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'm just saying option #3 could be an agreement outside the POR. The how much or when are a big unknown, but most likely a better outcome than a % distribution on Oct 2nd. With that said though, I'll be ecstatic if we get even a few % on Oct 2nd. It means we're on the board and in-play!
Any thoughts on these dockets cotton?
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Document/GetDocument/2509100
239 08/04/2014
Copy of Order of U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Sullivan signed on 8/4/2014. It is Hereby Ordered that the Reference to the Bankruptcy Court is Withdrawn. The Clerk of the Court is Respectfully Directed to Reopen this Case. (related document(s)[100], [226], [158]) (Rouzeau, Anatin)
Case: LBHI et al v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt o f the parties' letters concerning Defendant's contemplated motion
for summary judgment and request to withdraw the bankruptcy reference for this action. (See Doc.
Nos. 43, 44.) Having considered the Orion factors - as modified by Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct.
2594 (2011) - relevant to a district court's determination o f whether to permissively withdraw a
bankruptcy reference pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(d), see In re Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d 1095 (2d
Cir. 1993), the Court finds that withdrawal o f the bankruptcy reference is appropriate in this action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDRED THAT the reference to the bankruptcy court is withdrawn.
IT IS FURTHER ORDRED THAT the parties shall submit a joint letter to the Court by August, 8,
2014, proposing a briefing schedule for Defendant's contemplated motion for summary judgment.
The Clerk o f the Court is respectfully directed to reopen this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
August 4, 2014
New York, New York
or this one:
http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Document/GetDocument/2504905
238 07/21/2014
Letter in response to Defendant, JP Morgans Request for Pre-Trial Conference (related document(s)[237]) filed by James Tecce on behalf of Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors Of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.. (Tecce, James)
Case: LBHI et al v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
I say Option #3 could be much much better than option #2!!!!
OK cotton - so my thoughts are coming out today. Sorry for the delay! :)
"Post your thoughts about these dockets and cases! I am going to sit back and watch the Debtors and wait on your post(s)! "
Maybe they hatched a plan that would be better in the long-term, one where they could emerge as an on going concern, merging multiple times with other companies, to make use of the massive NOLs.
A 150 year behemoth of a company just laying down and saying "Oh well we're done now. Yep that $250M margin situation in early Sept 08 was just too much for us so it's over", just doesn't seem like the outcome here.
Just ask jimmy99 if that's how the big boys from Sweet Home Alabama would handle this, right jimmy?
I think it's very possible, but I'm not going to lose hope if we don't.
We very well could start receiving a % distribution on Oct 2 like the other creditors have been getting. On the other hand I believe the removal of the stay takes it to a new level where the trustee can go after back dividends and full payment for the CTs.
I still have faith in BNYM as the trustee. To think they would not do their fiduciary duty on our behalf would be a matter of someone choosing to believe the worst case scenario. But even if that does happen, the prospectus says we can assert our rights even without the trustee. Not saying you think the trustee won't look out for us camaro, but it does seem like an easy attitude to have for the naysayers...
Yes! But the senior debt needs to be satisfied first according to the POR and prospectus.
We are in the end-game for sure now, and waiting for news of the distribution, merge, or possibly finding out that Barclays is responsible for the CTs once and for all.
Not sure what you're asking or stating JOVI.
Bottom line for me is at some point Lehman is going to rise from the ashes with a "bankrupt this!" attitude, and the CTs and equity will be there when it does.
The POR is taking into account all the prospectus for the different creditors. It is a plan that makes the most sense and is as fair as possible to all. The prospectus for the CTs did not complicate the process of coming up with the POR, because it was clear in that prospectus that senior debt must be satisfied first before the CTs (trust) gets a dime. It probably took them all of 3 seconds to put together what would be in Class 10B, and how they would be treated. If we had all read the prospectus before investing in the CTs, we would understand we are where we are supposed to be, but also have confidence if there is an ongoing concern, successor, or equity remaing, we are ABSOLUTELY GOLDEN!
When the stay is lifted and the trustee can assert our rights...KABOOM! After all there was an obvious event of default with this bankruptcy. Same holds true for a new PR talking about a merger with a company to make use of the NOLs and the plan for the new entity with no debt and massive tax write-offs!
I'd agree they are satisfied in full, so we can expect a distribution in October. But if it doesn't happen, I think it will as soon as the stay is finally over. The trustee can assert our rights once that happens!
Maybe you were hearing me say something different?
IMO the CT's prospectus is still being followed as well as the POR. I haven't seen anything to contradict this (yet). And in that prospectus it states that the CT's must be paid in full (with back dividends) before equity gets anything. I also own equity, so it's not like I'm overly biased towards the CTs. I believe there is much more meat on the bone than people realize, and that paying the CTs in full (either in cash or new shares) won't be a problem.
Do you know of anything in the CT's prospectus that hasn't been followed up to this point? It states what needs to happen in a bankruptcy situation, and IMO the BNYM trustee is doing what it should on our behalf.
The stay is preventing the trustee from demanding payment in full on our behalf. IMO the meetings that took place on Aug 12th prior to the hearing must have put the final end-game agreement in place.
VERY MUCH agree chaarles! We are in good shape!
We still have BNYM representing us as the trustee of the sub-debt no matter which way it goes. LBHI can't ignore what's in the prospectus, and so far they haven't IMO. The CTs prospectus clearly states that the senior debt needs to be taken care of first, and that we will get paid in full prior to equity getting anything.
I think the part about the debtor paying us directly is a good thing. It prevents the scenario of the debtor depositing money into the trust in order to say they paid the CTs, and then redirecting it to someone else. The prospectus says that won't happen.
I believe where we are now is getting a lot more clear. BNYM is representing the sub-debt quite well and is ready to pounce when the stay is lifted. I believe more now than ever that we will get paid in full plus back dividends, and all the key players know this. The CTs are clearly part of the CDA agreement with JPM as the codebtor to LBHI. It wouldn't be right for us to get anything yet, so they are extending the stay, again knowing that our trustee has every right to demand payment once the stay is lifted. Maybe it's being extended to get up to or past the next distribution, at which point we can be paid knowing the senior creditors have been satisfied in full.
Of course the other option is that we are taken care of as an executory contract, as Hestheman has been stating for a long time. That is just as likely IMO. The CDA is key as it ties all the pieces together (JPM, CTs, LBI, LBHI, and Barclays). With JPM clearly stating they are a codebtor, and with JPM not being in bankruptcy itself, we are in good shape! The CTs couldn't be paid too early in the process, but had to fit in somewhere in the puzzle. The CDA is the glue that ties it all together IMO.
Once the stay is lifted, as cotton has said, we are GOLDEN...and they all know it!
rl - here's my take on it...
The trust holds the subordinated notes that were issued by LBHI. The CTs we hold were then issued by the trust and are "secured" by the subordinated notes held by the trust. We actually own secured debt, they are just secured by a subordinated note the trust has against LBHI.
I believe the CTs will get paid in due time, it's just that even our Prospectus says we can't get paid until the senior debt is satisfied.
The trust that issued our CTs is a separate entity and is still alive. It's not even in bankruptcy like LBHI. But since our shares are secured by the subordinated claims the trust has against LBHI, we are indirectly in bankruptcy also.
This is my understanding of the connection between the trust, the sub notes, the debtor, and our CTs. Anyone can feel free to correct what I'm saying if it's not accurate...
Once the deposit of any kind is made into the trust from the debtor, we are guaranteed to get it. Our prospectus also states that if funds are deposited into the trust, and the CT preferred shares don't receive the money as a result, the debtor will pay the CT holders directly.
So, with that said, I think the next distribution will be good to us, assuming our trustee hasn't agreed to a different settlement for the trust before then...
It's too much lawyer-speak in all these dockets and claims for me to know what's going on behind the scenes, but there does seem to be a clear connection between the CTs, the subrogated JPM claim, the CDA, and LBI's upcoming distribution.
I'm waiting too to hear something concrete from the debtors!
How's that for a cop-out answer!
Cotton - thanks for including that post from last year. Makes me feel somewhat of a contributor :)
Edit: added links for #10 and #8. No document is available for #11
Here are a few more related dockets (notice the case is "Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. vs. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A." Adversary Proceeding No.: 12-01874 (JMP)). You won't see the case # until you open the docket...
11 12/21/2012
Amended Complaint against BEAR STEARNS CREDIT PRODUCTS INC., BEAR STEARNS FOREX INC, J. P. MORGAN VENTURES ENERGY CORPORATION, J.P. Morgan Markets Limited, J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd., JP MORGAN CHASE AND CO, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMorgan Bank Dublin PLC FILED UNDER SEAL First Amended Complaint and Objection to Claim Nos. 66451, 66453, 66454, 66455, 66462, 66470, 66472, 66473, 66474, and 66476, (related document(s)[10]) Filed by James Tecce on behalf of Lehman Brothers Commercial Corporation, Lehman Brothers Commodity Services Inc., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc., Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors Of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al. (Lopez, Mary)
Case: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. vs. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
Related: 10
*** No document is available for #11
10 12/20/2012
So Ordered Stipulation and Order Signed on 12/20/2012 Regarding First Amended Complaint and Objection to Claim Nos. 66451, 66453, 66454, 66455, 66462, 66470, 66472, 66473, 66474, and 66476 and Motion to Unseal Same. (related document(s)[8]) (Nulty, Lynda)
#10 link = http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Document/GetDocument/2189576
Case: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. vs. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
Related: 8
Document
8 12/13/2012
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding First Amended Complaint and Objection to Claim Nos. 66451, 66453, 66454, 66455, 66462, 66470, 66472, 66473, 66474, and 66476 and Motion to Unseal Same (related document(s)5, 7, 6) filed by James Tecce on behalf of Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors Of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al. (Tecce, James) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
#8 link = http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Document/GetDocument/2187901
Case: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. vs. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
Related: none
Sounds right to me Hestheman. I would love to see the CTs explicitly listed in what was assumed, but then again I probably wouldn't have been able to accumulate as many shares as I have if it existed for the public eye. That goes along with the highly confidential, redacted, nature of some of those documents related to the CDA, etc.
Great work by you and cotton!
Great post cotton - the puzzle becomes a little clearer now!
What's funny (I hope you think so too) is that the LEH in the symbol stands for Lehman Brothers, which is in the end stages of it's bankruptcy, that being the largest bankruptcy in history. I think most people assume they are dead and buried, but I believe they are going to come back with a "bankrupt this" attitude. Plenty of NOLs available so they definitely make a great candidate for a merger at some point.
This symbol is for the $25 face value Capital Trust (CT) preferred shares. The dividends are cumulative and should be around $10/share on top of the FV since they've been accumulating for about 6 years now.
There are 3 other symbols for similar $25 CT shares, those being LEHKQ, LEHLQ, and LHHMQ.
The CTs haven't received a distribution yet but the expectation is that the next one (Oct 2nd) could be when we do. The distributions are semi-annual and the debtor has paid about $80B to creditors so far. It sounds like they should have another $8B for the Oct distribtution.
Cotton,
According to the Prospectus, LBI was acting as the representative for the underwriters...
"Holdings, in turn, has agreed to sell to each of the underwriters named below, and each of the underwriters, for whom Lehman Brothers Inc is acting as the representative, has severally agreed to purchase from Holdings the number of preferred securities set forth opposite its name below".
So LBI was the representative for the underwriters and LBHI has the $1.7B subrogated JPM claim against LBI as part of the CDA.
Perhaps more evidence of the $1.7B claim against LBI being associated with the CTs???
Yes indeed! Another piece to the puzzle seems to fit nicely...
Cotton - maybe the Indenture Trustee payment option was added back in March (for the first time) in case the Stay ended prior to the Oct distribution, as in May-Sept? By putting it in the March FAQ it would cover any distribution (semi-annual or other) from that point on.
In any case it's interesting that it was added!
Hey Robigus - not sure but it sure looks like an interesting change nonetheless! There must have been a reason in their minds to add the possibility of payment by the indenture trustee IMO!
Great catch!
What has been spouted about in the media has been about LBI's upcoming distribution to its general unsecured creditors, not LBHI's semi-annual distribution that we're used to. It's two separate things...
With that said though, it is interesting timing to say the least. LBHI has a claim against LBI (the CDA/Subrogated JPM claim) for $1.5B I believe.
Could that LBI payment to LBHI be used to take care of the CTs? I hope so!
The docket it refers to (#34348) in this notice goes back to a 1/31/13 announcement that has them announcing 47 days in advance. It's a weird number, but it is what it is...
34348 01/31/2013
Order Signed on 1/31/2013 in Aid of Execution of the Modified Third Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Its Affiliated Debtors. (related document(s)[34188]) (Nulty, Lynda)
Case: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
"2. Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 1.48 of the Plan, the Plan
Administrator shall file on the docket of the Chapter 11 Cases a written
notice of Distribution Date at least forty-seven (47) calendar days prior to such Distribution Date."
Also noticed this:
Frequently Asked Questions
Please click here for answers to frequently asked questions. (Updated August 15, 2014)
but haven't been able to download it yet to check what's been updated. Most likely just the new distro date has been added, but maybe there's more?
Next LBHI Distribution Announcement...
45740 08/15/2014
Notice of Distribution : Notice of Sixth Distribution Date and Record Date in Connection with the Modified Third Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Its Affiliated Debtors filed by Garrett A. Fail on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.. (Fail, Garrett)
Case: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
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, dated December 5, 2011
[ECF No. 22973] (the “Plan”),1 and the Order In Aid of Execution of The Modified Third
Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. And Its Affiliated Debtors,
dated January 31, 2013 [ECF No. 34348] (the “Order”) the sixth Distribution Date shall be
October 2, 2014 (the “Sixth Distribution Date”).
I wish I was wrong, please show me I am, but this is talking about LBI not LBHI. LBHI is a unsecured creditor of LBI, so they will be getting a distribution from LBI, but our CTs are not an unsecured creditor of LBI.
Again, I hope and wish I am wrong about this!
I tend to agree, although I remember seeing a pretty lengthy list of folks who held the CTs pre-bankruptcy, and filed a claim directly to the court for their CTs. Their claims were considered duplicates since BNYM had filed their claim for them.
I could probably find the list again, it was an exhibit on one of the dockets dealing with one of the BNYM claims I believe...
Woah - I didn't catch that before! Great find chaarles. Get used to the nice life on the beach, hopefully you'll have many more opportunities if these CTs work out!
I think he just had it stuck in his head how he's getting toasted while we coast and boast of our soon to be had riches.
Am I cloast Gus?
Actually wrong again, I do feel the need to bash...
Geez will you ever get it right??!!
That was a bad swag on your part. Too much wand waving I guess...
Have a nice day Gus!
You just continue making a fool of yourself gus. If you're happy looking like a complete loser all the time, then carry on.
If you think I am changing the rules of anything, you are giving me too much credit, but thanks for trying.
I said "tomorrow could be interesting". To help you out I tried to highlight the word "could". Did you catch it? I can send you a link of what it means if you'd like, or you could look it up yourself if you want when you get home from school...
Who knows what EXACTLY is tied to what in this web. The docket has BNYM tied to the Financial Products division too. Wouldn't you agree the CTs can possibly be considered a financial product? Can you show me proof the CTs are NOT tied to either LBSF or LBFP? I didn't think so...
Tomorrow could be interesting...
NOTICE OF AGENDA OF
MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR THE SEVENTY-SIXTH
OMNIBUS AND CLAIMS HEARING ON AUGUST 12, 2014 AT 10:00 A.M.
LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC. CHAPTER 11 CASES
I.
ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS:
1.
Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of America National
Association, et al. [Adversary Proceeding No. 10-03542]
Lehman Brothers Financial Products Inc. v. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust
Co., National Association, et al. [Adversary Proceeding No. 10-03544]
Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. The Bank of New York Mellon
Corporation, et al. [Adversary Proceeding No. 10-03545]
Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank National
Association, et al. [Adversary Proceeding No. 10-03809]
Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of New York Mellon National
Association [Adversary Proceeding No. 10-03811]
Camaro - the claim amount is for principle and interest. The last page of each claim shows the breakdown of the amount for both.
But you are correct, there are more than 8M outstanding...
Claim 21803 included principle-only of $231,185,570 (equals $25 x 9,247,422 shares) while 67753 had a principle-only of $231,958,765 (equals $25 x 9,278,350 shares).
The difference of 30,928 shares must not have been accounted for in the first claim (21803) and a new claim had to be filed. The other 3 CTs must have had the correct amount filed the first time.
Claim 21803 was replaced/updated by claim 67753
67753 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, THE, 11/30/2011 $234,250,517.60
Image
Creditor Address:
ATTN: JOHN GIULIANO
101 BARCLAY STREET, 8 WEST
NEW YORK, NY 10286
Debtor:
08-13555 Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Amounts:
Allowed Unsecured: $234,250,517.60
Claimed Unsecured: $234,250,517.60
Remarks:
This Claim has been Accepted as Filed by the Debtor
Good point - thanks! I figured I was off somewhere in my math...
Cotton - just to clarify on your guesstimate, the $400M would be about 33% FV on the outstanding $1.2B for the CTs. To get $1.25/sh for the CT's you would only need about $60M which would be less than 1% of the $8B distribution...
Am I off on my math?
With that said I would be ECSTATIC for any kind of distribution to the CTs in Sept, be it .01%, .1%, 1%, or 33%!
You were right and you are the man!
Good to see you posting again hestheman!
I don't care about what gus says anymore, actually never much did, and have had him on ignore for awhile now...