings described in Exhibit C."
This JPM claim is covering the creditors who didn't file. Why is it a surprise then that you haven't seen any creditors file???
It's pretty clear what this claim is for, I'm surprised you're trying so hard to twist it into something it's not. I do agree that it deals with JPM being the underwriter. But it also clearly says JPM is a codebtor with LBHI, which is what the original question by ezetrade was asking.
Not so fast. I'd argue that it is a matter of record that they are a codebtor with LBHI...
From Claim 66455 (top of page 9)
"In addition, JPMSI and its Affiliates, each as an entity that may be liable with LBHI to a creditor that has not filed a proof of claim, hereby files pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3005(a) a proof of claim on behalf of each such creditor covering claims with respect to which JPMSI and the affiliate of JPMSI, as applicable, is a codebtor with LBHI. The name of each such creditor is not currently known"
Hey Jersey, I'm still here...just watching and waiting.
Have a safe New Years Eve celebration everyone!
You and me both robigus! Waiting for one of these bankruptcies to hit!
Thanks rl! The same can be said for you!
I'm still VERY optimistic, I'm just done making any guesses about timeframes.
A good life can be had while we wait it out!
We shall see! It's gotta end at some point...
Good Luck Mr Dine!!!
Here's the docket entry covering that < $200M option...
29505 07/18/2012
Order Modifying Certain Existing Claims Orders (Related Doc # [29193]) signed on 7/18/2012 (White, Greg)
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Document/GetDocument/1771844
"1. The Plan Administrator is authorized to settle any and all Claims (as such
term is defined in the Plan) asserted against the Debtors without prior
approval of the Court or any other party in interest where (a) the allowed
amount of the settled Claim is less than or equal to $200 million or (b) if
the Claim is a portion of a Divided Claim (as defined below), the Pro-Rata
Amount (as defined below) is less than or equal to $200 million."
As much as I enjoy your optimism ines, I'm not making any guesses either way at this point. It's been a long ride, and I've made enough overly optimistic calls along the way which didn't pan out. I own a boatload of OBS and CTs, but will be just fine if they never pay out.
With that said though, things ARE moving along!
Looks like LBI and Barclays are finally in the process of settling their disputes!
I wonder if the potential sale of the brokerage by Barclays kinda sped things up as far as the settlement goes.
One nice quote from the settlement doc...
"Continued litigation would also result in continued delay, and the continuation of the Barclays litigation represents the principal obstacle to the Trustee's goal of winding up the liquidation. By bringing the litigation to an end, the Trustee will make substantial progress toward the final resolution of LBI's SIPA proceeding."
Not holding my breath for anything good to come to the CTs/OBS as a result, but at least things are moving!
12216 06/05/2015
Declaration of Christopher K. Kiplok in Support of the Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 for Entry of an Order Approving the Settlement Agreement Among the Trustee, Barclays Capital Inc., and Barclays Bank PLC (related document(s)[12215]) filed by William R. Maguire on behalf of James W. Giddens, as Trustee for the SIPA Liquidation of Lehman Brothers Inc.. (Maguire, William)
Case: SIPC vs. Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Related: 12215
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBI/Document/GetDocument/2595532
12215 06/05/2015
Motion to Approve / Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 for Entry of an Order Approving the Settlement Agreement Among the Trustee, Barclays Capital Inc., and Barclays Bank PLC filed by William R. Maguire on behalf of James W. Giddens, as Trustee for the SIPA Liquidation of Lehman Brothers Inc. with hearing to be held on 6/29/2015 at 02:00 PM at Courtroom 623 (SCC) Responses due by 6/22/2015, . (Maguire, William)
Case: SIPC vs. Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Related: none
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBI/Document/GetDocument/2595530
Interesting you mentioned the 9th of June. They just posted on the docket that there will be a State of the Estate on that date. This is only the 2nd time they've done one of these, the first being in Sept 2010...
49908 06/04/2015
Notice of Hearing : Notice of State of the Estate Presentation filed by Jacqueline Marcus on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.. with hearing to be held on 6/9/2015 at 11:00 AM at Courtroom 623 (SCC) (Marcus, Jacqueline)
And the first one was
11196 09/07/2010
Notice of Hearing : Notice of State of the Estate Presentation filed by Shai Waisman on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.. with hearing to be held on 9/22/2010 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 601 (JMP) (Waisman, Shai)
It's pretty clear that there are still disputes with Barclays, and the SIPA trustee describes those disputes as an obstacle to closing out the LBI liquidation.
Maybe a Barclays' sale of the brokerage will be the path to closure...
From the latest SIPA Trustee's Interim report:
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBI/document/GetDocument.aspx?DocumentId=2517411
While substantial challenges such as the resolution of claims pending before this and appellate
courts and disputes with Barclays Capital Inc. remain, the path to further distributions
and closure of the estate is clear, and the Trustee will pursue this path expeditiously.
30. Open issues with Barclays remain a principal obstacle to the conclusion of
this liquidation.
31. The Trustee continues to maintain a $4.503 billion reserve for the dispute
with Barclays over approximately $8 billion of “Disputed Assets.”
32. On August 5, 2014, the Second Circuit issued a decision affirming the
District Court’s judgment awarding Barclays the Clearance Box Assets and the Margin
Assets that secured exchange-traded derivatives Barclays acquired from LBI. On
August 19, 2014, the Trustee filed a petition for rehearing. (Barclays Capital Inc. v.
Giddens (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), No. 12-2322 (2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2014) (ECF
No. 295).) Regardless of the outcome of this petition, the Second Circuit’s decision
does not impact distributions already completed, underway, or planned for, including the
full satisfaction of customer claims, distributions on priority and secured claims, and
upcoming interim distributions on general unsecured claims.
33. If the District Court and Second Circuit decisions ultimately are upheld,
the Trustee’s liability to Barclays would be approximately $2.7 billion, including $1.1
billion in respect of the Clearance Box Assets and $1.6 billion in respect of the Margin
Assets, all of which are fully reserved for.
34. The Trustee has reserved $4.503 billion, an amount more than sufficient
for this liability and for claims that Barclays may make to additional cash balances that
are not Margin Assets or are not held by the Trustee despite the Trustee’s belief that
Barclays is not entitled to the additional cash under the language of the District Court’s
judgment and the Second Circuit’s opinion. Further litigation with Barclays in this
connection is possible.
Hey Jersey - our day will come! Keep the faith!
It was for a Deferred Compensation Fund Claim:
20171 09/12/2011
Objection In re: Claim No. 11327, 11328, 11329 filed by Donald C. Dybeck. (Lopez, Mary)
Case: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Document/GetDocument/1429479
I'm pretty sure (well positive) this all has to do with the auctions they were having a few years ago. It's only the shares that LBI owned that are being abandoned, not the securities themselves.
Apparently they either didn't go up for auction after all, or nobody bid on them if they did, but all they are doing now is officially abandoning them.
This is ANOTHER sign the LBI at least is nearly done with their liquidation...
I think there's a proposed settlement in the works. We'll have to wait and see if there's anything that comes out of the presentment on March 20th.
Maybe this thing won't drag on much longer after all!
I have a decent amount of the CTs as well as equity. If either one hits I'll be set!
With that said, I don't see any way possible that equity can get a single cent without the CTs being satisfied. That is according to the POR as well as the CT's prospectus.
Sounds good to me! I hope you're right about that being where the difference was between the balance sheet and the operating report!
Are you getting at the fact this docket deals with several JPM claims against LBHI, one of which is Claim #66455 ($1.7B), which lists the CTs in Exhibit C (Securities Law Claims)????
That would be nice, but the 7th Distribution appears to be business as usual:
"Notice of Seventh Distribution Date
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that in accordance with sections 1.48 and 8.3 of the Modified Third Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its Affiliated Debtors (the "Plan"), the seventh Distribution Date shall be April 2, 2015 (the "Seventh Distribution Date").
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to section 8.11 of the Plan, for purposes of the Seventh Distribution Date, the Debtors and the Plan Administrator will not recognize any transfer of Claims recorded on the claims register after February 21, 2015 (the "Record Date")."
Who's to say they don't shake things up a bit before then though...
That would be exciting if true, I'm just not 100% convinced yet...
I would venture a guess that an after hours/weekend PR would be in the works if true, so we shall see!
I wouldn't think that CTs would have to stop trading just because the POR ends, but if that were true I believe it wouldn't take place until the market closes today (3 years from the effective date)...
Maybe the POR does end today. I haven't seen any evidence that they've requested an extension, but I guess that doesn't mean they haven't. Having a planned distribution taking place in April may or may not indicate the POR is still in effect after today.
Not sure about that rl. I've been under the assumption the trust is a totally separate entity from LBHI, and not an affiliate. But then again they do own the common shares (not the preferred CTs) of the trust so I guess by definition they are an affiliate.
And yes, to be a subsidiary they need to have a controlling interest in the affiliate.
Until proven otherwise, I'm believing that the 2600+ affiliates are still out there, and LBHI (the holding co for the Lehman enterprise) still is invested in them.
It looks to me like they wrote off the investments early on, but then it turned out they were able to get (and continue getting) a return on that investment. Who whudda thunk???
I say it's all part of the bigger plan that's unfolding, one that they hatched back in late 2008/2009 IMO!
I guess my point was that it just seems like an an unknown at this point. To be an affiliate of LBHI, LBHI just has to have a non-controlling interest in the companies. The investments in the affiliates line item in the balance sheets for the Total LBHI Controlled Entities is $64B.
There is a note in the latest balance sheet that says:
"Adjustments to Investments in Affiliates may be
required in future Balance Sheets (including write-
downs and write-offs), as amounts ultimately realized
may vary materially from amounts reflected on the
Balance Sheets herein."
The LBI Trustee is the one that said there were over 2600 affiliates in the Lehman Enterprise, so if LBHI and it's subs had equity in one point in all of those (in order to be an affiliate they had to), then who can say right now how much profit has been made in those companies over the last 6 years. I haven't seen evidence that LBHI has cashed out all equity in all 2600 affiliates. As far as I know, LBHI = the Lehman enterprise...
Mellow - the effective date according to the docket is March 6, 2012.
Here is the description on the front page of the docket:
"Commencing on September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ("LBHI") and 22 of its affiliates (collectively, the "Debtors") filed petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York seeking relief under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. All pleadings filed in these cases are available on case docket 08-13555 ("Main Case Docket"). The Main Case Docket can be accessed through the website maintained by the United States Bankruptcy Court (http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov). An unofficial version of the Docket is accessible by selecting the "Docket" link at the top of this page.
The Debtors' chapter 11 plan (the “Plan”) was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court on December 6, 2011 and became effective on March 6, 2012. The Debtors have commenced making distributions to holders of allowed claims and will continue to make distributions in accordance with the Plan until the liquidation of their assets is complete."
"the Plan Administrator shall wind-down, sell and otherwise liquidate assets of the Debtors and/or Debtor- Controlled Entities"
- plenty of debtor entities out there that they don't control but have equity in (2500+?)
"it being understood that such liquidation may include the transfer of all or part of the assets of such Debtor to one or more Liquidating Trusts"
- all or part of the assets
"should not result in a reduction or limitation of the Debtors’ tax attributes for federal income tax purposes that materially impairs the expected actual use of such tax attributes"
- the Plan Administrator obviously wants to use the NOLs for a going concern, otherwise they would just liquidate without the need for a letter from the IRS...
Thanks for posting that section of the POR Jimzin!
Proof that they're not...
How many of these 2600 Affiliates are we familiar with, maybe 20-50??? That leaves over 2500 companies out there in the Lehman enterprise that don't get mentioned in the balance sheets, etc!
Did anyone else catch what the LBI Trustee said in his recent Realization Report?
"Prior to bankruptcy, LBI was a hub among the 2,600 affiliates of the worldwide Lehman enterprise."
Wow - that's a boatload of affiliates! Just how much equity does LBHI in all these companies throughout the world??? Most might be in bankruptcy, but there are some that aren't...
From http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/affiliate.asp
DEFINITION of 'Affiliate'
A type of inter-company relationship in which one of the companies owns less than a majority of the other company's stock, or a type of inter-company relationship in which at least two different companies are subsidiaries of a larger company.
INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'Affiliate'
For example, let's say BIG Corp. owns 40% of MID Corp.'s common stock and 75% of TINY Corp. In this case, MID Corp. and BIG Corp. have an affiliate relationship, and TINY Corp. is BIG Corp.'s subsidiary.
However, note that for the purposes of filing consolidated tax returns, IRS regulations state that a parent company must possess at least 80% of a company's voting stock in order to be considered affiliated
Your link is about the LBI liquidation, not the LBHI chapter 11...
Joe - the Disclosure Statement lists the secured debt at $2.4B if I'm not mistaken, and I didn't think that was even paid off until after the POR took effect. That $2.4B is a drop in the bucket out of the $330B difference. Are you saying the remaining $300B+ was because of CDOs and CLOs, or that there was a ton more secured debt that was paid off before the Plan took effect?
What's your opinion on the difference in reporting of the Investments in Subs showing +$3B in one report and -$60B in another report?
Between the two docs:
On the asset side:
- Investments in Subs went from +60B to -3B (-$63B)
- Due from Subs went from $393B to $221B (-$172B)
- Total Assets went from $626B to $295B (-$331B)
On the liabilities side:
- Due to Subs went from $387B to $189B (-$198B)
- Long term borrowing increased from $81B to $100B (+$19B)
- Total Liabilities went from $560B to $324B (-$236B)
The question is what was behind the drop in assets by $331B while the liabilities dropped [only!] $236B. Part of it was the $63B difference in how they accounted for the investment in subs. The other big part was the increase in long term borrowing. Those two together account for $82B of the $95B delta...
Thanks Ed! I agree, just wanted to run it by the folks that ONLY put their trust in the balance sheet.
I have to believe there's a bigger plan the the POR unfolding behind the scenes.
I appreciate your wags and swags, keeps it interesting!
I noticed that also in the balance sheets when comparing the Operating Reports for Sept 08 thru Dec 08 vs the Balance Sheet for Dec 08.
Monthly Operating Reports for September, October, November and December, 2008 (filed 1/1/09)
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Document/GetDocument/1130973
$626B = Total Assets for the Total LBHI Controlled Entities
$560B = Total Liabilities for the Total LBHI Controlled Entities
$+65B = Total Stockholders Equity
vs
Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2008 with Accompanying Schedules (filed 8/21/09)
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Document/GetDocument/1130977
$295B = Total Assets for the Total LBHI Controlled Entities
$324B = Total Liabilities for the Total LBHI Controlled Entities
$-29B = Total Stockholders Equity
What exactly happened to that $330B, same timeframes, different reports???
Be nice if they could though! Makes sense to me at least! :)
Thanks for the response...
Now that's a good catch rl! His way of letting us know his job is done here LOL!