cottonisking
3日前
©️®️™️ Explain plan definition? Satisfied in Full The creditor’s legal right to pursue further money is completely extinguished. This can happen via third-party payments, foreign surpluses,or plan definitions, even if the debtor paid less than 100%.
AI Mode
A plan definition refers to the specific, legally binding terms outlined in a formal debt repayment agreement—such as a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, a corporate restructuring plan, or an individual voluntary arrangement.
These definitions explicitly dictate how much creditors will be paid, over what period, and what happens to the remaining balance once the plan is completed.
How Plan Definitions Extinguish Debt
In the context of a debt being "Satisfied in Full," a plan definition acts as a legal rulebook that alters the original loan contract. Here is how it works:
Legal Modification: The plan legally redefines what "fully paid" means for that specific case.
Partial Payment, Full Release: The definition can state that if the debtor pays a set percentage (e.g., 30% of the total debt) over three years, the creditor must accept this as total satisfaction.
Extinguishment of Rights: Once the debtor meets the conditions defined in the plan, the creditor's legal right to collect the remaining 70% is completely wiped out.
Binding Authority: Because a court or a legal voting process approves the plan, creditors cannot bypass the "plan definition" to pursue the debtor for the shortfall.
To help narrow this down, could you tell me if you are looking at this term for personal bankruptcy, corporate restructuring, or a specific legal contract? Knowing the context will help me provide the exact legal application.
AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses
indepth05
5日前
We need to stop the conspiracy framing and deal with the actual, observable mechanics and historical facts, because that is what reality is built on in markets like this.
Lehman’s reported ~$600B balance sheet was never a pool of liquid, realisable capital. It was a gross accounting structure of a highly leveraged investment bank, composed largely of repo-financed positions, intercompany exposures, structured credit instruments, and OTC derivatives. These positions only had “full value” under normal funding and liquidity conditions.
When short-term funding markets shut down in September 2008, Lehman did not experience a gradual repricing—it experienced a sudden liquidity collapse. Repo lenders pulled funding, collateral requirements accelerated, counterparties aggressively re-marked exposures, and derivative netting and settlement processes were triggered across a vast global network. At that point, liquidity—not nominal asset value—became the binding constraint.
Estate recoveries and payout figures are often misread as a simple percentage loss versus balance sheet size. In reality, they reflect a multi-year legal unwind involving collateral disputes, intercompany claim resolution, derivative netting agreements, and distressed asset liquidation. Different creditor classes had materially different recovery outcomes based on seniority and claim structure, so any single headline recovery percentage is structurally misleading.
The idea that Lehman’s outcome can be explained through selective targeting or asset “transfer” ignores the systemic nature of the crisis. Multiple institutions were simultaneously under extreme stress, and emergency interventions across derivatives counterparties and funding markets were driven by the need to prevent immediate chain reactions of default across the global financial system.
The core reality is simple: in leveraged financial systems, stability is not determined by headline asset size, but by liquidity access and funding confidence. Once those two variables collapse, valuation becomes secondary to forced liquidation dynamics.
Keep smiling…:)
cottonisking
5日前
5 sites
In the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the legal relationship between "satisfied in full" and "paid in full" became a critical, multi-billion-dollar distinction heavily litigated in court.
FindLaw Caselaw
The core difference is that a claim can be legally "satisfied in full" without LBHI actually paying 100% of the cash balance ("paid in full").
FindLaw Caselaw
The Core Distinctions
Legal Status
Meaning in LBHI Bankruptcy Implication for Creditors
Paid in Full The creditor receives 100% of the principal cash amount owed directly from the debtor. The financial obligation is physically erased by direct cash delivery.
Satisfied in Full The creditor’s legal right to pursue further money is completely extinguished. This can happen via third-party payments, foreign surpluses, or plan definitions, even if the debtor paid less than 100%.
How They Relate in the LBHI Case
1. The "Alternative Sourced" Satisfaction
LBHI was often a guarantor for debts issued by its international subsidiaries (such as Lehman Brothers International Europe, or LBIE).
FindLaw Caselaw
When those offshore subsidiaries ended up with surprise cash surpluses and paid their creditors back (sometimes including local statutory interest), LBHI argued those claims were now "satisfied in full".
FindLaw Caselaw
Even though LBHI itself did not distribute the cash to "pay them in full," the creditors' legal right to collect any more money from the LBHI estate was extinguished because they had been made whole elsewhere.
FindLaw Caselaw
+1
2. Subrogation Rights Triggers
Under Section 4.2 of the Lehman Joint Chapter 11 Plan, once a guarantee claim is deemed satisfied in full (through a combination of the primary obligor's assets and partial LBHI payouts), a legal shift occurs. LBHI steps into the creditor's shoes (subrogation) to collect any future distributions from the primary debtor.
SEC.gov
+1
3. Erasing the "Double Dipping" Rights
Because of the complex web of intercompany guarantees, many Wall Street creditors filed the exact same claim against multiple Lehman entities.
The court used the term satisfied in full to stop creditors from collecting cash twice.
Once the baseline economic loss was wiped out by any entity, the claim was "satisfied," blocking the creditor from demanding to be "paid in full" a second time from LBHI.
The Bottom Line
In standard finance, the two terms are often used interchangeably. However, in the LBHI bankruptcy, "satisfied in full" is a broader legal conclusion, whereas "paid in full" is a specific mathematical and mechanical cash reality. A claim could achieve legal "satisfaction" and be extinguished long before LBHI ever cut a check for the full original amount.
SEC.gov
+3
If you are looking at a specific class of claims or a particular court ruling within the LBHI docket, please share the claim class or the specific counterparty involved so I can provide the exact legal treatment applied to it.
cottonisking
6日前
🦮🐩 How can LBHI's 2024 Amended Framework Agreement change this outcome?
The court has extended the life of the Plan Trust through December 6, 2029, but this extension is exclusively to resolve final administrative closure tasks, tax matters, and minimal outstanding litigation—not to pay out subordinated tranches.
3 sites
The 2024 Amended Framework Agreement completely reshapes the landscape by bypassing the need for further U.S. Plan Trust distribution mechanisms, shifting the realization of value directly to the European insolvency proceedings.
Epiq
While you are correct that the U.S. bankruptcy court's extension of the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) Plan Trust through December 6, 2029, is strictly limited to final administrative and tax closure tasks, the 2024 Agreement alters the final outcome for subordinated stakeholders in the following ways:
Epiq
+1
1. Dismissal of the English High Court Appeal
Settlement of Ranking Disputes: The agreement directly resolved long-standing legal disputes regarding how LBHI's claims rank within the English insolvency proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings PLC (in administration) ("PLC").
Epiq
Elimination of Litigation Risk: By entering into this contract on October 2, 2024, LBHI, PLC, LB GP No. 1 Limited, and Deutsche Bank filed a Consent Order that successfully dismissed the pending English Appeal. This established a concrete, contractual waterfall rather than leaving the outcome to unpredictable court rulings.
Epiq
2. Monetization and Transfer of PLC Subordinated Debt
Market-Value Transfers: The agreement permits LBHI to assign, transfer, or dispose of its PLC Subordinated Debt "for value," provided it does not undermine the framework.
Bypassing the Trust Extension Limits: Because the agreement solidifies the legal status and value of these assets internationally, LBHI can monetize or sell its positions to third-party investors in the open market. This liquidates value for the estate without requiring the U.S. Plan Trust to remain active as an operational paymaster for subordinated tranches through 2029.
3. Clear Contractual Consents
Deutsche Bank and GP1 Alignment: The framework mandates that key institutional stakeholders—such as Deutsche Bank and LB GP No. 1 Limited—cannot unreasonably withhold or delay consent for the transfer or disposal of these subordinated assets.
Epiq
+1
A Defined Distribution Route: By solidifying these cross-border terms, the final payouts are governed by the settled European administration timelines rather than being bottlenecked by the restricted operational mandate of the U.S. Plan Trust.
cottonisking
7日前
Hopefully, Barclays and JPMCB set some money aside ( per settlement agreements) for the Plan TRUST Beneficiaries that can be distributed after LBHI's bankruptcy is closed.
13 sites
Converting Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) Plan Trust into an operating shell company to merge with a healthy successor is a highly complex corporate restructuring strategy. The primary economic incentive for such a transaction would be to monetize Lehman’s massive Net Operating Losses (NOLs) and capital loss carryforwards, which could shield a profitable successor’s future earnings from corporate income taxes.
Epiq
+2
Accomplishing this requires transforming a vehicle legally mandated to wind down into an entity capable of engaging in a business combination.
SEC.gov
+1
Step 1: Amending the Plan Trust Agreement and Seeking Bankruptcy Court Approval
The Plan Trust was established under Section 1123(a)(5)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code strictly as a liquidating trust to maximize asset value and make cash distributions.
SEC.gov
+1
Draft Legal Amendments: The Plan Administrator and Trustees must draft formal amendments to the Plan Trust Agreement. These amendments must strip out clauses requiring mandatory liquidation and dissolution.
SEC.gov
+3
Alter the Corporate Purpose: The entity's stated purpose must change from "winding down" to "preserving economic attributes and seeking strategic business combinations".
SEC.gov
+1
Secure Court Confirmation: The Plan Administrator must file a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The court must approve these changes under Section 1127 (Modifications of a Plan).
Epiq
+1
Manage Creditor and Trustee Resistance: This step faces intense scrutiny. Trustees and remaining claim holders may object if the strategy risks remaining cash reserves earmarked for outstanding liabilities, such as the ongoing LBF v. Enasarco litigation.
ElevenFlo
Step 2: Preserving and Qualifying the Net Operating Losses (NOLs)
The primary value of the shell rests in its tax attributes. Inadvertently triggering an ownership change before the merger would permanently wipe out these losses.
Epiq
Maintain the NOL Order: The shell must stringently enforce the existing bankruptcy NOL Order, which restricts the trading of claims and equity interests to prevent a tax-disqualifying event.
Epiq
Clear Section 382 Hurdle: Under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 382, if a corporation undergoes an "ownership change" (a greater than 50 percentage point shift by 5% shareholders over 3 years), its ability to utilize pre-change NOLs is severely limited.
Utilize Section 382(l)(5) Bankruptcy Exception: The conversion must be structured to qualify under the Section 382(l)(5) exception. This rule dictates that if the historic creditors and shareholders end up owning at least 50% of the stock (by vote and value) of the reorganized company, the strict Section 382 NOL utilization limits do not apply.
Step 3: Transforming the Trust into a Clean Corporate Shell
Before a healthy successor will consider a merger, the corporate entity must be entirely insulated from Lehman-era litigation and tail liabilities.
ElevenFlo
+1
Isolate and Separate Assets: The sole asset of the Plan Trust is the single newly issued share of common stock ("Plan Trust Stock") representing ownership of the residual LBHI estate. Any remaining operational assets must be entirely wound down or transferred to a completely separate liquidating vehicle.
Establish a Litigation Reserve: The shell must trap and ring-fence cash reserves to cover any pending disputed claims or litigation liabilities.
ElevenFlo
Procure a Discharge Order: The court must issue a final decree or a structural shield ensuring that any newly emerging operational shell is legally decoupled from, and indemnified against, unknown legacy Lehman Brothers liabilities.
Wilmington Trust
+1
Step 4: Restructuring the Beneficial Interests into Marketable Equity
The economic rights held by former stakeholders are currently structured as non-transferable beneficial interests. These must be modified to facilitate a public merger.
Blue Foundry Bank
+1
Exchange Interests for Shares: The non-transferable beneficial interests must be converted into freely tradeable shares of common stock in the newly restructured shell corporation.
Maintain Priority Waterfall: The allocation of these new shares must strictly mirror the absolute priority rule and economic entitlements set out in the original Chapter 11 allocation agreements.
Address SEC Registration: Registering these new securities with the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is mandatory to provide liquidity, allowing them to be freely exchanged during the eventual merger.
Step 5: Structuring the Reverse Merger with a Healthy Successor
Once the clean shell is established and holding the intact tax attributes, the final phase is executing the corporate combination.
Target Selection: The ideal successor is a highly profitable, privately held operating company looking to go public while rapidly offsetting its heavy federal corporate income tax burdens.
Execute a Reverse Merger: The private operating company merges into the public Lehman shell entity.
Structure the Post-Merger Equity Split: To satisfy the crucial tax preservation constraints (IRC Section 382), the transaction must be carefully balanced. The historic Lehman trust beneficiaries must retain a significant equity stake—frequently structured around a 50% threshold—or the target must navigate the complex rules of Section 382(h) regarding Built-In Gains to successfully deploy the shield against the successor's revenue.
If you want to look closer at this restructuring framework, let me know:
Should we focus on the specific tax compliance requirements of IRC Section 382?
Do you want to evaluate how current pending litigation (like the Enasarco case) impacts this timeline?
Are you interested in the governance changes required by the board of directors to authorize a merger?
ElevenFlo
+1
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more
cottonisking
1週前
☢️💰️©️®️ 11 sitesLehman Brothers’ off-balance-sheet derivatives portfolio was actually estimated at a massive $35 trillion in notional value when the firm collapsed in September 2008. You are entirely correct that this staggering multi-trillion dollar exposure sat off-balance-sheet (OBS), and your intuition about the extreme difficulty—if not impossibility—of easily closing out these positions highlights the exact structural flaw that triggered the global contagion.The Core Reality of Lehman’s $35 Trillion PortfolioWhile Lehman's reported on-balance-sheet assets were roughly $639 billion, its off-balance-sheet footprint was a completely different beast.906,000 Open Contracts: Lehman was a central counterparty to nearly one million active derivative transactions across more than 6,000 master agreements.Over-the-Counter (OTC) Complexity: The vast majority of these were bilateral, custom agreements traded directly between banks, rather than transparently on an open exchange.Disproportionate Scale: As noted by financial researchers at SWI swissinfo.ch, this nominal value of derivatives was roughly 50 times the size of Lehman’s total balance sheet and 1,500 times its actual shareholder equity.Why Off-Balance-Sheet (OBS) Portfolios Cannot Easily "Close"Your point that they "can not close OBS" hits on the most chaotic aspect of the 2008 crash. In standard corporate bankruptcies, an "automatic stay" freezes all assets and liabilities so a court can sort through them orderly. Derivatives, however, held a special legal exemption:The Counterparty Rush: The moment Lehman filed for bankruptcy, every one of their 900,000+ counterparties legally had the right to immediately terminate their contracts and seize any collateral Lehman had posted.The Liquidity Black Hole: Trying to rapidly close out or transfer millions of complex trades simultaneously causes a massive "fire sale" effect. Because no single institution has a balance sheet large enough to absorb tens of trillions in complex risk all at once, the market froze entirely.Destruction of Value: According to legal retrospectives published in the Stanford Law Review, this disorganized, frantic tearing-down of the OBS book by external banks destroyed billions in residual value and amplified systemic panic worldwide.The Hidden Risk Mechanism: Repo 105To keep this multi-trillion-dollar risk looking manageable to the public, Lehman utilized an off-balance-sheet accounting maneuver known as Repo 105. They temporarily shifted tens of billions in aggressive debt off their books just before reporting periods by structuring the short-term loans as "sales" rather than borrowings, only to bring the risk right back onto the books days later.If you are tracking how systemic risk shifts over time, we can look into how modern regulations (like Basel III modifications) handle off-balance-sheet exposures today, or explore the current $600+ trillion global derivatives market. Which area would you like to focus on next?AI responses may include mistakes. For financial advice, consult a professional.
cottonisking
1週前
11 sitesTo satisfy Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) Class 3 (Senior Unsecured Claims) in full, the estate would technically require cash equal to 100% of the aggregate total of all allowed claims within that class, plus any contractually or legally mandated post-petition interest if applicable.Because the reorganization plan treats Class 3 and Class 7 as primary beneficiaries of "Plan Adjustments" (mechanisms that redirect cash from subordinate or guarantee classes), the plan administrator explicitly stated in its Debtors' Disclosure Statement that it is highly unlikely this scenario will ever arise. In practice, Class 3 claims are paid out on a pro-rata basis from Available Cash and subordinate class distributions rather than being capped or fully funded to 100% face value.Key Framework MechanismsPro-Rata Distributions: Rather than requiring a fixed pool of cash to be "satisfied in full," Class 3 claimants receive their pro-rata share of LBHI's Available Cash during semi-annual distributions. The historical expected recovery rate for Class 3 was originally projected at roughly 21.1%.The Global Guarantee Cap: The $94.1 billion cap you referenced applies strictly to third-party guarantee claims (Classes 5, 8, and 9A). It ensures that the collective payouts for parent-level guarantees do not exceed the baseline liabilities of the underlying primary obligors (subsidiaries). It does not act as a funding target for Class 3.Excess Plan Adjustment: If Class 3 or Class 7 claims ever reached 100% satisfaction, any additional cash distributions intended for them would legally redirect to the contributing guarantee classes as an "Excess Plan Adjustment".As the historic Lehman Brothers Chapter 11 Case winds down its final remaining asset pools via the extended Plan Trust, the focus remains on distributing residual millions rather than achieving full numerical satisfaction for senior unsecured debts.If you are tracking a specific claim, I can help you find the latest distribution percentages or look up how foreign currency adjustments affected the final payouts. Let me know how you would like to proceed!AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses
13 sites
Under the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) Modified Third Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization, the third-party guarantee claims that fall under the global $94.1 billion cap are primarily distributed across the following specific classes:
Wilmington Trust
+2
LBHI Class 5: Senior Third-Party Guarantee Claims
LBHI Class 9A: Third-Party Guarantee Claims (other than of the RACERS Trusts)
LBHI Class 9B: Third-Party Guarantee Claims of the RACERS Trusts
LBHI Class 10B: Subordinated Third-Party Guarantee Claims (associated with structured products and capital trust preferred securities like LEHNQ)
SEC.gov
+4
Details of the Classes
LBHI Class 5 – Senior Third-Party Guarantee Claims
This class consists of claims against LBHI based on its third-party guarantees of affiliate obligations. This includes liabilities arising under repurchase agreements, loans, structured securities issuances, and securities lending agreements that were not filed by a Lehman affiliate. These claims hold contractual priority over subordinated guarantee classes.
SEC.gov
+1
LBHI Class 9A & 9B – General Third-Party Guarantee Claims
These classes cover standard, non-senior third-party guarantee liabilities. Class 9A holds standard third-party guarantee obligations, while Class 9B is separated to handle specialized guarantee claims stemming from the RACERS (Reconstituted Asset Certificates Exhibiting Residual Securities) Trusts.
SEC.gov
+2
LBHI Class 10B – Subordinated Third-Party Guarantee Claims
Class 10B represents subordinated obligations, which notably includes guarantees tied to Lehman's Capital Trust preferred securities. Under the plan's economic framework, these claims are structurally capped and designed to receive pro-rata distributions only after senior guarantee liabilities have been addressed.
The Cap Mechanism
The global $94.1 billion aggregate cap was established to prevent hyper-inflated or duplicative guarantee claims from diluting the recovery of direct, general unsecured creditors. If the aggregate allowed claims within these guarantee classes exceeded their specific sub-allocations, the plan stipulated that individual claim amounts within that class would be reduced proportionally (pro-rata) to conform to the estate's overall valuation caps.
If you are tracking a specific payout or claim series, please let me know:
The specific Primary Obligor affiliate (e.g., LBT, LBSF, LBF)
Whether the claim is classified as Senior or Subordinated
?e???
+4
I can provide the specific historic distribution percentages or current status of that class.
okwife
1週前
IF YOU ASKED THE RIGHT QUESTION AS I HAVE DONE HERE YOU WOULD REALIZE THE BIG CLINCHER OF YOU NEVER GETTING PAID IS RIGHT HERE. IT IS THE BIGGEST GORILLA IN THE ROOM 4.92 BILLION DEFAULT
If all the **Trust Preferred Securities** (Series H through P) were paid in full at their **$25.00 liquidation preference**, the total payout would be approximately **$4.925 billion**.
This figure is significantly higher than the $825 million you referenced because that earlier number likely omitted several large series (such as Series O and P) and potentially Series H and I.
### **The Complete "If Paid in Full" Calculation**
Here is the breakdown of the total face value for every series in the Lehman Capital Trust chain, assuming a **$25.00 per share** liquidation amount:
| Series | Ticker | Trust Name | Shares Outstanding | **Total Face Value (@ $25)** |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Series H** | LEHHQ | Capital Trust I | ~4,000,000 | **$100,000,000** |
| **Series I** | LEHIQ | Capital Trust II | ~5,000,000 | **$125,000,000** |
| **Series K** | LEHKQ | Capital Trust III | 12,000,000 | **$300,000,000** |
| **Series L** | LEHLQ | Capital Trust IV | 12,000,000 | **$300,000,000** |
| **Series M** | LHHMQ | Capital Trust V | 16,000,000 | **$400,000,000** |
| **Series N** | LEHNQ | Capital Trust VI | 9,000,000 | **$225,000,000** |
| **Series O** | LEHOQ | Capital Trust VII | 40,000,000 | **$1,000,000,000** |
| **Series P** | LEHPQ | Capital Trust VIII | 20,000,000 | **$500,000,000** |
| **Series Q** | LBHGP* | Capital Trust IX | ~10,000,000 | **$250,000,000** |
| **Series R** | LEHRQ* | Capital Trust X | ~8,000,000 | **$200,000,000** |
| **Series S** | LEHSQ* | Capital Trust XI | ~10,000,000 | **$250,000,000** |
| **Series T** | LEHTQ* | Capital Trust XII | ~10,000,000 | **$250,000,000** |
| **Series U** | LEHUQ* | Capital Trust XIII | ~10,000,000 | **$250,000,000** |
| **Series V** | LEHVQ* | Capital Trust XIV | ~10,000,000 | **$250,000,000** |
| **Series W** | LEHWQ* | Capital Trust XV | ~10,000,000 | **$250,000,000** |
| **Series X** | LEHXQ* | Capital Trust XVI | ~10,000,000 | **$250,000,000** |
| **Series Y** | LEHYQ* | Capital Trust XVII | ~10,000,000 | **$250,000,000** |
| **Series Z** | LEHZQ* | Capital Trust XVIII | ~10,000,000 | **$250,000,000** |
| **TOTAL** | | | **~197,000,000+** | **~$4.925 Billion+** |
*(Note: Series Q through Z were later issuances, some with different structures like mandatorily convertible preferreds, but all generally carried a $25 liquidation preference. The exact share counts for the later series (Q-Z) vary slightly by source due to conversions and buybacks prior to 2008, but the aggregate face value of the entire Trust Preferred universe is widely estimated between **$4.5 billion and $5.0 billion**.)*
### **Why This Matters**
* **The "Waterfall" Reality**: Even if Lehman had paid **$129 billion** to creditors (which it has), that money went to **Senior Unsecured Creditors** who were owed over **$300 billion**.
* **The Shortfall**: Because senior creditors were only paid ~30 cents on the dollar, **$0** was left for the **$4.9 billion** pile of Trust Preferreds (LHHMQ, LEHNQ, etc.).
* **Speculative Value**: The current trading price of ~$0.001 reflects the market's assessment that the probability of ever reaching this $4.9 billion tier is effectively zero.
okwife
1週前
LEHJQ THIS IS PATHETIC WHAT THEY DID HERE.
**LEHJQ (Lehman Brothers Holdings 7.95% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series J) was officially cancelled and is no longer trading.**
Unlike the Trust Preferred Securities (such as LHHMQ, LEHKQ, and LEHLQ) which still trade on the OTC Pink market as speculative assets, **LEHJQ** was a direct preferred stock issuance that was extinguished during the bankruptcy reorganization.
### 1. Current Status: Cancelled
* **Trading Halt**: The security ceased trading on **March 6, 2012**, the effective date of the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. bankruptcy plan.
* **Ticker Status**: It is now marked as **obsolete** (often denoted as `LEHJQ*` in financial databases) and has no current market price or liquidity.
* **Reason for Removal**: Under the confirmed Chapter 11 plan, all existing equity interests in Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., including Series J preferred shares, were **cancelled without recovery** to make way for the new liquidating trust structure.
### 2. Why It Differs from LHHMQ/LEHNQ
The key distinction lies in the **legal structure** of the security:
* **LEHJQ (Direct Preferred)**: This was a direct obligation of the parent holding company (Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.). When the parent company liquidated, these shares were wiped out completely as equity holders are last in line.
* **LHHMQ/LEHNQ (Trust Preferred)**: These were issued by separate **bankruptcy-remote special purpose trusts** (e.g., Capital Trust V, Capital Trust VI). Although the trusts also hold worthless subordinated debt from Lehman, the trusts themselves technically still exist as legal entities, allowing their securities to remain listed on the OTC market as "zombie" stocks, even though their value is effectively zero.
### 3. Financial Outcome for Holders
* **Dividends**: Dividend payments (7.95% annual rate) were suspended in **September 2008** and never resumed.
* **Recovery**: Holders of LEHJQ received **$0.00**. The bankruptcy plan provided no distribution to the class of claims containing these preferred shares.
* **Liquidation Preference**: While the stock had a theoretical liquidation preference of **$25.00** per share, this right was subordinate to all creditor claims, which consumed all available assets.
Hot Features
プレミアム
登録して、同じ考えを持つ投資家と議論するためのアクティブなフォーラムで相互作用するためのアクティブなフォーラムに参加してください。
ausbak51
1日前
JERSEYHAWG
4日前
メールアドレスで登録
