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.
Because it is uncontested. Nobody objected to the $560M distribution. Best case would have been if it was So Ordered prior to the hearing, but that didn't happen so we have to wait another day to see the outcome of the motion...
This is just from the schedule of what's happening tomorrow, not the outcome (yet). So the judge can still make a decision for or against it, but not based on any objections. I would highly expect the judge to go along with the case presented by Mr Olshan....and So Order it!
This came out just minutes after my last post:
Looks good to me!!!!
I.
UNCONTESTED MATTERS:
2.
Motion for Authorization for Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. and
Lehman Brothers Commercial Corporation to Invest Disputed Claims Reserves
for Claim Numbers 66455 and 66476 Pursuant to Section 8.4 of the Modified
Third Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Its
Affiliated Debtors [ECF No. 46073]
Response Deadline:
September 2, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.
Responses Received: None.
Related Document:
A.
Declaration of William A. Olshan in Support of Motion [ECF No.
46237]
Status: This matter is going forward on an uncontested basis.
I still find it curious that there are SO many adjournments for tomorrow's hearing. Maybe more time needed for something else...like something that came from that pre-hearing conference on Aug 12th????
SO many adjournments for the Sept 9th hearing date. It will be interesting to see what's going to be covered when they release the schedule on the 8th...
Could be...or maybe they are making room on Sept 9th to discuss the CTs...perhaps??!!
Not that I could see....but what I am seeing are a number of adjournments of hearings that were to be held Sept 9th but will now be on Oct 7th. Making room for something else perhaps?
I can't speak for everyone, but I won't complain and will gladly walk away with a BIG smile on my face with either option!
I hope they give me a chance to prove it!
I think we're home free as far as the objections to the motion. The deadline was 4:00 EST today, and because I've seen other docket entries get posted after 4:00, I'd say there aren't any objections!
All the important parties were involved in the CDA (LBHI, LBI, JPM, Barclays, the Unsecured Creditors Committee), so I don't think anyone is left to object. At least I hope that's the case!
My guess is we see a "So Ordered" docket entry either later tonight or tomorrow sometime. Just my WAG of course...
nice, Nice, NICE!!!!
I know Wayne, just a neat coincidence...or not :)
The ask on the N's is $36.85. I really can't understand it though, I would have thought it should be closer to $36.25, but maybe my divy calculation was off LOL!
I hope either of us (or both) are right!
IMO this all has to do with the CDA, which has been around longer than the POR. The CDA deals with securities, the list of which JPM wanted to be considered Highly Confidential, and we have seen the claim redacted (LBI claim 6315) etc. The CTs can't just be swept under the rug and have to be dealt with at some point.
This ties together the sale to Barclays, the liabilities they did or did not assume, the JPM collateral, JPM as the CT trustee, the CT's guarantee(s), and more pieces to this big puzzle.
So, I think the latest news is bringing it all together and we are seeing the beginning of the end game!
Taking my seat, popcorn maker is plugged in, and seatbelts ready to be fastened!
Welcome back Jersey! Glad your ship came in! Now sit back and wait for your $$$$$$$ SHIP TO COME IN!
Hmmmm, I wonder if they've ever given thought to the LBHI M&A idea.
OF COURSE THEY HAVE!!! [Screaming at myself] This is a no-brainer!!!!
"Lehman is represented in its chapter 11 cases by Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP."
http://www.weil.com/experience/practices/mergers-and-acquisitions
Mergers & Acquisitions
Perennially ranked among the top five firms for M&A globally, as well as in the major regions (Asia, Europe and United States) in which we practice, Weil has helped advise clients on some of the largest and most innovative transactions in the marketplace. In 2013 alone, Weil advised on more than 50 transactions larger than $1 billion for clients in a range of sectors and geographies. So far in 2014, we have kept that pace, advising on more than 30 transactions larger than $1 billion for our broad client base.
Not sure, but I would think it has to mean taking claims that it (LBHI) has against LBI, and turning it into mega dinerios. Maybe selling those claims to a merger candidate for cash, and giving that partner new shares in the ongoing concern?
This could be the first of many mergers to make use of the NOLs. And if there's an ongoing concern, then the CTs are GOLDEN! $$$$$$$
As far as your common shares, I'm all set for the OBS with the prefs. I do hope your commons hit big time though!
I'm guessing they "proceed with any such opportunities"! Why would they announce something like this, when they've been ever so quiet on everything else???
I say this is a teaser about what's going to be announced just after the Oct 2nd distribution (or before)!
CDA approved in 2010, POR approved in 2011, POR mentions "Other Financial Obligations", Claim 66455 is part of CDA, CT's are part of Claim 66455...
Seems simple enough, yet who knows for sure???
I'm a few years away from retirement myself, or is that a few weeks! But I appreciate the good ol hobby of restoring tractors/mowers. The most I've done is gotten some junkers running that were someone else's trash, and it's been good for the boys to do that kind of tinkering alongside me. Now they can do the same on cars!
No, I'm not on any other forums, just remember a few posts over the years where you mentioned the WheelHorse thing. I'm not too far from which-exit-Joisey myself, so the lunch idea sounds awesome one day!
Thanks Jersey! I imagine you still may go with the old WheelHorse variety, or are you going brand new? I see you going with what you love, the oldie but goodie!
Enjoy the rest of the cruise! What's the update on the issue they were having???
Here's the table I generated for the 24 quarters of cumulative back dividends, compounded quarterly:
I'm not 100% sure on the math, but it should be close...
______LEHNQ_____LHHMQ___LEHKQ___LEHLQ
_______6.24%____6.00%___6.375%__6.375%
Qtr
1____0.39_____0.37____0.40____0.40
2____0.79_____0.76____0.80____0.80
3____1.19_____1.14____1.21____1.21
4____1.60_____1.53____1.63____1.63
5____2.01_____1.93____2.06____2.06
6____2.43_____2.34____2.49____2.49
7____2.86_____2.75____2.93____2.93
8____3.30_____3.16____3.37____3.37
9____3.74_____3.58____3.82____3.82
10____4.19_____4.01____4.28____4.28
11____4.64_____4.45____4.75____4.75
12____5.10_____4.89____5.22____5.22
13____5.57_____5.34____5.71____5.71
14____6.05_____5.79____6.19____6.19
15____6.53_____6.26____6.69____6.69
16____7.03_____6.72____7.20____7.20
17____7.53_____7.20____7.71____7.71
18____8.03_____7.68____8.23____8.23
19____8.55_____8.17____8.76____8.76
20____9.07_____8.67____9.30____9.30
21____9.60_____9.18____9.85____9.85
22____10.14_____9.69___10.40___10.40
23____10.69____10.21___10.97___10.97
24____11.25____10.74___11.54___11.54
I guess there's a chance that could happen, but sure don't know the odds.
I haven't bought any CTs for quite awhile and am more than satisfied with what I own. At some point ya gotta say nuff's nuff, right Jersey!
OK - thanks for the clarification on that!
Another LBSF vs BNYM Adversary Proceeding being taken care of with a Proposed Stipulation...
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Document/GetDocument/2514957
148 08/26/2014
Stipulation Agreement And Order Among Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc., Quartz Finance Public Limited Company, BNY Mellon Corporate Trustee Services Limited And The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation In Respect of Series 2005-1 Class A EUR 20, 000, 000 Kingsbury Credit-Linked Synthetic Portfolio CDO Notes Due 2012 Issued By Quartz Finance Public Limited Company filed by Michael J. Venditto on behalf of BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation. (Venditto, Michael)
Case: LBSF v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation et al
In a normal shorting of a stock, the price goes down during the shorting activity because people are selling shares prior to owning them. Then they hope the price goes down so they can purchase them at a cheaper cost. That really didn't seem to be what was happening yesterday though, it seemed to be shares were being sold at the ask to the buyer, right?
To have so high a percentage be considered short shares, and the sales to go off at the ask, does indicate a true shortage of shares that the MM will have to replace at some point, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Either the MMs know the price will come back down at least temporarily, or are completely ignorant of the true potential here??
Wouldn't you agree this isn't the normal profile of what happens when retail folks short the shares?
For it to be so close to the $560M, using round numbers for the share counts, I hope it's more than just a coincidence.
I did base the calculations on getting interest along the way so I think we're on the same page as far as that goes. The amount of divys for one quarter was based on the outstanding amount for the previous quarter X the interest rate for the CT.
I would think the $560M was just a ballpark figure like mine and if it comes out a little less or more they'll go with it.
We shall see!
I did some spreadsheet programming to figure out how much the back divys would be for 24 quarters (cumulative, compounded quarterly) and got the following:
LEHNQ (6.240%) = $11.25______9M shares___$101,232,429
LHHMQ (6.000%) = $10.74_____16M shares___$171,801,124
LEHKQ (6.375%) = $11.54_____12M shares___$138,459,054
LEHLQ (6.375%) = $11.54_____12M shares___$138,459,054
Total = $549,951,663
Awful close to that $560M number! I think you found something simiar in your number crunching also right?
Pay the CTs back dividends, then redeem us FV, get us out of the way and start merging! That would be a good investment for the creditors who keep the rest of the pie wouldn't ya think?
And then my OBS shares kick in for round two!
Sounds fine to me! I'd LOVE to see the CTs get halted because of pending news!!!
I think we can blow by the buck pretty easily with any hint of CTs being in the money!
Are you still out at sea? Must be nice!!!
Seems like the price action on the CTs hasn't had the manipulation as in the past. Maybe no reason to hold it down now!
It sure would be nice to see it hit a buck soon! And beyond...
I agree, based on the fact the payment is very much tied to the CDA, approved back in 2010. The POR was approved after the CDA in 2011.
Maybe this sort of payment is allowed and considered outside the POR as a result?
I set a filter to look at claims > $200K and didn't see any of the "satisfied according to the plan" variety, so maybe the smaller $$$ claims are paid at 100% in some cases?
I would have thought the senior debt (if that's what the claim was) wouldn't yet be considered "satisfied according to the plan" if they were to get additional distributions.
Oh well, sorry to get excited about nothin!
OK - thanks! That makes sense!
But check this out, I started looking at other claim data in the Sept 2009 timeframe and the first one I came across in my date search (#49203) had the following:
49203 (C)ISSY FISSER DE GIER 10/27/2009 $27,261.49
Image
Creditor Address:
GERRIT V.D. VEEN SHAAT 43 I
AMSTERDAM, 1077 DP
NETHERLANDS
Debtor:
08-13555 Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Amounts:
Allowed Unsecured: $27,261.49
Claimed Unsecured: $25,472.00
Remarks:
Satisfied in Accordance with the Plan
Either they were a unsecured class that got a 100% payout, or they got less than a 100% payout and WERE SATISFIED IN FULL according to the POR!!!!
And then looking through LOTs of other claims, there are a LOT that weren't allowed, a few allowed, and a few where I saw the text "Satisfied in Accordance with the Plan". I didn't see any others that said what our BNYM claims said "This Claim has been Accepted as Filed by the Debtor". I would have expected to see some more of those...
Does anyone have a snapshot (in their DD notes) of the claim info for the 4 CT claims filed by BNYM showing "THIS CLAIM IS ALLOWED"? When I bring up any of those four claims now, they say "This Claim has been Accepted as Filed by the Debtor".
The BNYM claim #s for the CTs (Sub-Debt) are 67753, 22122, 22123, 21805.
I could swear they used to say "THIS CLAIM IS ALLOWED", but could be wrong about that.
The claim we've recently been talking about (66455) says "CLAIMED CONTINGENT", but I think it always has.
Then there's the LBI claim #6315 (titled LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC (JPM SUBROGATED CLAIM)) that says "THIS CLAIM IS ALLOWED", it always has according to my DD notes...
I may have been seeing things before, but like I said I thought the 4 BNYM claims were ALLOWED and not just ACCEPTED.
Maybe a sign of some shuffling to get us paid and off the books??? Or just a red herring?
Anybody???
That's most likely it, I'm just surprised that there's no other activity either...
Slow docket day, no transfers (yet). Last Thursday there were over 90 transfers and then over 100 on Friday...today nada.
Maybe they'll start coming in after hours, but to have no activity on the LBHI docket and just a handful of entries on the LBI docket is pretty weird!
Wow - that just made my day. I hope we're on the right track with our WAG!
This is what I've noted as happening since Aug 12th:
Adversary Proceedings (that we care about):
10-03811 - LBSF vs BNYM National Assoc.
10-03542 - LBSF vs US Bank National Assoc
10-03544 - LBFP vs BNYM Trust Co
10-03545 - LBSF vs BNYM
8/12 - Pre-hearing conference between LBSF and BNYM (adv proc. 10-03811)
8/14 - Notice of Entry of Judgment / Notice of Entry of Order Extending Stay of Non-Distributed Avoidance Actions (all Adv Proceeding listed above)
8/15 - LBI Statement / Notice to Holders of All General Unsecured Creditor Claims Regarding the First Interim Distribution to Allowed General Unsecured Creditors
8/18 - Lots of transfers sold by JPM
8/19 - Boatload of transfers sold by JPM
8/20 - Another boatload of transfers sold by JPM
8/21 - BNYM Adv Proceeding (10-03811) Dismissed!
8/22 - Docket about Claim 66455. This was the first docket post of the day, and the last time 66455 was mentioned in a docket was 12/21/12!
8/22 - Proposed Scheduling Orders for above Adv Proceedings (minus the dismissed one)
When I read it, I got the idea that they were going to invest it in a way that makes more sense (higher rate of return) than what is otherwise available. Maybe, just maybe, they apply it to the CTs to get them up to date (divy-wise) and thereby saves them the difference between the CT's interest (6-7%) and what they could get as a normal rate of return (<1%).
Just my WAG, but I could see it being a smart idea to invest it getting the CTs up to date versus having it sit in a low-return account somewhere.
Thoughts?
Thanks for the clarification Hestheman. I still have to believe there's an avenue (maybe more than one) for us get the back dividends, but can see your point if we go the route of being an executory contract. If, however, we are still alive when/if the first of many mergers take place, or there is an ongoing concern with equity being in the money also, I think we can get the back divies plus interest. I could be wrong about that though of course.
This is my last post for the day, so have a good night everyone (except gus of course)!
Maybe BNYM was too aggressive in asserting the rights as trustee? I hope that's the case! If so, our day will come!
http://www.attorneys.com/bankruptcy/an-adversary-proceeding-in-bankruptcy
"Reasons for Adversary Proceedings
Debtors bring adversary proceedings against creditors for violations of automatic stay protections when creditors pursue collection remedies against debtors despite bankruptcy code's prohibitions."
Debtor dismissed the adversary proceeding against BNYM today...
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Document/GetDocument/2513583
34 08/21/2014
Notice of Dismissal of Defendant the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National Association filed by Scarlett Elizabeth Collings on behalf of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.. (Collings, Scarlett)
Case: LBSF v. Bank of New York Mellon National Association
Not sure of the ramifications, but BNYM was the defendant, so being dismissed must be a good thing...end game anybody?