News Focus
News Focus
icon url

stocksnoway

05/29/16 1:30 PM

#67652 RE: cottonisking #67651

Just ask yourself this one question?

Why didn't LBHI have to buy back the CT's in January 2016 per the Dudd Frank rule that required all banks to buy back their outstanding Trups Effective in Jan?

Cotton is King that is as far as you need to go.

Once ya'll wake up to the fact these no longer exists as a TRUPS but only as a claim in CLASS 10B of a chapter 11 complete liquidation bankruptcy you will stop with the ongoing nonsense!

Not to mention the need for the debtor to come up with over 100 billion $'s just to get to break even (for class 10B and another 100 billion for class 12) but only have 26 billion in assets that continue over time to shrink as the liquidation moves on.

Ya'll spend to much time spewing nonsense!

just read the facts!

THAT'S ALL FOLKS!
icon url

inesdefilia

05/29/16 2:36 PM

#67654 RE: cottonisking #67651

AHAH!Any doubt from day 1 with you!"THIS IS THE END OF THE ROAD FOR ME. BECAUSE I AM NOT GOING TO SPEND ONE PENNY ON A LAWYER. I WILL WAIT THIS PLAY OUT! WHY? IF A VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL CAN STOP A UNITED STATES ARTICLE III JUDGE DEAD IN HIS TRACKS - NO FINAL ORDER - THE LAW IS BROKEN! "
icon url

inesdefilia

05/29/16 2:37 PM

#67655 RE: cottonisking #67651

DOCKET #51963 EXHIBIT 2,any doubt.
icon url

s404n1tn0cc

05/29/16 8:44 PM

#67668 RE: cottonisking #67651

HI Cotton
Saw your letter. Very direct to the point. Interesting you cought the meaning of Customer Vs Affiliate...Your attention to detail is amazing. Will it matter.. who knows?? only time will tell.
icon url

cottonisking

06/09/16 12:35 PM

#67872 RE: cottonisking #67651

Feedback! Bingo! Do the math!

$2.8B - $1.4B = $1.4B - If the Debtors are forced to pay back $1.4B, the creditors still received $1.4B on June 16, 2016. In the long run, $1.4B may be only a loan to the Debtors.

Now the reading!

***
08-13555-scc Doc 52752 Filed 05/11/16 Entered 05/11/16 17:41:54 Main Document

NOTICE OF PRESENTMENT OF MOTION OF PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR
AN ORDER IN AID OF EXECUTION OF THE MODIFIED THIRD AMENDED
JOINT CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC.
AND ITS AFFILIATED DEBTORS
.
.
.
4. Replacement Settlement Agreement. In the event that a court enters a final order, not
subject to Further Appellate Review, that makes it impossible for the Approval Order to become
final (a “Replacement Event”), then the Parties shall use their best efforts in good faith to enter
into and obtain any required approval for a new settlement agreement on the same economic and
legal terms as the Settlement Agreement (a “Replacement Settlement Agreement”), except for
such changes as may be required to accommodate any issues raised by the court order that gave
rise to the Replacement Event.

5. Repayment. If a Replacement Event occurs and a Replacement Settlement Agreement is
not feasible (a “Repayment Event”), LBHI shall be obligated to immediately repay an amount
equal to the Repayment Reserve Amount to JPMCB. LBHI shall first satisfy this repayment
obligation by immediately transferring to JPMCB all funds in the Repayment Reserve, and
JPMCB shall apply the Tassimo Amount (if any) to such repayment obligation. In the event that
the Repayment Reserve and the Tassimo Amount are inadequate to satisfy the full amount of the
Repayment Reserve Amount, JPMCB and any other JPMorgan Parties shall have the right to
setoff any shortfall in the Repayment Reserve Amount against any obligations of JPMCB and the
other JPMorgan Parties in respect of any Actions that a Lehman Party may have against a
JPMorgan Party, including without limitation the Tassimo Action, the LBSF Action and the
Other Objections. If a Replacement Event occurs, LBHI shall be prohibited from making any
further distributions to its creditors until a Replacement Settlement Agreement has been
consummated or JPMCB has been fully repaid an amount equal to the Replacement Reserve
Amount through payment and/or setoff.

***

115 ORDER: The Court is in receipt of two letters from non-party Ricky M. Gregory-dated January 27, 2016 and January 29, 2016, and received in chambers on February 1, 2016 and February 2, 2016, respectively-setting forth his views regarding the proposed settlement in this matter. (Doc. Nos. 113, 114.) Since the settlement agreement is currently being reviewed by the Bankruptcy Court (Doc. No. 111), the Court will take no action on these submissions at this time. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 2/4/2016) (mro) (Entered: 02/05/2016)