Lehman retrieves $60bn for creditors


EDITOR’S NOTE: We are seeing more and more of these “recoveries.” The question we pose and that should be posed IN COURT is to whom this money is paid and more importantly, how is it going to be credited? Why is that important?

ANSWER: If that recovery means that the investors or investor pools recovered money then the obligations to those investors have been mitigated or reduced. Those obligations derived from liabilities that were represented to be principally from borrowers who had taken loans on their homes. If the obligations are reduced, then there should be a credit. That credit should be reported to the borrower but it isn’t. We continue this charade everyday with past, present and future foreclosures claiming amounts due that are overstated. In fact, many if not most of these foreclosures are relying upon the existence of a default that either never happened or was cured by these “recoveries.”

The simple fact is that a default does NOT occur because the named borrower fails to make a payment. The default actually occurs ONLY if the creditor fails to receive payment from ANY source. Think about it.

In commercial transactions, if the creditor has successfully mitigated the obligation without payment from the borrower, the obligation is still obviously reduced since the creditor is not entitled to recover more than the amount that is due. So why are we allowing the creditors and pretender lenders to recover multiples of the amount due in residential home foreclosures?

Note that this effects all Lehman entities which include notably Aurora Loan Servicing, BNC and dozens of other entities.

Lehman retrieves $60bn for creditors

By Telis Demos in New York

Published: September 22 2010 20:58 | Last updated: September 22 2010 20:58

The bankrupt estate of Lehman Brothers has recovered nearly $60bn in value for creditors since September 2008, but a decision on how to distribute the funds will not be finalised until next year at the earliest.

Bryan Marsal, a partner with restructuring firm Alvarez & Marsal and serving as Lehman’s chief executive, presented the bank’s “state of the estate” report in a Manhattan bankruptcy court on Wednesday.

6 Responses

  1. Bob

    Yeah – Ok for look-up – IF and only IF you are still a “current” Freddie loan. BUT, if Freddie HAD your loan – but disposed of it – and told no one – your loan will NOT show up as a current Freddie loan.

    But, even though it does NOT show up as a current loan – does not mean that Freddie did not own – and that Freddie not dispose of it – to an UNDISCLOSED party. Website will NOT, unfortunately, tell you this.

    And, just try to get in touch with Freddie to confirm this – will not happen.

  2. @ Bob G.

    Try This: https://ww3.freddiemac.com/corporate/

  3. Search Fannie online loan lookup. Same for Freddie, I believe. That online tool is why I’m still in my house and my servicer has had to admit they don’t and didn’t hold my Note.

  4. My note is allegedly owned by a Lehman RMBS. About a year and a half ago, their law firm Florida Default Group sued to foreclose. Six months into that case, they mysteriously moved to dismiss without prejudice. It was granted and we actually moved for attys fees, also granted.

    Since then, we have heard nothing. This has even astonished my atty. I tend to believe that either they are tied up with the bankruptcy and some inability to progress with foreclosure suits or that the RMBS trust had received payment from a swap(s) and that caused them to go quiet for some reason.

    Either way, I am certain that a swap was likely in place as my loan would have been on the AAA tranche. However, we all know that this is how it is supposed to work on paper but, in reality, money is not going where the trust says it should go. Do I have proof? No. They won’t share any info with our attempts to get it.

    Meanwhile, we sit in limbo, not knowing what the f—- is going on. I do wonder though, if I should get on the list of Lehman creditors so that I can fight that any swap money associated with my note be credited to my obligation.


  6. “A mortgagee is entitled to one satisfaction of his debt and no more.”

    Whitestone Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 28 NY 332, 336 (1971).

    This is from the highest appellate court in NY state.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: