Replies to post #9933 on Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[hestheman]

At the end of the day I just believe that the way this POR was designed was purposeful to stop waterfall (money payment) just short of class 10B (and our trust preferred shares) so the trustee will then say Okay..... almost all debt (except class 10B) has been satisfied in full in accordance to the plan, the companies plan is to swap debt for new equity in our reorganized company with class 10B debt issue subnotes/trust preferred stock and all remaining equity (preferreds and commons) will be cancelled (allthough there is always a chance they may issue some new shares to preferreds...it's up to them). Since class 10B notes/trust preferred stock would be the last remaining debt (remember, we are old/cold) and there is no money left in the waterfall, they can utilize us for max NOLs and cancel the rest of equity if they so desire. That's why the reallocation in the plan makes so much sense and i'm glad you reminded some of us.....in the end though it's a good thing. We could make even more money in the reorganized company because they need us. Class 10B is one of their only options to max out those NOLs....which means we will get A GREAT RATIO of new shares. The only thing that s*cks is that we may have a ways to wait. It will happen though, eventually.

[cottonisking]

"JPMorgan ultimately applied
the Disputed Collateral Transfers to safe harbored contracts, but the Plaintiffs argued that the
Disputed Collateral Transfers were not protected by section 546(e) because at the time the
transfers were made, they “had nothing to do with” JPMorgan’s exposure under the Clearance
Agreement or any derivatives contracts."


**************************************
Another key issue addressed by the Court was whether the Disputed Collateral Transfers were
transfers made in connection with safe harbored securities contracts. JPMorgan ultimately applied
the Disputed Collateral Transfers to safe harbored contracts, but the Plaintiffs argued that the
Disputed Collateral Transfers were not protected by section 546(e) because at the time the
transfers were made, they “had nothing to do with” JPMorgan’s exposure under the Clearance
Agreement or any derivatives contracts.6 In essence, the Plaintiffs argued that JPMorgan should
not be permitted to retroactively sanitize the Disputed Collateral Transfers by applying them to safe
harbored contracts. The Court disagreed, finding that section 546(e)’s requirement that a transfer
be “in connection with” a securities contract does not contain a temporal requirement. Accordingly,
the Court held that LBHI and the Committee could not avoid the Disputed Collateral Transfers
because they were made in connection with safe harbored agreements.