cottonisking
8時間前
Series P language about Derivatives:
We may enter into derivative transactions with third parties, or sell securities not covered by this prospectus (including securities of the same types and classes as described in this prospectus, or others) to third parties in privately negotiated transactions. If the applicable prospectus supplement or supplements so indicates, in connection with those derivatives, the third parties may sell securities covered by this prospectus and the applicable prospectus supplement or supplements, including in short sale transactions. If so, the third party may use securities pledged by us or borrowed from us or others to settle those sales or to close out any related open borrowings of stock, and may use securities received from us in settlement of those derivatives to close out any related open borrowings of securities. The third party in such sale transactions will be an underwriter and, if not identified in this prospectus, will be identified in the applicable prospectus supplement or supplements (or a post-effective amendment). In addition, such third parties or their affiliates may issue securities convertible or exchangeable into, or the return of which is derived in whole or in part from the value of, our securities. If the applicable prospectus supplement indicates, this prospectus may be used in connection with the offering of such securities.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806085/000104746908004053/a2184062z424b2.htm
ron_66271
20時間前
Non-Cumulative Perpetual Convertible Preferred Stock, Series P,
Assets Backed Securities.
“Perpetual, non-Cumulative" Preferred Shares.
Perpetual, non-Cumulative preferred shares made three payments each year. Two interest payments and one Performance payment.
The CT’s function the same as Perpetual, non-Cumulative" Preferred Shares.
Therefore the Perpetual, non-Cumulative preferred shares pay for themselves with the performance payments.
I proved this many years ago with links to the JPM Series Z ($1,000 face) Perpetual, non-Cumulative Preferred shares.
Two interest payments of $34, and one Performance payment at the end of the year of a little more than $200.
The WMI Series R ($1,000 face) traded on average for $1,300. Subtract ($76+$1.5) for interest plus Trustee fees.
That puts the performance payment at around $200+.
I received another data point and calculated the area under the curve for the accumulation.
~2.2X face value.
Perpetual;
The Performance Payment is Perpetual for the life of the ABS in the Trusts.
Safe Harbor Assets.
non-Cumulative"
The interest payments are NOT accumulative.
DONE.
Ron
lodas
2日前
@ron.....I would speculate that the buyer, as well as the seller of a derivative contract would have a clause against fraud... If you remember, Standard and Poor, and Moodys were rating MBS with AAA ratings on many of the Tranches which were really risky, but were sold to public buyers all over the world....The Seller of this contract might have been aware of this, but sold them to the unsuspecting buyer anyway.... then, with the collapse of the financial markets, the SELLERS would have reaped a fortune...However, the BUYER could just "walk away from the contract as being fraudulent"....This happened to me in 2008, when I Sold a put on Bank America, not knowing that they were the Buyers of that Put...BA committed fraud on me because they knew the market was going to tank when Paulsen held that "Moscow meeting" in Russia, some months before the collapse of the financial markets... of course, I "ate those PUT contracts", but I could not "walk" away from them because BA was never accused of fraud at the time. and those contracts were regulated by the CBOE....my point?... probably there were clauses in those derivative contracts which would preclude the Seller from collecting if fraud was committed..... AIMO.... Lodas
cottonisking
2日前
BlackRock, you loaded up with Lehman's shares too, prior to March 6, 2012 (Lehman's Bankruptcy Plan's Effective Date)! Team 2025: Lehman, BlackRock, BAC and BCS...
BlackRock’s Fink: Letting Lehman Fail Was Right Decision
Five years after the financial collapse, BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink recounts whether he would change anything about September 2008. He tells WSJ’s Francesco Guerrera that allowing Lehman to fail ultimately made the financial system safer.
By Wall Street Journal
September 12, 2013
2:09
Read
Less
https://www.barrons.com/video/blackrocks-fink-letting-lehman-fail-was-right-decision/64C02098-0D46-4374-A71F-25F53456B352
cottonisking
2日前
BlackRock, we purchased a few of those shares too. P shares...
June 13, 2008
NEW YORK — BlackRock, the largest publicly traded fund manager in the United States, bought shares of Lehman Brothers Holdings in a secondary offering this week and is optimistic about the firm's prospects, a BlackRock executive said.
"We have confidence in the firm, in the leadership," BlackRock President Robert Kapito, president of BlackRock. "They have a history of being a team, a place of focus, of working out their situations, of having confidence in the marketplace. They're trying their best to do that."
Kapito would not say how much BlackRock invested in the investment bank. Lehman, the fourth-largest U.S. securities firm, raised $6 billion during a sale of common stock and preferred shares on June 9 after reporting a record $2.8 billion second-quarter loss.
Shares of the company rose $1.66, or 7.3 percent, to $24.36 in composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange. They are down 63 percent this year.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/business/worldbusiness/13iht-blackrock.13.13692753.html
cottonisking
3日前
3
presents a novel issue crucial to the interpretation of ISDA Master Agreements and
contracts generally. This Court should accept this appeal in order to bring stability
to that interpretation and thus provide the certainty necessary for sophisticated
commercial parties to avail themselves of New York law.
Accepting this appeal to provide such clarification would also resolve a
conflict between the decisions below and a more general principle of damages under
New York contract law. Unlike most other jurisdictions, New York law restricts
breach of contract liability to those 👉️damages that were within the “contemplation of
the parties” at the time the contract was executed, i.e., a “tacit agreement” test.👈️ It is
dubious that at the time of contracting, a party to the ISDA Master Agreement would
have contemplated that its default exposed it to liability based on the nature of its
counterparty’s business, rather than on the lost market value of contractual
performance. This Court, therefore, should accept this appeal to determine whether
New York’s longstanding tacit agreement test continues to apply and, if so, whether
it applies to Loss determinations under the ISDA Master Agreement.
ARGUMENT
I. THE DECISIONS BELOW INTRODUCE UNCERTAINTY INTO THE
CALCULATION OF LOSS AND THUS THREATEN NEW YORK’S
POLICY OF ENCOURAGING SOPHISTICATED COMMERCIAL
PARTIES TO SELECT NEW YORK LAW.
This case addresses the crucial issue of what a party to an ISDA Master
Agreement governed by New York law can consider when calculating a reasonable
28
If this Court does not intend to deviate from the longstanding Kenford tacit
agreement test, it should accept this appeal, not only to affirm the test but also to
clarify what risks are within the contemplation of the parties to the ISDA Master
Agreement. That step would avoid further unsettling New York law. If this Court
concludes that the test does not apply to transactions involving the ISDA Master
Agreement, it should also accept this appeal to explain that exception. In either
instance, it is appropriate for the Court to accept this appeal to clarify the status of
the Kenford tacit agreement test in light of the decisions below.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Amicus Curiae respectfully requests that this Court
grant Plaintiff-Appellant’s motion for leave to appeal and grant this motion for leave
to appear as Amicus Curiae on the motion for leave to appeal, so that this Court can
clarify these important issues specifically related to ISDA Master Agreements and
generally applicable to New York contract law.
https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/business-restructuring/administrations/lehman/lehman-brothers-international-europe/ongoing-litigation.html
cottonisking
3日前
Brother, how did you make it this far with Lehman Brothers' Bankruptcy and the World? The year 2021 was a rough year!
Lee Williams - I Can't Give up Now Lyrics
Artist: Lee Williams
Album: Non-Album Releases
Heyo! SONGLYRICS just got interactive. Highlight. Review: RIFF-it.
RIFF-it good.
I can’t give up
I can’t give up now
See I come, I come too far to turn around now
I can’t give up
I can’t give up now
You see, I come too far to turn around now.
Repeat
I come too far, around (repeat)
(adlib)
Too many too many hill
I lead awake at night, and I shed too many tears
The lord brought me over, has brought me over
Brought me over Too many rocks and reels
I come too far to turn around..
Verse 1
Sometimes, while on this journey
My body sometimes it gets all wreaking with pains
But I know all of my works, all of my works, all works my works
Down here won’t be in vain….
I’m glad I got a few more, few more rocks, a few more reel
But one day I’m going to make it, I’m going make it
To the top of the hill
Lord, I come too far to turn around
Verse 2
One more thing,
Sometimes, I find myself standing
at the crossroads, in my life,
standing there just wondering
which way which way, which way should I turn
seem like every time I turn to my right side
I find trouble, confusion, misunderstanding,
Already on my right side.
Then I turn to my left side
I find out somebody is sick
Somebody is the hospital
Somebody done past and gone away
Every time I look, I see hills
I see hills, and more hills, and more hills, and more hills
And more hills, and more hills
That’s already waiting on me
Make me feel like,
I just want to just fold my arms
And sit down somewhere and just moan
But Then when I begin to take inventory over my life
turn around and look back
And I see all the hills,
I see all the mountains
I see all the valleys
That Gods already brought me over,
That let’s me know
That let’s me know
That let’s me know
So I still away…
Look up, and tell God….
I can’t give up, now(repeat)
Submit lyrics correction ?
cottonisking
4日前
President Donald Trump on Thursday accused the CEOs of the two largest American banks of refusing to serve conservatives, reviving a 2024 campaign talking point that the two companies deny.
.
.
.
"I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that included a place called Bank of America," Trump said.
"You and Jamie and everybody, I hope you're going to open your banks to conservatives because what you're doing is wrong," Trump said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/trump-revives-claims-of-discrimination-at-major-banks.html
Go Lehman Brothers' in 2025.
Who is the LBHI CTs' Guarantee Trustee? JPMCB
AZCowboy
5日前
~ TooGood, You Are Correct ... That' Is Nothing More Than a MB-Poster Without ANY ACTUAL OWNERSHIP or Any Educational Experience ~
... when questioned by those that actually know him beyond these mb's, his actual work & housing conditions, along with the misreading of IMPORTANT Documents, ... the answer was as follows ...
I am not required to own any CT’s to post on the CT MB.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175654925
... a distraction at best ... and educationally irrelevant' in my opinion ... many here, including myself are actual (all 4) LBHI CT' (Class 10-b) and LBHI Class 12 Owners' ... I do not own any LBHI Class 11 J' series
ADDED: As an Actual OWNER, It has been my own conclusion and opinion that the "Capital Supported" Class 10=B' CT's" will reconstitute once the LBHI Plan is implemented as a going concern ... they, the CT's, are not considered included in the holding company's reorganization, or the Class 11 & Class 12 "one big share" ... the LBHI must implement as a going concern ...
AZ
real777mellon
6日前
Thank you for your response.
Anyone think this has a chance to go to SCOTUS since the nature of it sets the precedent now for the entire ISDA Master Agreement of to be walked out on by CDS sellers when they don't want to pay up? This is insanity.
If anyone has any reporting from PwC UK or Rossman (Quinn Emmanuel lawyer for LBIE) on this I'd like to know - I just pulled this that certain cases can be heard by SCOTUS and this has a serious concern for ISDA Master Agreements and the entire derivatives market as we've all discussed here going fwd. I cannot see Donald Trump not being extremely upset at this insane decision!
New York State Court of Appeals cases can be taken up by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) under certain circumstances. Generally, SCOTUS can review state court decisions if there is a federal question involved, such as an issue related to the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. However, in this specific case, the motion for leave to appeal was denied by the New York Court of Appeals, which means that the case has reached its final decision at the state level.
If there were a significant federal issue at stake, the parties involved could potentially petition SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari, asking the Court to review the case. However, SCOTUS grants certiorari in a very limited number of cases each year.
real777mellon
6日前
Okay help me digest. Does this mean that the case will be allowed to be appealed because the two amicus briefs worked?
Lehman Bros. Intl. (Europe) (in Administration) v AG Fin. Prods., Inc. 01/14/2025 2025 NYSlipOp 60619 Motion
https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/motions/2025/2025_60619.htm
Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in Administration),
Appellant,
v
AG Financial Products, Inc.,
Respondent.
Motion for leave to appeal denied with one hundred dollars costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.
Judge Garcia took no part.
Lehman Bros. Intl. (Europe) (in Administration) v AG Fin. Prods., Inc. 01/14/2025 2025 NYSlipOp 60620 Motion
https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/motions/2025/2025_60620.htm
Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in Administration),
Appellant,
v
AG Financial Products, Inc.,
Respondent.
Motion by Deutsche Bank AG for leave to appear amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed.
Judge Garcia took no part.
Lehman Bros. Intl. (Europe) (in Administration) v AG Fin. Prods., Inc. 01/14/2025 2025 NYSlipOp 60621 Motion
https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/motions/2025/2025_60621.htm
Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in Administration),
Appellant,
v
AG Financial Products, Inc.,
Respondent.
Motion by Clayton P. Gillette for leave to appear amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed.
Judge Garcia took no part.
The first was denied but the two amicus briefs appear to look like this will be granted it's day in court for LBIE v AGFP? Anyone a lawyer?
EDIT: Co-pilot (AI I know) tells me that the motion for leave to appeal is still denied despite the amicus brief's being accepted. This is lunacy. So SCOTUS is next because this NY Court System has lost its friggin mind?
Ref from Co-Pilot:
Does that mean that the motion for leave to appeal by the Appellant was accepted?
No, the motion for leave to appeal by the Appellant was not accepted. The motion by Clayton P. Gillette for leave to appear amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal was granted, and the brief was accepted as filed
Hot Features
プレミアム
登録してリアルタイムのアラート、カスタムポートフォリオ、市場の動きを入手してください。
bluebird50
7時間前
JERSEYHAWG
4日前
