Replies to post #9194 on LANDAMERICA (fka LFGRQ)

[AKAPAK]

Don't forget the main thing about LES

It is a legally seperate subsidy of LFGRQ.

IMO, LFGRQ has no liabilities if the courts rule against LES provided the lawyers did a good job in structuring the organizations.

Also, it appears that most all of the past judgements have sided with LES. Although, history is no precedent when it comes to the court system (as releated to what historical decisions that will be used to render these cases).

Concerning LFGRQ contiuning past BK - the company has stated all along that they are selling everything. Evident by the past sales, and housecleaning efforts to clear out small businesses.

GL

[nsomniyak]

Thanks. A close read of your prior post (#9187) indicates that the auction rate securities mentioned as the primary offsetting asset to the commingled customer claims are in fact highly illiquid and highly unlikely to fetch anything close to the face value of $201MM.

This may be why the commingled customers are trying to go after GENERAL assets. The key issue being--do the commingled customers have a legit claim on GENERAL assets (presumably including proceeds of the sales they have made to Fidelity et al).?

Also--looking at the balance sheet I certainly don't see anything like a "marketable securities" line in the amount of $200MM or more. This suggests that the auction rate securities are either included somewhere else (investment in subsidiaries is about the only number BIG enough to cover $200MM) or that they have been written down to a significant degree. Does anyone know on which line, and in what amount, the auction rate securities are captured on the balance sheet?

[alexfw]

Doing my DD here as well, and saw this in the link posted earlier

http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/docket/docketlist.aspx?pk=61832e15-08f8-42b6-930c-7849e9ffe32d

"28. To date, there have been more than 2,700 claims filed against the Debtors’
estates in the aggregate face amount of $2.2 billion."

Is this $2.2B number a better reflection of the maximum exposure? If so, there would clearly not be anything left over, in the worst case scenario anyway (i.e mediation fails, LFG is considered liable, and judge rules 100% for the plaintiffs).

I am very much a newbie here, so pls correct any mistaken assumptions.

Thanks!