Lehmans

setmefree2

How great that this has been dug up! "Happy" Anniversary everyone. Thankfully the setmefree2s have had a very good 2 years.

Generali - isn't it about time you changed your avatar - that kid must be at uni now

sabretoothtigger

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

I think Lehmans will come back, it does look they will need some vital sale of assets or backing to achieve this though. Though if they dont get that before the next fall in house results it'll be too late I guess

opps, well that article above says they are still around sort of

Barclays runs the old lehmans funds now I think, some of them are still labelled lehmans so the name lives on much like barings I guess




funny how two years on we are still playing the same theme though. Ben is still the saviour, rumoured to be using QE very heavily in the autumn hence a big drop in the dollar index and recently a rise in markets.
Today Japan sold 1tn yen in a similar gesture

Whens it going to end and whose the next lehmans

!!!!!!? wrote: »

This sounds like a job for ........




Helicopter Ben

Lehman Sues Banks, Derivatives Investors Over 'Flips'
(update Adds comment from Citigroup spokeswoman and background on Pebble Creek CDO in ninth paragraph, CIBC comment and background on Pyxis CDO in paragraphs 12 and 13.)


By Patrick Fitzgerald
Of DOW JONES DAILY BANKRUPTCY REVIEW

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEHMQ) is suing a handful of banks along with dozens of investment firms over so-called flip clauses that allowed investors to move ahead of the bank to grab assets backing complex derivatives deals.

Lehman affiliates Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. and Lehman Brothers Financial Products Inc. filed six lawsuits in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan to recover funds the investment bank says were wrongly transferred to credit default swap counterparties after it filed for bankruptcy protection.

Lehman says those transfers, which were triggered when the swaps were terminated and the counterparties jumped ahead of Lehman in the payment priority line after its bankruptcy filing, cost its bankruptcy estate and its creditors more than $3 billion.

The suits were filed Tuesday night just hours before the two-year anniversary of its bankruptcy filing. Under bankruptcy law, so-called preference suits seeking to void transfers of property out of company generally must be filed within two years of a bankruptcy filing.

"Lehman has filed these complaints out of an abundance of caution because it has determined that provisions modifying its termination payment rights in the related deals may violate certain provisions of the Bankruptcy Code for which there is a two-year statute of limitations," Locke McMurray, head of Lehman Brothers Holdings' derivatives unit legal group, said in a statement.

The filings are the latest move in a legal battle that spans courts in the U.S and the U.K., and pits the investment bank and its creditors against derivatives investors.

At issue are the collateral-backing notes issued by special-purpose vehicles to which Lehman served as a credit-default-swap counterparty, a structured finance arrangement known as a synthetic collateralized debt obligation.

Among the defendants named in the suits are Bank of America Corp. (BAC), Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BK), Citibank, Deutsche Bank (DB), U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo. The banks, as trustees, held the collateral backing the deals.

"We plan to vigorously contest this matter," Citigroup (C) spokeswoman Danielle Romero-Apsilos said Wednesday. Citibank acted as the trustee for notes issued by a CDO called Pebble Creek. Lehman's lawyers have previously said in court filings that the investment bank is owed $68 million related to termination of the swap.

Spokesmen for Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America and U.S. Bank declined to comment. Representatives of Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

Dozens of special-purpose vehicles, which issued the notes, along with the more than 50 banks, hedge funds and investment firms that bought them, were also named as defendants.

One of those noteholders is Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CM), which Lehman said owes a "significant portion" of the more than $1.3 billion the investment bank says it's entitled to under purportedly terminated swap agreements related to a CDO called Pyxis, one of the largest of the 43 CDO deals at issue in the dispute.

The Toronto-based bank said Wednesday it intends to "vigorously" defend itself against claims that it's on the hook to Lehman for funds related to the terminated swap agreement.

While filing the lawsuits gives Lehman more leverage in its legal fight with investors, the investment bank says it will continue to negotiate and thus has filed a motion to stay the lawsuits indefinitely.

McMurray said the lawsuits "will not affect Lehman's ability or desire to continue or commence negotiations toward the amicable resolution of these deals."

The investment bank has been wrangling with derivatives counterparties in courts in the U.S. and the U.K. for months over the rights to the underlying assets backing the deals.

Earlier this year, Judge James Peck, the judge overseeing Lehman's Chapter 11 case, ruled that a "flip" clause, which allowed investors to move ahead of the bank to grab assets backing a structured debt deal in a derivatives contract, violated U.S. bankruptcy law.

The decision, which Peck acknowledged "may be a controversial one," could force investors in other complex derivatives transactions to forgo billions of dollars in collateral.

It also conflicted with an English High Court ruling last year that put the investors ahead of Lehman in the order to be repaid.

Derivatives represent a significant source of cash for Lehman creditors still waiting to get paid 24 months after the investment bank filed for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 15, 2008.

At the time of its collapse, Lehman was a party to or had guaranteed more than 10,000 derivatives contracts representing more than 1.7 million transactions, according to court documents. The team working on unwinding the deals has so far recovered more than $9 billion in cash for the benefit of creditors.

(Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review covers news about distressed companies and those under bankruptcy protection).

-By Patrick Fitzgerald, Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review; 202-862-3544; patrick.fitzgerald@dowjones.com

(Monica Gutschi in Toronto contributed to this article.)


September 15, 2010 15:34 ET (19:34 GMT)

Degenerate

Generali wrote: »

I think B&B might well be a screaming buy. They have a lot of BTL assets on their books.

:rotfl:.........

Generali

Degenerate wrote: »

:rotfl:.........

Thanks for that! I think I also said that NRK weren't going bust (although I don't think I claimed they were solvent).

If you make predictions as I do you'll often get it wrong........as I do!

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

He seemed to be posting some pretty grumpy stuff and then just disappeared.

I met him, Betty Page and Guy_Montag in a pub in Clerkenwell once for another web forum drinkup. He's a bright lad in a Professorial sort of way, bit of a Trot unfortunately but really a very clever bloke.

Whatever happened to Guy_Montag? I used to enjoy his posts.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

Whatever happened to Guy_Montag? I used to enjoy his posts.

Doing well, enjoying his career and rising in academia.

michaels

which 'other' web forum?

StevieJ

A class thread from the golden days of the 'House prices & the economy' it all seems a bit samey now.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

which 'other' web forum?

If that is directed at me then the other forum was globalhousepricecrash.com (.co.uk???). They were a bunch of people that had been banned from housepricecrash.co.uk (.com???) that seemed like a nice bunch.

For the record, I've never been banned from a house price website.

michaels

Neither have I - but I guess it is a bit like not having an ASBO - doesn't do anything for your street cred with the 'youf'

Generali wrote: »

For the record, I've never been banned from a house price website.