LEHMAN BROTHERS QUARTO ATTO
- Creatore Discussione duetto
- Data di Inizio
duetto
Forumer storico
Lehman Brothers will compensate investors loss on bonds for a billion dollars
U.S. investment Bank Lehman Brothers may pay about one billion dollars to settle a dispute with investors on compensation for their losses on bonds issued by the Bank to Finance their troubled mortgage loans. About this newspaper The Wall Street Journal. The Lehman bankruptcy in 2008 was the catalyst for the global financial crisis.
Proposed investbanka the terms of the agreement require the approval of the court, which will consider this issue in July 2017. Thus, the payment Bank associated with a mortgage, to reach 2.4 billion dollars, the newspaper said.
Investors need to decide if they are willing to agree to the terms proposed by Lehman, to 1 June.
In January, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay the US government $ 7.2 billion to settle a case involving the sale of problematic mortgage bonds before the financial crisis of 2008.
U.S. investment Bank Lehman Brothers may pay about one billion dollars to settle a dispute with investors on compensation for their losses on bonds issued by the Bank to Finance their troubled mortgage loans. About this newspaper The Wall Street Journal. The Lehman bankruptcy in 2008 was the catalyst for the global financial crisis.
Proposed investbanka the terms of the agreement require the approval of the court, which will consider this issue in July 2017. Thus, the payment Bank associated with a mortgage, to reach 2.4 billion dollars, the newspaper said.
Investors need to decide if they are willing to agree to the terms proposed by Lehman, to 1 June.
In January, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay the US government $ 7.2 billion to settle a case involving the sale of problematic mortgage bonds before the financial crisis of 2008.
duetto
Forumer storico
Docket # 14218
Filed Apr 07 2017
Statement / Notice of Distribution Date for Fifth Interim Distribution on Allowed Unsecured Claims filed by Christopher K. Kiplok on behalf of James W. Giddens, as Trustee for the SIPA Liquidation of Lehman Brothers Inc.. (Kiplok, Christopher)
Debtor: 08-01420 SIPC vs. Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Related None
Confermata la V distribuzione LBI ( siamo in UK ) per i general unsecured claims al 20 Aprile 2017.
Dovrebbe essere l'ultima ( il condizionale è quanto mai d'obbligo ).
Ma i conti non ternerebbero per i creditori LBI: avendo accettato a suo tempo un certo tipo di accordo, non avrebbero più diritto ad ulteriori distribuzioni anche in presenza di ulteriore cash. All'epoca non potevano sapere che i conti LBI erano nettamente migliori di quelli presentati.
Ora il discorso è: se fosse vero quanto sopra, i circa sette miliardi restanti che fine farebbero, a chi sarebbero destinati?
La capofila LBHI incombe!
Tutto rigorosamente IMHO
Filed Apr 07 2017
Statement / Notice of Distribution Date for Fifth Interim Distribution on Allowed Unsecured Claims filed by Christopher K. Kiplok on behalf of James W. Giddens, as Trustee for the SIPA Liquidation of Lehman Brothers Inc.. (Kiplok, Christopher)
Debtor: 08-01420 SIPC vs. Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Related None
Confermata la V distribuzione LBI ( siamo in UK ) per i general unsecured claims al 20 Aprile 2017.
Dovrebbe essere l'ultima ( il condizionale è quanto mai d'obbligo ).
Ma i conti non ternerebbero per i creditori LBI: avendo accettato a suo tempo un certo tipo di accordo, non avrebbero più diritto ad ulteriori distribuzioni anche in presenza di ulteriore cash. All'epoca non potevano sapere che i conti LBI erano nettamente migliori di quelli presentati.
Ora il discorso è: se fosse vero quanto sopra, i circa sette miliardi restanti che fine farebbero, a chi sarebbero destinati?
La capofila LBHI incombe!
Tutto rigorosamente IMHO
carlo27
Nuovo forumer
Non capisco se la #333 è una notizia positiva per noi. Da un lato sono risorse che non verranno destinate a noi. Dall'altro - se la conclusione della disputa 'assorbe' meno capitale rispetto a quanto accantonato - il rimanente si rende disponibile per noi. Che dici Duetto?
duetto
Forumer storico
In linea di principio il giudice dispone ( quando disponibile ) riserva in attesa della dicisione o accordo transattivo in itinere.Lo abbiamo verificato innumerevoli volte in passato ed anche questa circostanza non dovrebbe costituire eccezione.
Come già detto, le carte in mio possesso non consentono, al momento, nè di confermare tale circostanza, nè di quantificare la riserva. Continuo a monitorare questa vicenda, oltre ad aver chiesto lumi anche a soggetti solitamente ben informati.
IMHO
duetto
Forumer storico
Sull'altro lido si sono improvvisamente svegliati riportando, col solito sistema del copia/incolla, un mio post relativo alle percentuali di quest'ultima distribuzione,
errore di battitura e precisazione finale compresi.
Ovviamente non è la prima volta che accade.
In questa circostanza il forumer in questione è scorretto due volte: spaccia per suo il mio post e non cita neppure la fonte!
errore di battitura e precisazione finale compresi.
Ovviamente non è la prima volta che accade.
In questa circostanza il forumer in questione è scorretto due volte: spaccia per suo il mio post e non cita neppure la fonte!
duetto
Forumer storico
Honorable Shelley C. Chapman
da Wednesday, April 12, 2017 a Wednesday, April 19, 2017 ( una intera settimana )
10:00 AM
08-13555-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Ch. 11
Adversary proceeding: 15-01110-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., in its capacity as v. Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
Trial
da Wednesday, April 12, 2017 a Wednesday, April 19, 2017 ( una intera settimana )
10:00 AM
08-13555-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Ch. 11
Adversary proceeding: 15-01110-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., in its capacity as v. Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
Trial
duetto
Forumer storico
No More Government Bailouts
April 9, 2017
Although GM was one of the “winners” of the struggle companies faced during the financial crisis (winners in the sense that the company did not lose everything) Lehman Brothers was not as lucky and filed for bankruptcy, disappearing soon after in 2008. Lehman Brothers, much like AIG and GM, was unable to adapt to the recession and sharp decline of consumers paying back their loans—specifically in the housing market. Lehman Brothers was another industry giant who employed thousands of people, but why were they not saved by the U.S. Treasury?
Although the collapse of Lehman Brothers proved to be the largest bankruptcy in history, they were not saved because the U.S. Treasury believed that other major lending firms would pick up the pieces left and the overall industry would survive. However, in any instance, it should not be up to the U.S. government to decide which companies should live and which should die. The government should not be able to draw the line as to who gets help during a financial crisis and who does not, regardless of the industry and scenario. Giving the U.S. Treasury that much power hurts consumers as well as the businesses because they may not have proper judgement in what companies deserve to survive and get bailed out. The government should not play an integral part in any industry other than when it needs to enforce taxation and other regulations.
No More Government Bailouts
Il libro dei sogni: la realtà è altra cosa!
April 9, 2017
Although GM was one of the “winners” of the struggle companies faced during the financial crisis (winners in the sense that the company did not lose everything) Lehman Brothers was not as lucky and filed for bankruptcy, disappearing soon after in 2008. Lehman Brothers, much like AIG and GM, was unable to adapt to the recession and sharp decline of consumers paying back their loans—specifically in the housing market. Lehman Brothers was another industry giant who employed thousands of people, but why were they not saved by the U.S. Treasury?
Although the collapse of Lehman Brothers proved to be the largest bankruptcy in history, they were not saved because the U.S. Treasury believed that other major lending firms would pick up the pieces left and the overall industry would survive. However, in any instance, it should not be up to the U.S. government to decide which companies should live and which should die. The government should not be able to draw the line as to who gets help during a financial crisis and who does not, regardless of the industry and scenario. Giving the U.S. Treasury that much power hurts consumers as well as the businesses because they may not have proper judgement in what companies deserve to survive and get bailed out. The government should not play an integral part in any industry other than when it needs to enforce taxation and other regulations.
No More Government Bailouts
Il libro dei sogni: la realtà è altra cosa!
Similar threads
