Stai usando un browser molto obsoleto. Puoi incorrere in problemi di visualizzazione di questo e altri siti oltre che in problemi di sicurezza. .
Dovresti aggiornarlo oppure usarne uno alternativo, moderno e sicuro.
Dovresti aggiornarlo oppure usarne uno alternativo, moderno e sicuro.
LEHMAN BROTHERS QUARTO ATTO
- Creatore Discussione duetto
- Data di Inizio
duetto
Forumer storico
Lehman’s crisis era payout on mortgage claims in sight
March 09 2018
Lehman’s own documents show it was aware of the widespread problems and deteriorating performance of the loans it had securitised, even as compared to the rest of the industry,” at one point finding half the loans contained material misrepresentations, the trustees said in a court filing.
Lehman argued that the trustees took a “blunderbuss approach” in an aggressive attempt to squeeze money out of its defunct estate. As an example, they cite an abrupt turnaround when they decided at one point not to pursue 40% of their initial breach claims.
At one point, around 14 large institutional holders, including Goldman Sachs Asset Management LP and BlackRock Financial Management, broke ranks with hedge funds and accepted a settlement valuing claims around $2.4bn.
But some hedge funds continued to fight hard for the $11.4bn number, sending the process to trial. If they succeed in bringing in a number above $2.38bn, all investors will benefit. If Chapman gives a number far below that, it could cause a rift between the hedge funds and the trustees.
The trustees representing RMBS holders are Deutsche Bank National Trust Co, Law Debenture Trust Company of New York, US Bank National Association and Wilmington Trust Co, according to court papers.
A group of hedge funds, including Whitebox Advisors LLC, Deer Park Road Management Co, Tilden Park Capital Management LP, was formed in 2016, and expanded in May 2017 to include Prophet Capital Management LP, Tricadia Capital Management LLC, BlueMountain Capital Management LLC and others, according to court records.
Lehman’s crisis era payout on mortgage claims in sight
March 09 2018
Lehman’s own documents show it was aware of the widespread problems and deteriorating performance of the loans it had securitised, even as compared to the rest of the industry,” at one point finding half the loans contained material misrepresentations, the trustees said in a court filing.
Lehman argued that the trustees took a “blunderbuss approach” in an aggressive attempt to squeeze money out of its defunct estate. As an example, they cite an abrupt turnaround when they decided at one point not to pursue 40% of their initial breach claims.
At one point, around 14 large institutional holders, including Goldman Sachs Asset Management LP and BlackRock Financial Management, broke ranks with hedge funds and accepted a settlement valuing claims around $2.4bn.
But some hedge funds continued to fight hard for the $11.4bn number, sending the process to trial. If they succeed in bringing in a number above $2.38bn, all investors will benefit. If Chapman gives a number far below that, it could cause a rift between the hedge funds and the trustees.
The trustees representing RMBS holders are Deutsche Bank National Trust Co, Law Debenture Trust Company of New York, US Bank National Association and Wilmington Trust Co, according to court papers.
A group of hedge funds, including Whitebox Advisors LLC, Deer Park Road Management Co, Tilden Park Capital Management LP, was formed in 2016, and expanded in May 2017 to include Prophet Capital Management LP, Tricadia Capital Management LLC, BlueMountain Capital Management LLC and others, according to court records.
Lehman’s crisis era payout on mortgage claims in sight
duetto
Forumer storico
Docket # 77
Filed Mar 09 2018
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Approving Disclosure Statement and Confirming Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Lehman Brothers U.K. Holdings (Delaware) Inc. and Lehman Pass-Through Securities Inc. and Granting Related Relief signed on 3/9/2018 (White, Greg)
Debtor: 17-12442 Lehman Brothers U.K. Holdings (Delaware) Inc.
Filed Mar 09 2018
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Approving Disclosure Statement and Confirming Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Lehman Brothers U.K. Holdings (Delaware) Inc. and Lehman Pass-Through Securities Inc. and Granting Related Relief signed on 3/9/2018 (White, Greg)
Debtor: 17-12442 Lehman Brothers U.K. Holdings (Delaware) Inc.
duetto
Forumer storico
Sarà ora interessante verificare a quanto ammonterebbero le riserve a fronte del nuovo accordo.
Purtroppo dalle mie carte non riesco a ricavare dati certi.
Ragionando per logica, al netto dei 2,4 miliardi di dollari stabiliti dalla decisione del giudice Chapman, rimarrebbero altri 9 miliardi extra.
Poichè non trovo questo dato, probabilmente la riserva dovrebbe attestarsi all'incirca su 5 miliardi che risulterebbero essere il reale differenziale tra importo messo a suo tempo a riserva ( quindi non l'intera cifra ) e quello deciso la scorsa settimana.
Vedremo.
Rigorosamente IMHO!
Purtroppo dalle mie carte non riesco a ricavare dati certi.
Ragionando per logica, al netto dei 2,4 miliardi di dollari stabiliti dalla decisione del giudice Chapman, rimarrebbero altri 9 miliardi extra.
Poichè non trovo questo dato, probabilmente la riserva dovrebbe attestarsi all'incirca su 5 miliardi che risulterebbero essere il reale differenziale tra importo messo a suo tempo a riserva ( quindi non l'intera cifra ) e quello deciso la scorsa settimana.
Vedremo.
Rigorosamente IMHO!
duetto
Forumer storico
Honorable Shelley C. Chapman
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
10:00 AM
08-13555-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Ch. 11
Doc #55976 Plan Administrator's Objection to Certain Claims Filed by U.S. Bank, N.A. filed by Michael A. Rollin on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc
Doc #55977 Plan Administrator's Objection to Claim Numbers 22639 and 22775 filed by Michael A. Rollin on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc
Adversary proceeding: 16-01370-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. WJ Capital Corporation et al
Doc #32 Motion to Approve LBHI's application to serve WJ Capital Corporation and Secured Capital Funding via service on the California Secretary of State and extending its time to serve WJ Capital Corporation and Secured Capital Funding filed by Adam M. Bialek on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Doc# 57673 Motion for Order Directing the Release of Documents filed by Randolph E. White on behalf of Fondo de Proteccion Social de los Depositos Bancarios
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
10:00 AM
08-13555-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Ch. 11
Doc #55976 Plan Administrator's Objection to Certain Claims Filed by U.S. Bank, N.A. filed by Michael A. Rollin on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc
Doc #55977 Plan Administrator's Objection to Claim Numbers 22639 and 22775 filed by Michael A. Rollin on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc
Adversary proceeding: 16-01370-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. WJ Capital Corporation et al
Doc #32 Motion to Approve LBHI's application to serve WJ Capital Corporation and Secured Capital Funding via service on the California Secretary of State and extending its time to serve WJ Capital Corporation and Secured Capital Funding filed by Adam M. Bialek on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Doc# 57673 Motion for Order Directing the Release of Documents filed by Randolph E. White on behalf of Fondo de Proteccion Social de los Depositos Bancarios
duetto
Forumer storico
Compass Lexecon Client Lehman Brothers Holdings, Prevails in Multibillion Dollar Claims Estimation Proceeding
March 14, 2018
Compass Lexecon President Daniel R. Fischel and Professor Bradford Cornell Testify at Trial
In rejecting the Trustees’ proposed allowed claim, Judge Chapman found that she had not been presented with any methodology which would enable her to estimate the allowed claim on a loan by loan basis and therefore had to look to comparable settlements and the actions of the Institutional Investors to determine the allowed claim. As a result, Judge Chapman relied upon and extensively discussed Professor Fischel’s testimony. She found that Professor Fischel demonstrated that Lehman’s proposed allowed claim of $2.4 billion was well within the range of comparable settlements and the Trustees proposed allowed claim was far outside that range. She also agreed with Professor Fischel that the Institutional Investors’ willingness to settle the RMBS Trusts’ claims for $2.44 billion was entitled to substantial weight due to their large holdings in the Trusts, their sophistication and their experience in other RMBS settlements. Judge Chapman rejected arguments by the Trustees and their experts that the settlements identified by Professor Fischel were not comparable and that the Institutional Investors’ interests were not aligned with other certificateholders in the RMBS Trusts.
Compass Lexecon Client Lehman Brothers Holdings, Prevails in Multibillion Dollar Claims Estimation Proceeding | Compass Lexecon
Ecco le motivazioni dell'ultima decisione del giudice Chapman.
March 14, 2018
Compass Lexecon President Daniel R. Fischel and Professor Bradford Cornell Testify at Trial
In rejecting the Trustees’ proposed allowed claim, Judge Chapman found that she had not been presented with any methodology which would enable her to estimate the allowed claim on a loan by loan basis and therefore had to look to comparable settlements and the actions of the Institutional Investors to determine the allowed claim. As a result, Judge Chapman relied upon and extensively discussed Professor Fischel’s testimony. She found that Professor Fischel demonstrated that Lehman’s proposed allowed claim of $2.4 billion was well within the range of comparable settlements and the Trustees proposed allowed claim was far outside that range. She also agreed with Professor Fischel that the Institutional Investors’ willingness to settle the RMBS Trusts’ claims for $2.44 billion was entitled to substantial weight due to their large holdings in the Trusts, their sophistication and their experience in other RMBS settlements. Judge Chapman rejected arguments by the Trustees and their experts that the settlements identified by Professor Fischel were not comparable and that the Institutional Investors’ interests were not aligned with other certificateholders in the RMBS Trusts.
Compass Lexecon Client Lehman Brothers Holdings, Prevails in Multibillion Dollar Claims Estimation Proceeding | Compass Lexecon
Ecco le motivazioni dell'ultima decisione del giudice Chapman.
duetto
Forumer storico
Stati Uniti, Senato approva smantellamento Riforma finanziaria di Obama
La crisi finanziaria è alle spalle e gli Stati Uniti voltano pagina, avviando un processo si smantellamento graduale della Riforma finanziaria voluta da Barack Obama, nota come legge Dood-Frank, che imponeva paletti stringenti alle banche per frenare la speculazione e la creazione di "carta straccia" (quella che portò alla crisi del 2008 ed al fallimento di Lehman Brothers).
Il Senato USA ha approvato un abbassamento delle norme stringenti sulle banche più piccole e sugli Istituti locali, abbassando a 50 miliardi di dollari da 250 miliardi la dimensione per essere considerata una banca sistemica e ricadere quindi nel trattamento più stringente ed esser soggetta a controlli severi, come disposto dalla legge in questione.
Stati Uniti, Senato approva smantellamento Riforma finanziaria di Obama
La crisi finanziaria è alle spalle e gli Stati Uniti voltano pagina, avviando un processo si smantellamento graduale della Riforma finanziaria voluta da Barack Obama, nota come legge Dood-Frank, che imponeva paletti stringenti alle banche per frenare la speculazione e la creazione di "carta straccia" (quella che portò alla crisi del 2008 ed al fallimento di Lehman Brothers).
Il Senato USA ha approvato un abbassamento delle norme stringenti sulle banche più piccole e sugli Istituti locali, abbassando a 50 miliardi di dollari da 250 miliardi la dimensione per essere considerata una banca sistemica e ricadere quindi nel trattamento più stringente ed esser soggetta a controlli severi, come disposto dalla legge in questione.
Stati Uniti, Senato approva smantellamento Riforma finanziaria di Obama
duetto
Forumer storico
Bankruptcy Court's Block Of $1B Lehman Clawback Upheld
March 14, 2018
A New York federal judge on Wednesday affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a Lehman Brothers unit's bid to claw back $1 billion in swaps transactions, saying it correctly determined the safe harbor provision for swap agreements protects the distributions of the collateral.
U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield rejected Lehman Brothers Special Financing's argument — that the word “liquidation” as it’s used in a section of the bankruptcy code was misapplied by the bankruptcy court and therefore those protections should be revoked — as out of context.
“LBSF’s interpretation is rejected because it is based on an interpretation of the term ‘liquidation’ in the context of an ‘unliquidated’ — i.e., uncalculated — claim or amount, or in terms of converting an illiquid asset to cash, and not in the context of the liquidation of an agreement, specifically a swap agreement,” she said. “But the [section's] safe harbor is not concerned with unliquidated or unascertained amounts and the need to ascertain them.”
In October 2015 Lehman filed an adversary proceeding against Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Wells Fargo and more than 200 other investors, seeking to claw back $1 billion in payments Lehman made when the credit default swap agreements were terminated.
Under the agreements, Lehman purchased credit protection from certain special-purpose entities that, in turn, funded the collateral securing the swap agreements by issuing notes to investors. The swap deals could be terminated early if Lehman or the issuer defaulted, with the noteholders having priority for payment from the collateral if the default was on the Lehman side.
Lehman has argued that the default provisions in question are unenforceable, “ipso facto” provisions that impermissibly altered Lehman’s rights under the contracts after Lehman followed parent company Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. into bankruptcy in 2008.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Shelley C. Chapman tossed the case last year, ruling the transactions were structured in such a way that the provisions did not act as “ipso facto” clauses and were therefore valid and enforceable. Lehman appealed that decision to a New York federal court.
In a letter to Judge Schofield earlier this month, Lehman said the U.S. Supreme Court’s February decision in Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, which established a narrow reading of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provision, should prevail, rather than the broad reading used by the bankruptcy court and argued for by the noteholders.
Judge Schofield cited the decision when rejecting Lehman’s “liquidation” argument.
The Lehman unit is represented by Paul R. DeFilippo of Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP.
The noteholders are represented by Ballard Spahr LLP, Chaffetz Lindsey LLP, Chapman and Cutler LLP, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Gray Plant Mooty Mooty & Bennett PA, Hogan Lovells, Hunton & Williams LLP, Jackson Walker LLP, K&L Gates LLP, Kleinberg Kaplan Wolff & Cohen PC, Locke Lord LLP, McCarter & English LLP, McGuire Woods LLP, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Nixon Peabody LLP, Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, Reed Smith LLP, Seward & Kissel LLP, Sidley Austin LLP and Wuersch & Gering LLP.
The case is Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of America NA et al., case number 1:17-cv-01224, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
--Additional reporting by Rick Archer. Editing by Alanna Weissman.
Bankruptcy Court's Block Of $1B Lehman Clawback Upheld - Law360
March 14, 2018
A New York federal judge on Wednesday affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a Lehman Brothers unit's bid to claw back $1 billion in swaps transactions, saying it correctly determined the safe harbor provision for swap agreements protects the distributions of the collateral.
U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield rejected Lehman Brothers Special Financing's argument — that the word “liquidation” as it’s used in a section of the bankruptcy code was misapplied by the bankruptcy court and therefore those protections should be revoked — as out of context.
“LBSF’s interpretation is rejected because it is based on an interpretation of the term ‘liquidation’ in the context of an ‘unliquidated’ — i.e., uncalculated — claim or amount, or in terms of converting an illiquid asset to cash, and not in the context of the liquidation of an agreement, specifically a swap agreement,” she said. “But the [section's] safe harbor is not concerned with unliquidated or unascertained amounts and the need to ascertain them.”
In October 2015 Lehman filed an adversary proceeding against Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Wells Fargo and more than 200 other investors, seeking to claw back $1 billion in payments Lehman made when the credit default swap agreements were terminated.
Under the agreements, Lehman purchased credit protection from certain special-purpose entities that, in turn, funded the collateral securing the swap agreements by issuing notes to investors. The swap deals could be terminated early if Lehman or the issuer defaulted, with the noteholders having priority for payment from the collateral if the default was on the Lehman side.
Lehman has argued that the default provisions in question are unenforceable, “ipso facto” provisions that impermissibly altered Lehman’s rights under the contracts after Lehman followed parent company Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. into bankruptcy in 2008.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Shelley C. Chapman tossed the case last year, ruling the transactions were structured in such a way that the provisions did not act as “ipso facto” clauses and were therefore valid and enforceable. Lehman appealed that decision to a New York federal court.
In a letter to Judge Schofield earlier this month, Lehman said the U.S. Supreme Court’s February decision in Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, which established a narrow reading of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provision, should prevail, rather than the broad reading used by the bankruptcy court and argued for by the noteholders.
Judge Schofield cited the decision when rejecting Lehman’s “liquidation” argument.
The Lehman unit is represented by Paul R. DeFilippo of Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP.
The noteholders are represented by Ballard Spahr LLP, Chaffetz Lindsey LLP, Chapman and Cutler LLP, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, Gray Plant Mooty Mooty & Bennett PA, Hogan Lovells, Hunton & Williams LLP, Jackson Walker LLP, K&L Gates LLP, Kleinberg Kaplan Wolff & Cohen PC, Locke Lord LLP, McCarter & English LLP, McGuire Woods LLP, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Nixon Peabody LLP, Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, Reed Smith LLP, Seward & Kissel LLP, Sidley Austin LLP and Wuersch & Gering LLP.
The case is Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of America NA et al., case number 1:17-cv-01224, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
--Additional reporting by Rick Archer. Editing by Alanna Weissman.
Bankruptcy Court's Block Of $1B Lehman Clawback Upheld - Law360
Similar threads
- Risposte
- 2
- Visite
- 395
- Risposte
- 17
- Visite
- 1.753
- Risposte
- 9
- Visite
- 1.185
- Risposte
- 0
- Visite
- 680
Users who are viewing this thread
Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)