Thread: LEHMQ - Lehman Brothers

Lehman agrees JPMorgan settlement

By Suzanne Kapner

Published: February 25 2010 20:59 | Last updated: February 25 2010 20:59

Lehman Brothers Holdings has agreed to pay JPMorgan Chase $557m in cash and let it keep $7.1bn in collateral to settle claims related to Lehman’s 2008 bankruptcy filing, according to court documents.

As part of the settlement, JPMorgan Chase will also transfer back to Lehman illiquid securities with a “face value in the billions of dollars”.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
In depth: Lehman Brothers - Jan-26
Lehman SPV ruling sparks controversy - Jan-26
Lehman property tussle mires UK groups - Jan-20
Lehman warns on ‘unreasonable’ US claims - Jan-11
Lehman seeks to expose ‘silly’ claims - Jan-11
Lehman Europe set to return assets - Dec-29

JPMorgan served as the primary clearing bank for Lehman’s brokerage division. In the weeks leading up to Lehman’s September 15, 2008, bankruptcy filing, JPMorgan required Lehman Brothers to pledge billions of dollars in collateral to guarantee its borrowings, court papers show.

Calls for collateral came on August 26, when Lehman posted billions of dollars in hard-to-value illiquid securities, and again between September 9 and September 12, when Lehman pledged an additional $8.57bn in cash and money market funds.

When Lehman failed – in the biggest bankruptcy to date in US history – JPMorgan filed claims against the bank that exceeded $29bn. JPMorgan reduced that amount over time by drawing down on the collateral that Lehman had pledged.

The agreement reached yesterday will settle the remaining balance.

Both sides have reserved their rights to dispute future claims. The settlement requires court approval. A JPMorgan spokesman declined to comment. A Lehman spokeswoman referred reporters to the documents filed with the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

The terms of the agreement call for JPMorgan to keep $7.1bn in collateral and Lehman to pay an additional $557m in cash. JPMorgan will then return to Lehman the remainder of the collateral, which is in the form of illiquid securities that are hard to value. Lehman said in the court papers that these securities “could be worth billions of dollars”.

Once the fourth-largest US investment bank, Lehman Brothers failed amid the financial market turbulence of 2008. Last-ditch attempts to save the investment bank by selling it to bigger competitors such as Barclays of the UK or Bank of America failed, forcing the company into Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

Before filing, Lehman Brothers, which employed about 25,000 people, listed assets of $639bn and debts of $613bn.

The collapse sent ripples through the financial markets that set off a worldwide crisis, which ultimately led to billions of dollars in taxpayer bail-outs for Wall Street firms.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

BEAST CHART LEHMQ - SharpCharts Workbench - StockCharts.com

here's a performance chart comparison between $indu, LEHMQ (commons) and LEHJQ (preferreds)...

note the higher beta of LEHJQ. i think to some extent it was able to reach higher highs due to the lower OS (float).

PerfChart - Charting Tools - StockCharts.com

my favorite of the lehman group is LEHJQ because it's a preferred, it gets paid ahead of the commons. it also has the highest OS of all the rest, 66M, so the spread tends to be narrower and the daily volumes are higher. anyone trading in and out of their stocks will appreciate that liquidity.

full face value is $25/share, and i do think it's possible we could see that happen. if so, we're talking a 250 bagger from today's close.

here's a weekly chart:

GETTING READY TO ROLL

WAS .10 NOW WHAT BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
LEHMQ - SharpCharts Workbench - StockCharts.com

just wait and see for this trend, so that we can know what next??

Então, Anônimo. Você não se apresenta mas eu me apresento, sou um dos editores da revista. Muito prazer! (Talvez isso já tire sua dúvida sobre “quem contratou, embora não haja contrato, e sim uma vontade espontânea de se falar de teatro, tanto por parte dele como da nossa).
Gostaria de fazer dois convites. O primeiro, de dar uma olhada na revista para ver que, na verdade, não existe obrigação nenhuma de informar – isso a gente deixa pra Folha, pra Veja e pro Fantástico – a sua revista eletrônica semanal. A idéia aqui é a de gerar OPINIÀO e DISCUSSÀO (claro, com o humor que situações como essa requerem).
Se apontar falhas onde há falhas (assim como falar bem do que é bom) é ser leviano e mal-intencionado, esse é nosso perfil editorial…
O segundo convite é o de, já que você não concorda, de enviar a sua crítica para a peça, dialogando com a do Valmir. Sua opinião se gostou ou não pode caber sim, desde que você se identifique (afinal, infelizmente a semana do Anônimo Feliz já acabou…

translation!



So, Anonymous. You do not presents but I present myself, am one of the editors of the magazine. Very pleased! (Maybe it already take your question about "who hired, although no contract, but a spontaneous desire to talk about theater, both for him as our own.)
I have two invitations. The first, look at the magazine to see that, indeed, there is no obligation to inform - that we leave for Leaf, to See and pro Fantastic - the weekly electronic magazine. The idea here is to generate DISCUSSION OPINION and (of course, with the humor that situations like this require).
If pointing out faults where there are failures (as well speak of what is good) is to be frivolous and malicious, that is our editorial profile ...
The second call is that, since you do not agree, you send your complaint to the piece, dialoguing with the Valmir. Her views are like or can not fit Yes, provided you identify yourself (after all, unfortunately the week is over ... Merry Anonymous