InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 8218
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/07/2004

Re: catdaddyrt post# 25487

Saturday, 06/15/2013 9:04:57 AM

Saturday, June 15, 2013 9:04:57 AM

Post# of 111276
Catdaddyrt....It is my belief we may have been barking up the wrong tree, we may should have been looking at Barclays all along! While Barclays did not acquire any assets of Lehman's energy sector, they acquired all of their financial banking assets and some of their real estate....which make up the majority of Lehman's assets. Barclays may very well be the Successor/Obligor! For a company to qualify as the Successor, it must purchase all or substantially all of the debtors assets. I believe that Barclays may now be the one's responsible for our CT's! We know that Barclays may have purchased substantially all of Lehman's assets under the bankruptcy 365 liquidation. The 365 liquidation protects the buyers from most liens and liabilities, but I do not believe it protects them from security contracts such as ours which have these successor obligor provisions spelled out. Many times the acquiring company has to take on the assumption or assignment of executory contracts or leases. There is already a precedent set for a case such as this (I can't remember the name of the exact case but it was posted on here before). Anyhow, the bank tried to use the bankruptcy court to sell substantially all of it's assets to another entity. The trust preferred shareholders were trying to block the sale because of that fact. The Judge agreed with Trust preferred shareholders and did not allow for the sale to happen. What I am trying to say here is that Judge Peck should not have allowed for the sale to Barclays for substantially all of Lehman's assets unless Barclays has already assumed (or has been assigned) the CT's liability and we just don't know it yet!. To steal from cotton just one more time because I think this situation merits it...WOW! Jumping Jupiters!