Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEH)
Seite 266 von 568 Neuester Beitrag: 28.01.25 14:39 | ||||
Eröffnet am: | 10.09.08 00:34 | von: Abenteurer | Anzahl Beiträge: | 15.198 |
Neuester Beitrag: | 28.01.25 14:39 | von: jacky6 | Leser gesamt: | 2.256.438 |
Forum: | Hot-Stocks | Leser heute: | 117 | |
Bewertet mit: | ||||
Seite: < 1 | ... | 264 | 265 | | 267 | 268 | ... 568 > |
NORTON Goldfields klärt Streitigkeit mit LEHMAN Brothers
"Wie das Unternehmen heute meldete, habe man in dem Hedge-Konflikt mit LEHMAN Brothers eine Einigung erzielt.
NORTON's Gold-Hedge mit LEHMAN Brothers wird durch eine Direktzahlung von 10 Mio. AUD von NORTON an LEHMAN und die Ausgabe einer über vier Jahre zurückzuzahlenden besicherten Unternehmensanleihe für 97 Mio. AUD abgelöst".
SOURCE / QUELLE:
http://www.minenportal.de/artikel.php?sid=10607
Lehman vs. Lehman: CMS und Hengeler überraschen mit Widerklage
Von Ulrike BARTH und Marcus JUNG:
"Im Streit zwischen der britischen und der deutschen Tochter der insolventen Lehman Bank setzt der deutsche Insolvenzverwalter auf Gegenwehr. Bei der gestrigen ersten Anhörung vor dem Landgericht Frankfurt lehnten seine Anwälte übereinstimmend mit der Gegenseite einen Vergleich ab und erhoben überraschend Widerklage.
Ausgangspunkt des Verfahrens ist eine Klage der Insolvenzverwalter der britischen ‘Lehman Brothers International Europe’. Dieser verlangt vom Verwalter der deutschen Tochter ‘Lehman Brothers Bankhaus AG’, CMS-Partner Dr. Michael Frege, eine Summe von einer Milliarde Dollar, umgerechnet rund 800 Millionen Euro.
Die Forderung geht auf eine Überweisung von Kundengeldern zurück, die das britische Bankhaus am 12. September 2008, also drei Tage vor der Lehman-Pleite, an die deutsche Lehman-Tochter getätigt hatte. Nach Ansicht des britischen Insolvenzverwalters ist die Summe von der deutschen Lehman nur treuhänderisch verwaltet worden und müsse nun in die britische Insolvenzmasse zurückgeführt werden. Michael Frege sieht das anders und will die Gelder in der deutschen Insolvenzmasse halten.
In der Verhandlung wurde deutlich, dass beide Parteien seit Herbst 2009 in einer gemeinsamen Arbeitsgruppe an einer gütlichen Einigung gearbeitet hatten. Diese ist mit dem Termin am Dienstag jedoch erst mal vom Tisch – zumal Beklagtenvertreter Dr. Frank Burmeister das Gericht am Ende der Verhandlung mit der bereit liegenden Widerklage überraschte. Darin fordert Insolvenzverwalter Frege den gleichen Betrag nebst Zinsen von den Briten. Der Schritt ist aus Sicht seiner Anwälte notwendig geworden, um den Gerichtsstand in Frankfurt zu halten"...
SOURCE / QUELLE dieses Ausschnitts:
http://www.juve.de/nachrichten/verfahren/2010/07/nl102705?view=print
Stimmt, und wenn ich richtig gesehen habe, dann bei 0,06 Euronen.
SEC knew about repos accounting before Lehman: report
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K0QH20100721?
Sorry, habe selber noch genug Aktien zu 0,073 im Depot.
Overview
Lehman Brothers was founded in 1850 by two cotton brokers in Montgomery, Ala. The firm moved to New York City after the Civil War and grew into one of Wall Street's investment giants. On Sept. 14, 2008, the investment bank announced that it would file for liquidation after huge losses in the mortgage market and a loss of investor confidence crippled it and it was unable to find a buyer.
In March 2010, a 2,200-page document laid out in new and startling detail how Lehman used accounting sleight of hand to conceal the bad investments that led to its undoing. The report, compiled by an examiner for the bank, concluded that, among other things, the firm's demise was the result of bad mortgage holdings and, less directly, demands by rivals like JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, that the foundering bank post collateral against loans it desperately needed.
Lehman also used a small company — its "alter ego," in the words of a former Lehman trader — to shift investments off its books, according to an article in The New York Times in April. The relationship raised new questions about the extent to which Lehman obscured its financial condition before it plunged into bankruptcy.
The failed investment bank may have cause to sue Goldman Sachs and Barclays for what might be a "fraudulent transaction," according to a portion of the examiner's report unsealed mid-April.
In May, Lehman Brothers Holdings and a group of unsecured creditors filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase for more than $5 billion, saying it siphoned billions of dollars of Lehman assets, thus hastening its bankruptcy.
Read More...
A History That Included Close Calls
Lehman's slow collapse began as the mortgage market crisis unfolded in the summer of 2007, when its stock began a steady fall from a peak of $82 a share. The fears were based on the fact that the firm was a major player in the market for subprime and prime mortgages, and that as the smallest of the major Wall Street firms, it faced a larger risk that large losses could be fatal.
The bank's demise set off tremors throughout the financial system. The uncertainty surrounding its transactions with banks and hedge funds exacerbated a crisis of confidence. That contributed to credit markets freezing, forcing governments around the globe to take steps to try to calm panicked markets.
As the crisis deepened in 2007 and early 2008, the storied investment bank defied expectations more than once, just it had many times before, as in 1998, when it seemed to teeter after a worldwide currency crisis, only to rebound strongly.
Lehman managed to avoid the fate of Bear Stearns, the other of Wall Street's small fry, which was bought by JP Morgan Chase at a bargain basement price under the threat of bankruptcy in March 2008. But by summer of 2008 the rollercoaster ride started to have more downs than ups. A series of write-offs was accompanied by new offerings to seek capital to bolster its finances.
Lehman also fought a running battle with short sellers. The company accused them of spreading rumors to drive down the stock's price; Lehman's critics responded by questioning whether the firm had come clean about the true size of its losses. As time passed and losses mounted, an increasing number of investors sided with the critics.
On June 9, 2008, Lehman announced a second-quarter loss of $2.8 billion, far higher than analysts had expected. The company said it would seek to raise $6 billion in fresh capital from investors. But those efforts faltered, and the situation grew more dire after the government on Sept. 8 announced a takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Lehman's stock plunged as the markets wondered whether the move to save those mortgage giants made it less likely that Lehman might be bailed out.
On Sept. 10, the investment bank said that it would spin off a majority of its remaining commercial real estate holdings into a new public company. And it confirmed plans to sell a majority of its investment management division in a move expected to generate $3 billion. It also announced an expected loss of $3.9 billion, or $5.92 a share, in the third quarter after $5.6 billion in write-downs.
Bankrupt With No Bailout in Sight
By the weekend of Sept. 13-14, it was clear that it was do or die for Lehman. The Treasury had made clear that no bailout would be forthcoming. Federal officials encouraged other institutions to buy Lehman, but by the end of the weekend the two main suitors, Barclays and Bank of America, had both said no.
Lehman filed for bankruptcy Sept. 15. One day later, Barclays said it would buy Lehman's United States capital markets division for $1.75 billion, a bargain price. Nomura Holdings of Japan agreed to buy many of Lehman's assets in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Lehman also said it would sell much of its money management business, including its prized Neuberger Berman asset management unit, to Bain Capital and Hellman & Friedman for $2.15 billion.
Lehman's demise set off tremors throughout the financial system. The uncertainty surrounding its transactions with banks and hedge funds exacerbated a crisis of confidence. That contributed to credit markets freezing, forcing governments around the globe to take steps to try to calm panicked markets.
On Oct. 5, Richard S. Fuld Jr., Lehman's chief executive, testified before a Congressional panel that while he took full responsibility for the debacle, he believed all his decisions "were both prudent and and appropriate" given the information at the time.
Negligence and Accounting Tricks
In the March 2010, Anton R. Valukas, an examiner for the bank, laid out for the first time what his report characterized as "materially misleading" accounting gimmicks that Lehman used to mask the perilous state of its finances. Lehman used what amounted to financial engineering to temporarily shuffle $50 billion of troubled assets off its books in the months before its collapse in September 2008 to conceal its dependence on leverage, or borrowed money.
Senior Lehman executives, as well as the bank's accountants at Ernst & Young, were aware of the moves, according to Mr. Valukas, the chairman of the law firm Jenner & Block and a former federal prosecutor, who filed the report in connection with Lehman's bankruptcy case.
Mr. Fuld certified the misleading accounts, the report said, which called him "at least grossly negligent." The report also stated that Henry M. Paulson Jr., who was then the Treasury secretary, warned Mr. Fuld that Lehman might fail unless it stabilized its finances or found a buyer.
The report drew no conclusions as to whether Lehman executives violated securities laws. But it did suggest that enough evidence exists for potential civil claims. Lehman executives are already defendants in civil suits, but have not been charged with any criminal wrongdoing.
The New York Times reported in April 2010 that a firm called Hudson Castle played a crucial, behind-the-scenes role at Lehman, shifting investments off its books. While Hudson Castle appeared to be an independent business, it was deeply entwined with the bank. For years, its board was controlled by Lehman, which owned a quarter of the firm. It was also stocked with former Lehman employees, but none of this was disclosed.
Entities like Hudson Castle are part of a vast financial system that operates in the shadows of Wall Street, largely beyond the reach of banking regulators. These entities enable banks to exchange investments for cash to finance their operations and, at times, make their finances look stronger than they are.
A section of the examiner's report disclosed on April 14 said that a transaction transferred $2 billion in assets from C.M.E. Group, which operates the Chicago and New York mercantile exchanges. The assets were collateral and clearing deposits held by C.M.E. and linked to Lehman's futures and options contracts — proprietary trades that Goldman, Barclays, and another firm, DRW Trading, would take on along with the collateral transfer in question.
The transfer resulted in what the report said was "a loss to Lehman exceeding $1.2 billion." Mr. Valukas concluded that "an argument can be made that the transfers at issue were fraudulent transfers avoidable" under bankruptcy law.
In its May lawsuit, Lehman Brothers Holdings accused JPMorgan of extracting billions of dollars in collateral for loans prior to Lehman's bankruptcy by threatening to deprive the bank of services vital to its broker-dealer business.
was mich stutzig macht, ist der Umstand, dass hier von seiten des Trustee keinerlei Aktivität sichtbar sind, obwohl es den Bericht vom Examiner gibt. Selbst der Examiner, sollte re was finden, muss Anzeige erstatten. Und?
Und was Rosen betrifft, der ja die Klage vorbereitet, da winke ich blos kopfschüttelnd ab.
Ich bin ja auch überzeugt, dass es hier mehr als kriminell zu ging, aber ohne ein EC, sprich event. Susman, tut sich hier nicht viel.
Mal schauen, ob es doch noch eine Wende gibt.
Ich verkaufe erst mal nicht, weil steuerfrei. Und bis 2012 kann noch viel passieren.
shortzahlen gehen zurück und volumen nimmt ohne nachrichten zu! und das sind nicht gerade kleine blöcke die da gehandelt werden! also keine zocker wie wir das sind!
doch frage ich mich einerseits, warum ein Unternehmen Lehman über vier Jahre Geld zurückzahlen soll, wenn
es das Lehman da nicht mehr geben sollte. Die Umsätze betreffend glaube ich nicht an irgendetwas besonderes, denn
bei wirklichen Neuigkeiten wären es x-Millionen an Aktien die über den Tisch gehen würden. Trotzdem natürlich schön.
Warum bin ich hier? Nicht weil ich denke, daß technische Überlegungen bei so einer Aktie z. Zt. zum Ziel führen, sondern
weil ich ganz einfach plötzlich eine Eingebung hatte, diese Aktie kaufen zu müssen. Also habe ich dieses mit meinen bescheidenen Mitteln getan.
Gruß an Alle
Tintifax
und ich glaube kaum, dass ein freizeit/hobby-zocker mal so mir nichts dir nichts 140.000 zu 0,06 kauf! denn welche normale haushalt gibt mal schnell 8400 euro für eine aktie aus, die ausgebucht werden soll!?
und ja, 8400 euro sind für mich kein taschengeld mehr! wenn dass für dich taschengeld ist, dann hut ab!
achja, und wie sieht es dann mit den 350.000 handel von gestern aus? auch taschengeld?
z. T. deiner Meinung. Für mich ist das absolut kein Taschengeld, doch gibt es doch soviele Leute, die soviel Geld haben
und einfach nicht wissen, was sie damit anfangen sollen. Also kauft man eben mal einige Zockeraktien. Es gibt da ja
auch einige Strategien dazu. Hoffentlich geht´s
so weiter. Würde mich natürlich auch freuen.
Gruß
Tintifax
teras, hast du da eine idee dazu?
er hätte Euch damals nichts getan
aber verpfiffen
RAF?!
*pfurtz*