InvestorsHub Logo

Letgoofmyfannie

06/20/19 12:13 PM

#84465 RE: cottonisking #84464

I relied on them, that's why I bought the CTs in the first place. Who wants to know?

wamugold

06/20/19 12:31 PM

#84467 RE: cottonisking #84464

Thanks for your input Cotton!!

newflow

06/20/19 12:52 PM

#84469 RE: cottonisking #84464

Thanks Cotton.

"Whereas,certain of the Subsidiaries presently enjoying full guarantees while others have only partial guarantees,and the Corporation now wishes to
expand such partial guarantees to FULL GUARANTEES"

One of the highlights of the BOD decision.

Docket 58763

Page 10/149.

stoxjock

06/20/19 2:16 PM

#84475 RE: cottonisking #84464

"The Plan Administrator said, "I needed to have relied on the June 9, 2005 Board of Directors' General Guarantee parity with ECAPS' clause in the prospectus when I purchased my CTs."

Cotton, Thanks again for giving more details of the hearing. When the Plan Administrator responded to the Court with the above statement, did the Judge not give another chance to respond back to the Plan Administrator's statement? Since the Plan Administrator/LBHI shutdown the ECAPS Trust before the POR was approved and became operational, how were we supposed to know that there existed the ECAPS securities in the mix with which the CTs had Parity, per the BOD Guarantee in the Prospectus? We did know that they were Senior or at same Parity of any Preferreds issued by Lehman either before 2005 or after that, based on the CTs prospectus.

TIA & GLTU.

stockanalyze

06/21/19 10:45 AM

#84506 RE: cottonisking #84464

what is the next step or update? also is it possible to share your views on where we are? they will still take us for a ride? should we all write to plan administrator and if so how? i believe when they know lots of investors are watching, they will dare not. they need to follow the contract law under which ct's are.

cottonisking

07/21/19 9:01 PM

#84971 RE: cottonisking #84464

Mates you summoned cottonisking and now I will give you a job, keep an eye on case 19-cv-06397 in the Southern District Court of New York: EPIQ dockets 59814 and 59813 filed July 10, 2019 and July 9, 2019, respectively. Below is part of a letter that was sent to LBHI's Plan Administrator. We want to add some language to the order denying Rex Wu's motion, docket 59801.

Major questions:

1) Did any CTs' holder(s), out of 48 million shares outstanding, have knowledge of and reliance on the General Guarantee when they purchased their shares?

2) LBIE had a very big surplus! Was LBIE's surplus big enough to pay some cash out to its shareholders?

Major issue from June 19, 2019 Hearing:

"1) Language to add to order:

ORDERED that LBHI's Capital Trust Preferred Securities are parity with the
ECAPS' Preferred Securities per LBHI's relevant prospectuses and with
a securities holder's, prior to purchase, knowledge of and reliance on
the general guarantee.

Basis of language to add to order: Read June 19, 2019 hearing transcript! The law is very clear on a general guarantee!


2) An item to add to the order:

ORDERED that LBHI's Capital Trust Preferred Securities are parity with
LBIE's 5% redeemable Class A preference shares per LBHI's relevant
prospectuses.

Basis of language to add to order:
A)
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LBIE was incorporated on 10 September 1990 under the Companies Act
1985 as a company limited by shares. On 21 December 1992, it was
re-registered as an unlimited company. It appears that this step was
taken for US tax reasons. Re-registration of LBIE as an unlimited
company enabled it to be treated as a branch of its then parent
company for US tax purposes, thereby enabling losses in LBIE to be set
off against profits in the parent.

The share capital of LBIE comprises 6,273,113,999 ordinary shares of
$1 each, 2 million 5% redeemable Class A preference shares of $1000
each, and 5.1 million 5% redeemable Class B shares of £1000 each. All
these shares, except for 1 ordinary share, are held by LBHI2. The two
classes of preference shares result from capital restructurings of
LBIE in 2006 and 2007, to which I shall refer below. The remaining
ordinary share is held by LBL.

The sole function of LBHI2 was to act as the immediate holding company of LBIE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See attached file: Witness Statement of Russell Downs, Statement No:
4, Date 2 August 2013


B)
From Docket 59738
"08-13555-scc Doc 59738 Filed 05/29/19 Entered 05/29/19 11:47:27 Main Document
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”), as Plan Administrator, files this
objection to the Motion for an Order Enforcing the Modified Third
Amended Joint Chapter 11
Plan of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Its Affiliated Debtors for
Purposes of Distributions
filed last month by Rex Wu (“Wu”) (ECF No. 59614) (the “Motion”) and
respectfully represents:
.
.
.
11.
The Subordinated Guarantees themselves likewise provide that:
[LBHI’s] [g]uarantee will constitute unsecured obligations of [LBHI]
and will rank
(i) subordinate and junior in right of payment to all other
liabilities of [LBHI],
(ii) on a parity with the most senior preferred or preference stock…
and (iii) senior
to [LBHI’s] common stock.9 "