Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEH)

ALLES ist immer irgend ETWAS "gewesen". - Und das, wastu hier ansprichst, ist in meinen Augen rein Curs-mäßig das ENDE der bisherigen herum-Schleicherei - und gleichzeitig der ANFANG heftiger Volativität!

Werde aber selbst auch etwas beobachten müssen,
ob diese meine Einschätzung Tat-sächlich correct ist.

LG: Teras.

War eine schöne Zeit mit Euch!! Danke, besonders an Terras, für die vielen, tollen Beiträge!

Mal sehen wann die Teile aus dem Depot geräumt werden!!

 

Sonnige Grüße aus HH

 

Offenkundigen Unfug muss man nicht commentieren, und deshalb hat sich auch Niemand verwundert, dass wir das Presse-Getöse derer letzten Tage, das uns weismachen wollte, LEHMAN habe vor Gericht eine vernichtende Niederlage einstecken müssen, hier gelassen an uns abperlen lassen. - Wer die Dockets auf epiqSystems querlesen hat, wusste ja auch so Bescheid; doch gibt es inzwischen auch einen PRESSE-Artikel, der uns die Sache ganz RICHTIG darstellt; AUSSCHNITT hieraus:

23 February 2011
Lehman Trustee Gets Billions In Barclays Bankruptcy Ruling
By Joseph CHECKLER:

"In the more widely followed portion of the ruling issued Tuesday, Peck rejected most of Lehman's claims of Barclays reaping a secret windfall when it bought Lehman's broker-dealer unit in September 2008.

But in ruling that the Lehman's brokerage estate is entitled to the disputed cash, Peck cited the so-called "clarification letter," a document the judge never saw but deemed approved by the court because of the way both Barclays and Lehman treated it in the tumultuous days of September 2008.

That letter said no cash would go to Barclays from Lehman in the transaction. The disputed money--which Lehman's trustee contends is about $4.8 billion but which a person close to Barclays told Dow Jones might be less--was considered cash and cash equivalents. The two sides plan to meet with Peck in the next 10 days to discuss the matter.

"'No cash'" quite simply means 'no cash,'" Peck wrote. "The words used are absolute, unconditional and easily understood without regard to the language of the [agreement]."

Barclays had argued it was entitled to the cash, and in its first earnings statement after buying Lehman's broker-dealer business, it booked some of the disputed money as a "gain on acquisitions."

Some of the money is already in Barclays's hands and must be RETURNED to LEHMAN"...

SOURCE / LINK / QUELLE dieses Ausschnitts:
http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2011/02/24/...ins-in-barclays-ruling/

ZURÜCK, Marsch, Marsch - das Geld ZURÜCK!

"BARCLAYS had argued it was entitled to the cash, and in its first earnings statement after buying Lehman's broker-dealer business, it booked some of the disputed money
as a "gain on acquisitions."
Some of the money is already in Barclays's hands and must be RETURNED to LEHMAN"...

Wieso waren die vorherigen Presse-Commentatoren denn nun eigentlich zu blöd, uns diesen doch recht EINFACHEN Sach-Verhalt einfach nur zu BERICHTEN?

Statt dessen haben sie sich sogar angemaaßt, in diesen doch recht beträchtlichen Geld-Rückfluss an LEHMAN eine vernichtende Niederlage LEHMAN's hinein zu interpretieren...

Kopfes-schüttelend alle Zeit:
Der olle Teras.

... sondern eher in einer art schockstarre und habe mir überlegt, was das zu bedeuten haben könnte:

Meine Ansicht war die, dass durch die nicht-rückgabe der geschäftszweige an lehmann es schwieriger würde profitabel zu arbeiten und schulden abzubauen. gut halte ich es auch weiterhin nicht, denn je mehr profitable geschäftszweige bei lehmann bleiben/zurück kommen, desto "einfacher" wird der fortbestand unserer lehmänner zu rechtfertigen sein. wobei man mit den 4,8 MRD ja auch einiges anfangen kann ;-). Vielen Dank für deine ansichten.

Lieber kuhnigotchi:

VORSICHT (sogar gesteigerte Vorsicht) ist bei LEHMAN auch weiterhin nötig, zumal das Paper nach meiner schon in #7176 geäußerten Vermutung demnächst an VOLATILITÄT zulegen dürfte, die ja in beide Richtungen ausschlagen kann.

SCHOCK-Starre aber ist in jedem Falle äußerst gefährlich, denn sie blockiert ja nicht nur das stets erwünschte wohl-Befinden, sondern auch die so nötige Vorsicht.

Ich hatte auch schon mehrmals mit Schock-Starre zu kämpfen, wenn auch zum Glück noch nie bei LEHMAN.

LG: Teras.

Neue (und zwar STRENGERE) Regeln bezüglichlich derer NAKED Short-Sales (NSS) sind offenbar in der Mache. - Sie sollen auch für Naked (=ungedeckte) Short-Sales in Shares derer NON-reporting Companies ihre Wirkung entfalten:

SR-FINRA-2010-028

"Proposed Rule Change to Adopt FINRA Rule 4320 (Short Sale DELIVERY Requirements) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”)) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) a proposed rule change to adopt NASD Rule 3210 (Short Sale DELIVERY Requirements) as FINRA Rule 4320 in the consolidated FINRA rulebook"...

SOURCE / LINK / QUELLE dieses Ausschnitts:
http://www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/RuleFilings/2010/P121522

Vorsichtig optimistisch:
Der olle Teras.

inwieweit das bei OTC-werten etwas bringt. ich denke, dass die MM's den kurs trotzdem weiterhin steuern können.

NEW YORK | Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:35pm EST
Citi could face up to $3 billion in Lehman claims
Reported by Maria ASPAN; edited by Bernard ORR:

"(Reuters) - Citigroup Inc (C.N) could face up to $3 billion in claims from the bankruptcy proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LEHLQ.PK), the third largest U.S. bank by assets said in a regulatory filing on Friday.

The trustee for Lehman under the Securities Investor Protection Act may seek to recover $1 billion that Citigroup took for clearing obligations for Lehman's broker-dealer subsidiary, the bank said in its annual report.

Lehman could also try to recover a $2 billion deposit it made with Citigroup in June 2008, before its collapse, the filing said.

Citigroup said it believes it has the right to counter the deposit with claims it has against Lehman relating to derivatives contracts and loan documents".

SOURCE / LINK / QUELLE dieser kurzen Einschätzung:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/26/...mp;feedName=businessNews

Wednesday, March 02, 2011
StanChart in Lehman note buyback
By Tony LIAW:

"Standard Chartered (Hong Kong) (2888) will be the first local bank to repurchase LEHMAN Brothers equity-linked notes.

The total value of the repurchase is about HK$1.48 billion and will cover over 95 percent of eligible customers who bought the notes from the bank.

For eligible customers who invested in not-principal-protected ELNs, StanChart will repurchase at a price equal to the total value invested less 5 percent. It will be total value less 10 percent for customers holding principal-protected ELNs.

The repurchase price will exclude the amount of coupons already paid to a customer but include an additional amount representing the interest that would have been earned.

The bank will notify eligible customers within 10 days from yesterday and send the repurchase offer within five weeks.

Customers have 60 days to accept the repurchase offer".

SOURCE / LINK / QUELLE dieses Rückkauf-Angebotes:
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/...t.asp?art_id=108657&sid=31487000

das für uns? Ich habe bei Lehman absolut keinen Durchblick mehr!

Grüße

 

muss man einfach reinstellen!

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/...02&tid=261486&mid=261486

In June A/L Asset = 244B, Liability = 311B,
Big gap indeed..= 67B
Claim is now 322B


But if you will look closer, The asset should be 294B if the Negative Investments in Affiliates is not applied to it. This is not an expense folks..It is indeed an investment so we expect some recovery from it. As mentioned in June MOR supplemental, That the potential reserves are not yet determinable at this time..Pg 11.

It was also mentioned by Marsall in the july341 creditors meeting a 50B loan to subsidiaries that can be recovered.

Obviously these two 50B's are the same apple because if they are not..Then it will be 100B potential recovery and it is too big of a potential to file a chapter11..right?


Going back to negative -50B in affiliates, This is indeed a potential payment for a certain investment obligations and if there is an obligation, There should be a claim of equal amount.

Let us see the structure of this transaction:

LBHI loaned the subsidiary not in the form of cash..Cash is indeed impossible because every company will try to preserve their own cash. This loan was indeed in a form of notes or Bonds and this is the name of the game in the fist place. These notes went trough LBT which serves as a conduit between Euro dollar and US dollar..(the only purpose of it's existance.)

There is 52B intercompany claim which is a big portion is the Bond money claimed by the bondholders through LBT as mentioned in Form 8-K of October 29.

Then, If you will consider that this claim was paid by the 50B taken from the asset as Investment in affiliates, This claim is indeed paid off.

The result will be a claim of 322B minus 52B = 270B.


Imagine that the balance sheet will look like this:

Asset= 244B
Claim, 322B - 52 = 270B

But where is the proceeds for selling these bonds?

I mentioned above that Marsall expect a recovery from the 50B loan to subsidiaries and also, As mentioned in June MOR supplemental, That the potential reserves are not yet determinable at this time..Pg 11.

Then: Considering that there is no losses, The recovery is 100%, The imaginary A/L will look like this:

Asset, 244B + 50B = 294B
Claim, 322B - 52B = 270B

Do noT rely solely on my assumptions. DO YOUR OWN DUE DILLIGENCE!  

LONDON | Fri Mar 4, 2011 8:51am EST
Lehman battles investors over derivative payouts
By Sarah WHITE:

"LONDON (Reuters) - A legal tussle between defunct Lehman Brothers (LEHMQ.PK) and investors in highly complex debt vehicles has drawn attention from financial professionals and British football clubs alike.

The dispute reaches beyond the obscure clauses in the instruments caught up in the row, with consequences for the order in which creditors get paid out in a bankruptcy -- a source of contention in football insolvencies too.

Billions of dollars of derivatives are at stake, and risk losing their worth if the case goes against investors. - A similar, widely-trailed case settled in the United States last year had already sparked alarm among lawyers, noteholders, and academics watching the securitization industry.

One Manhattan federal court judge, calling for a review of a decision on the case last September before a settlement with Lehman was reached, cited its "potentially game-changing effect on the structured finance business."

She added that it had "potentially far-reaching ramifications for the international securities markets and has triggered significant uncertainty in the financial community."

The dispute centers on a series of credit-linked notes, part of only one of Lehman's synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO) programs -- known as Dante -- valued at $12.5 billion at the time of the firm's collapse in September 2008"...

SOURCE / LINK / QUELLE dieses Ausschnitts:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/...mp;feedName=businessNews

Gar NIEMAND will die Lehman-COMMONS (LEHMQ) mehr shorten?
Am vergangenen FREITAG (4.3.2011) betrug die Short-Quote gerade 'mal 0,307 Procent:

Date            |Symbol |ShortVolume|ShortExemptVolume|TotalVolume|Market

2011-03-04 | LEHGQ | 21'052        | 0                             |   40'052     | OTO   = 52,561 %
2011-03-04 | LEHJQ  |      450        | 0                             | 103'450     | OTO   = _0,435 %
2011-03-04 | LEHMQ |   2'000        | 0                             | 650'497     | OTO   = _0,307 %

http://regsho.finra.org/FORFshvol20110304.txt

es gibt eben auch keine News, die irgendwelche Ausschläge (egal in welche Richtung) vermuten lassen könnten. Sieht man auch an dem sehr geringen Gesamtvolumen. Bin gespannt, ob, wie lange und in welche Richtung es hier noch weitergeht.

Richard Fuld hat sich "klammheimlich" an der Wall Street zurückgemeldet und ist nun bei "Legend Securities" angestellt. Allerdings taucht er auf deren Seite NICHT im Management-Bereich auf, wird also ... vorerst ... eher hinter den Kulissen "werkeln".

Quelle: http://www.thestreet.com/story/10757156/...-at-legend-securities.html

... erscheint allerdings nicht sehr vertrauenserweckend, da viele Angestellte als eher dubias zu bezeichnen sind. Dies könnte bedeuten, dass "Dick" dieses Angestelltenverhältnis nur dazu benutzt, damit seine FINRA-Lizenz nicht verfällt. "In-Rente-gehen" möchte Mr Fuld offensichtlich noch nicht.  Mal sehen, was er noch vor hat...

Korea Investment & Securities Versus Lehman Brothers International
0ShareMarch 2, 2011

Just today, the attempts by Korea Investment & Securities (KIS) to accrue payment from Lehman Brothers International vis-à-vis the company's purchase of credit-linked notes (CLN’s) which are securities that have embedded credit default swaps enabling the issuer to transfer a credit risk to credit investors, four and a half years ago, were dismissed.  A few weeks ago the court dismissed TrueFriend’s claim (a KIS assignee) against Lehman Brothers International Europe (LBIE) which tried to recover $1314 million in loss on these CLN’s from November 2006.


This particular case is KIS’s purchase of CLNs from Lehman Brothers Treasure Co. a few years ago.  Some months later TrueFriend was set up by KIS, which it used to transfer/sell the CLN to.  A year and a half later following Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy, TrueFriend no longer received any more payments, claiming LBIE to be the “de facto issuer,” not the LBTC.


Today, Mike Jervis (PriceWaterhouseCoopers partner in London) said, “The administrators welcome the court’s judgment, which will now enable them to continue with the orderly wind-down of LBIE and return of assets to creditors in a timely fashion.”


There is some talk that KIS will appeal the decision but Jarvis remains hopeful for KIS as the CLN “remains a valid claim in bankruptcy against LBTC and LBHI


http://www.investmentoptions.asia/...us-lehman-brothers-international  

Es geht hier zwar nur um 70 Milliarden U$-Dollares; dennoch bleibt auch dieser Rechts-Streit weiterhin spannend, da er uns daran erinnert, wie sich unsere LEHMAN Brothers gegen die Bank of America (BofA) wie auch gegen BARCLAYS durchgesetzt haben:

March 8, 2011, 10:21 AM ET
The Daily Docket: Lehman Fires Back At ISDA
By Patrick FITZGERALD, citing Eric MORATH:

"LEHMAN Brothers Holdings Inc. fired back at the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, the derivatives-industry trade group which recently voiced its support for J.P. Morgan CHASE & Co. in a $70 billion legal battle between the two banks.

In court papers filed Friday with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, Lehman questioned ISDA's support for the country's second-largest bank in a fight over billions of dollars in additional assets that Lehman posted as collateral with J.P. Morgan as the failed investment bank's financial condition worsened in 2008.

Lehman is trying to wrest back the $8.6 billion in additional collateral that J.P. Morgan, Lehman's main clearing bank, demanded from Lehman in the bank's final days as it teetered near collapse.

The ISDA, as well as the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, are backing J.P. Morgan's position that the collateral demands were justified, given the bank's exposure to a Lehman collapse.

However, Lehman said the two financial-industry trade groups are "hardly" disinterested parties but rather are explicit "ADVOCATES" for J.P. Morgan.

The groups are asking the court to interpret the Bankruptcy Code in a way that "would sanction J.P. Morgan's egregious conduct, with no attendant benefit to market participants that play by the rules," lawyers for Lehman said in court papers.

Lehman has said the collateral demand is among the transactions that can be undone in bankruptcy, while J.P. Morgan claims that safe-harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code allow it to keep the assets"...

SOURCE / LINK / QUELLE dieses Ausschnitts:
http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2011/03/08/...hman-fires-back-at-isda

http://de.advfn.com/...rt&s=NO%5Elehmq&p=0&t=39&vol=1

würd mich bei dem chart nicht wundern wenn jetzt die party beginnt:
http://www.ariva.de/chart/images/chart.m?z=a2468~b1~Uall~W1  

Bis Lehman alle Schulden begleichen kann?

Immerhin hat Lehman ja noch einige Erfolge gehabt. Respekt!  

Nur die Lehman COMMONS wurden überhaupt noch geshortet, wenn auch nur spärlich:

Date            |Symbol |ShortVolume|ShortExemptVolume|TotalVolume|Market

2011-03-09 | LEHMQ | 226'335      | 0                             | 1'515'515  | OTO   = 14,935 %

SOURCE / LINK / QUELLE:  http://regsho.finra.org/FORFshvol20110309.txt

ich glaube, es ist noch so viel, dass man sich da vorerst keine gedanken drüber zu machen braucht.
der weg, der uns evtl zum erfolg führen kann ist, dass diejenigen, denen lehman geld schuldet, licht am ende des tunnels sehen und lehman operativ weiterarbeiten lassen...

Ich werde hier nicht kaufen, finde es aber hochgeradig interessant was bei Lehman passiert.