Perpetuals, Steepeners Terug naar discussie overzicht

Resparc

1. shaai 23 oktober 2019 15:28

   auteur info

   • shaai

     Lid sinds: 29 jul 2005

     Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 459

     Gegeven: 1180

   •    Aantal posts: 4.565

   Weet iemand of er in Duitsland al een 'opvolger' is voor BondBoard, waar mensen schrijven over Resparcs etc? 
   
   BondBoard ligt er nu al een tijdje def uit:
   www.bondboard.de/30-Board
   
   Board
   Am Mittwoch, den 25.09.2019 wurde im Internet vor einer Zero-Day-Lücke in der Forensoftware „vBulletin“ gewarnt. Diese Software ist seit Jahren auch im Forum des Bondboards im Einsatz. Nach Analyse des betreibenden Dienstleisters, hat es einen Versuch gegeben, ein Script auf dem Server zu hinterlegen. Daraufhin haben wir das Board umgehend abgeschaltet.
   
   Diesen erneuten Angriff auf unsere neutrale Informationsplattform nehmen wir zum Anlass, das Forum im Board auch nicht mehr online zu stellen.
   
   Wir bitten um Ihr Verständnis für diese Maßnahme, bedanken uns auf diesem Wege ausdrücklich für die vielen konstruktiven sowie informativen Beiträge und wünschen allen Usern für die Zukunft alles Gute sowie stets ein glückliches Händchen bei Ihren Investments.
   
   Ihr Bondboard Team
   Klaus Stopp
   E-Mail: bondboard@baaderbank.de
2. [verwijderd] 24 oktober 2019 11:56

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Helaas weet ik het antwoord op je vraag niet, maar ik ben wel erg geïnteresseerd in het laatste nieuws over resparc. Ik heb namelijk nog een stapeltje liggen, waarbij ik een notitie heb dat ze mogelijk in '23 weer aangevuld zijn.
   Zie echter op hun site dat ze na een kwartaal winst nu weer verlies hebben geleden. Dus het zal nog wel even duren voordat we hier weer wat beweging gaan zien.
3. [verwijderd] 24 oktober 2019 12:13

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   overigens een googletje op dantealemis, leverde deze site op:
   www.wertpapier-forum.de/forum/45-fina...
   Lijkt wel wat minder bezocht dan bondboard, maar misschien kun je er iets mee.
4. Stapelaar 24 oktober 2019 12:38

   auteur info

   • Stapelaar

     Lid sinds: 14 feb 2012

     Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 270

     Gegeven: 505

   •    Aantal posts: 2.125

   quote:

   lute11 schreef op 24 oktober 2019 11:56:

   Helaas weet ik het antwoord op je vraag niet, maar ik ben wel erg geïnteresseerd in het laatste nieuws over resparc. Ik heb namelijk nog een stapeltje liggen, waarbij ik een notitie heb dat ze mogelijk in '23 weer aangevuld zijn.
   Zie echter op hun site dat ze na een kwartaal winst nu weer verlies hebben geleden. Dus het zal nog wel even duren voordat we hier weer wat beweging gaan zien.
   

   Volgens mij hebben ze aangekondigd de bondjes af te wikkelen per 30 juni 2021 tegen de boekwaarde.
5. shaai 24 oktober 2019 13:02

   auteur info

   • shaai

     Lid sinds: 29 jul 2005

     Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 459

     Gegeven: 1180

   •    Aantal posts: 4.565

   quote:

   Stapelaar schreef op 24 oktober 2019 12:38:

   [...]
   
   Volgens mij hebben ze aangekondigd de bondjes af te wikkelen per 30 juni 2021 tegen de boekwaarde.
   

   yep, en daar lopen rechtszaken tegen op meerdere vlakken.
   
   Ik kan daar wel wat updates van posten
6. shaai 24 oktober 2019 13:03

   auteur info

   • shaai

     Lid sinds: 29 jul 2005

     Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 459

     Gegeven: 1180

   •    Aantal posts: 4.565

   quote:

   lute11 schreef op 24 oktober 2019 12:13:

   overigens een googletje op dantealemis, leverde deze site op:
   www.wertpapier-forum.de/forum/45-fina...
   Lijkt wel wat minder bezocht dan bondboard, maar misschien kun je er iets mee.
   

   Goeie!
   er is ook een rechtszaak waarbij je je gratis kan aanmelden, en 1 die neemt alleen een klein % bij succes en afwikkeling > xx%
   xx was? 38? of 58? zoek ik morgen ff na
7. Harrie 25 oktober 2019 09:41

   auteur info

   • Harrie

     Lid sinds: 20 okt 2019

     Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 14

     Gegeven: 8

   •    Aantal posts: 53

   Zo mijn eerste reactie ooit, is gelijk een vraag. Hopelijk op het goede forum. Ik heb BESI 8,5%, Portugese obligaties, uitgegeven door Haitong bank, in mijn portefeuille. Ik kan er weinig informatie over vinden, heb al wel netjes couponrente ontvangen. 8,5% lijkt mij 'to good to be true'. Kan iemand mij verwijzen naar het juiste forum, of wat meer informatie verstrekken? Hartelijk dank
8. Stapelaar 25 oktober 2019 09:54

   auteur info

   • Stapelaar

     Lid sinds: 14 feb 2012

     Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 270

     Gegeven: 505

   •    Aantal posts: 2.125

   quote:

   Harrie schreef op 25 oktober 2019 09:41:

   Zo mijn eerste reactie ooit, is gelijk een vraag. Hopelijk op het goede forum. Ik heb BESI 8,5%, Portugese obligaties, uitgegeven door Haitong bank, in mijn portefeuille. Ik kan er weinig informatie over vinden, heb al wel netjes couponrente ontvangen. 8,5% lijkt mij 'to good to be true'. Kan iemand mij verwijzen naar het juiste forum, of wat meer informatie verstrekken? Hartelijk dank
   

   www.bolsadelisboa.com.pt/products/bon...
   www.haitongib.com/en/investor-relatio...
   
9. shaai 25 oktober 2019 10:03

   auteur info

   • shaai

     Lid sinds: 29 jul 2005

     Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 459

     Gegeven: 1180

   •    Aantal posts: 4.565

   quote:

   shaai schreef op 24 oktober 2019 13:03:

   [...]
   
   Goeie!
   er is ook een rechtszaak waarbij je je gratis kan aanmelden, en 1 die neemt alleen een klein % bij succes en afwikkeling > xx%
   xx was? 38? of 58? zoek ik morgen ff na
   

   meest recente update
   
   Ladies and Gentlemen,
   
   
   
   The lawyers of Resparcs I & II have informed us that they are prepared to waive the plea of limitation against you in respect of any recourse claims you may have against RESPARCS companies due to the failure to secure possible claims for damages due to the breach of the silent participation agreements in the years 2009 to 2013.
   
   
   
   Therefore, please inform us by e-mail by Monday, 21 October 2019, which holdings you hold today in nominal value for the following bonds:
   
   
   
   bond
   
   ISIN
   
   volume in EUR/USD
   
   RESPARCS I-bond
   
   ISIN XS0159207850
   
   
   
   RESPARCS II-bond
   
   ISIN DE0009842542
   
   
   
   
   
   Please make sure that your information is complete and accurate.
   
   
   
   We cannot verify the completeness and accuracy of the information you provide.
   
   
   
   This is only a convenience translation. The German version of the update is the official and authoritative version.
   
   
   
   Kind regards
   
   Aljoscha Schmidberger
   Lawyer| Certified Attorney in banking and capital market law
   
   ----
   
   BRP Renaud und Partner mbB
10. [verwijderd] 25 oktober 2019 10:10

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    IS dit de rechtszaak waarbij je je gratis kan aanmelden?
    Ben ik dan weer net te laat voor, zo te zien: by Monday, 21 October 2019.
12. shaai 25 oktober 2019 10:11

    auteur info

    • shaai

      Lid sinds: 29 jul 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 459

      Gegeven: 1180

    •    Aantal posts: 4.565

    Convenience Translation:
    
    
    
    Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
    
    
    
    we would like to inform you about the current development of Hamburg Commercial Bank AG, HCOB, formerly HSH Nordbank AG.
    
    
    
    Please read this e-mail carefully.
    
    
    
    In this e-mail we draw your attention to possible risks of limitation as of 31.12.2019:
    
    
    
    I. Current situation:
    
    
    
    1. Legal proceedings privately placed silent participations
    
    
    
    In the legal proceedings against HCOB conducted by holders of the privately placed silent participations, a date for oral proceedings has not yet been set.
    
    
    
    A first instance decision in these proceedings is therefore not to be expected this year.
    
    
    
    2. Legal proceedings by the bondholders of the Tier-1 bonds
    
    
    
    In the lawsuit brought against HCOB by the holders of the Tier-1 bonds that you also hold, a date has not yet been set for oral proceedings either.
    
    
    
    A first instance decision in these proceedings is therefore also not to be expected this year.
    
    
    
    2.1 The legal construction of the legal proceedings of the bondholders of Tier-1 bonds
    
    
    
    For a better understanding of the following complex legal interpretations, we will again explain to you the issuing structure and the action structure of the action brought by the bondholders of the T1 bonds:
    
    
    
    (a) Emission structure
    
    
    
    The legal predecessors of HCOB each concluded a silent partnership agreement with a special purpose entity. The silent partnership agreement was structured in such a way that the earlier requirements for recognition of the silent partnership contribution as core capital were met. The special purpose vehicle (SPV) issued the Tier-1 bonds at issue. From the proceeds from the bond issue, the SPV (re)financed the asset contribution to be made by it. The T1 bonds themselves reflect the economic development of the silent partnership entered into by the SPV due to the terms and conditions of the bonds. Profit payments to and profit losses of the SPV are passed on to the bondholders.
    
    
    
    The issue structure of SPARC bonds today, for example, is shown graphically as follows:
    
    cid:image001.jpg@01D55CCF.18934CF0
    
    The bondholders of the T1 bonds themselves have not entered into an agreement with HCOB.
    
    
    
    The silent partnership agreement exists only between the silent partner, in the case of the SPARC bonds of Banque de Luxembourg, BdL, and the HCOB.
    
    
    
    b) Claim structure
    
    
    
    (i) The bondholders of the T1 bonds are therefore of the opinion that the silent partnership agreement is an agreement with protective effect for the benefit of third parties, in this case the bondholders, in the legal action they have brought against HCOB. Only, if the court follows this legal opinion, the bondholders are at all entitled to assert claims against HCOB themselves due to the violation of the silent partnership agreement. Otherwise, the court would already dismiss the action for lack of entitlement (so-called "Aktivlegitimation"). In our e-mail of 30.11.2018, we informed you that the (legal) construction chosen by the bondholders is highly uncertain. As far as can be seen, case law on this specific case constellation does not yet exist.
    
    
    
    (ii) For this reason, the lawyers of the bondholders of the T1 bonds assert their claims for damages on behalf of the BdL for the SPARC and SPHERE bonds alternatively within the scope of the arbitrary legal status granted to them by the BdL in each case. The risk that the action for damages could be dismissed due to a lack of entitlement is thus (largely) eliminated in the case of SPARC and SPHERE bonds.
    
    
    
    (iii) In the case of the RESPARCS I and RESPARCS II bonds, there is a risk that the court will dismiss the action for lack of entitlement (so-called "Aktivlegitimation"), whereas RESPARCS I and RESPARCS II have not granted the bondholders of the T1 bonds an arbitrary standing in court to enforce claims for damages against HCOB due to the breach of the silent partnership agreement concluded between RESPARCS I or RESPARCS II and HCOB. RESPARCS I and RESPARCS II have instead concluded a waiver of limitation agreement with HCOB. We informed you about this by e-mail from 30.11.2018.
    
    
    
    We had inspected the waiver of limitation agreement with the lawyers of Deloitte Legal for you.
    
    
    
    (c) Claims
    
    
    
    (i) The bondholders of the T1 bonds request that HCOB be ordered to determine the book value of the silent partnership agreement underlying the SPHERE, SPARC, RESPARCS I and RESPARCS II bonds recorded in the balance sheet of HCOB at 100% of the nominal value (higher) (principal request).
    
    
    
    (ii) In the case of the SPARC and SPHERE bonds, they also request, in the alternative and in arbitrary standing, that HCOB be ordered to determine the book value of the silent partnership agreement underlying the SPHERE and SPARC bonds at 100 % of the nominal value (higher) recorded in the balance sheet of HCOB (alternative request).
    
    
13. shaai 25 oktober 2019 10:13

    auteur info

    • shaai

      Lid sinds: 29 jul 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 459

      Gegeven: 1180

    •    Aantal posts: 4.565

    2.2 Consequences of the claims for you
    
    
    
    These lawsuits filed by the bondholders have the following consequences for you as a non-participant in the lawsuit:
    
    
    
    (i) If the principal request is rejected, your legal position shall not be affected thereby. The judgment is effective only between the parties in the proceedings. If the principal request is accepted, the book value of the silent partnership agreements is written up, which would automatically result in an increase in the book value of the bonds held by you.
    
    
    
    (ii) If the alternative request is rejected, your legal position is (indirectly) affected thereby. It is stated that the BdL is not entitled to any claims under the silent partnership agreement. If the principal request is accepted, the book value of the silent partnership agreements is written up, which would automatically result in an increase in the book value of the bonds held by you. In the case of SPHERE bonds, however, it differs. In the case of SPHERE bonds, the silent partner, HSH N Funding II, HSH N, has not yet become active at all.
    
    
    
    2.3 Interim result
    
    
    
    Based on the legal opinion that only the silent partners themselves are entitled to assert claims for damages against HCOB due to the violation of the silent partnership agreements, your legal position as non-participants in the proceedings was relatively well secured.
    
    
    
    RESPARCS I and RESPARCS II concluded a waiver of limitation agreement with HCOB 2018 and BdL's claims under the silent partnership agreement on which the SPARC bonds are based were enforced by the bondholders in court by way of arbitrary standing.
    
    
    
    A (considerable) risk existed on the basis of this legal opinion, however, for the SPARCS bonds, for which the silent partner, HSH N, has not yet become active.
    
    
    
    In our e-mail of 30.11.2018, we informed you that, on the basis of the legal opinion that only the silent partners themselves are entitled to assert claims for damages against HCOB due to the violation of the silent partnership agreements, you must take recourse against the silent partners or issuers if the silent partners or issuers of the bonds you hold do not assert the claims for damages in good time.
    
    
    
    That's why we're writing you today.
    
    
    
    3. Limitation objection raised by HCOB against the bondholders of the Tier-1 bonds
    
    
    
    In the legal proceedings brought against HCOB by the bondholders of the Tier 1 bonds, HCOB now alleges that the claims for damages asserted by the bondholders due to the violation of the silent partnership agreements have become partially time-barred.
    
    
    
    HCOB is of the opinion that the claims for damages (i) would be subject to the knowledge-dependent three-year standard limitation period and (ii) the knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the claim and therefore triggered the commencement of the limitation period would have been present upon receipt of the respective notification of loss.
    
    
    
    II. Consequences of the objection of limitation for you as bondholder of Tier 1 bonds
    
    
    
    If the HCOB were to assert its legal position, this would have the following (procedural) consequences for you:
    
    
    
    1. Limitation of claims for damages
    
    
    
    (i) The claims for damages of the silent partners BDL, HSH N, RESPARCS I and RESPARCS II against HCOB for the financial years 2009 to 2013 would be time-barred. Excepted from this would be claims for damages due to the violation of the Pari Passu clause in the 2013 financial year. Background: Since 2013, HCOB has taken the fund for general banking risks into account for some of its silent partners in the denominator of the loss participation calculation. In our opinion, this violated the pari passu clause contained in all silent partnership agreements.
    
    
    
    (ii) The claims for damages of the silent partners BDL, RESPARCS I and RESPARCS II against HCOB for the financial years 2014 to the present for the SPARC, RESPARC I and RESPARC II bonds would not yet have expired. The situation would be different for SPHERE bonds, where the silent partner has not yet become active. The claims for damages of the silent partner HSH N for the 2014 financial year would be time-barred on the basis of the legal opinion of HCOB.
    
    
    
    2. Recourse against the silent partners/issuers
    
    
    
    (i) If HCOB's legal opinion prevails, i.e. if the aforementioned limitation risk is realized, the issuer of the respective bond issue would, in our opinion, be liable to you.
    
    
    
    (ii) As issuer of the bonds, BdL, RESPARCS I and RESPARCS II were, in our legal opinion, obliged to secure claims arising from the silent partnership agreement concluded with HCOB in each case, on which the bonds issued by BdL, RESPARCS I and RESPARCS II are based, in good time before the statute of limitations commenced, in order to protect the emission creditors against HCOB.
    
    
    
    III. Options for action
    
    
    
    Against this background, you have the following options:
14. shaai 25 oktober 2019 10:15

    auteur info

    • shaai

      Lid sinds: 29 jul 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 459

      Gegeven: 1180

    •    Aantal posts: 4.565

    1. Option 1
    
    
    
    In order to exclude the existing risks as far as possible, we recommend that you sue the HCOB before the end of 31.12.2019 and announce the dispute to BdL, HSH N, RESPARCS I and RESPARCS II. The third party notice is important for two reasons:
    
    
    
    (i) If the court decides that it is not you but only the silent partners (BdL, HSH N, RESPARCS I, RESPARCS II) who are entitled to assert the claims for damages due to the violation of the silent partnership agreements, you may, in a second lawsuit, take recourse against the silent partners in this respect or claim from them that they (alone) are obliged to act.
    
    
    
    (ii) If the court decides that you are entitled to enforce the claims based on the breach of the silent partnership agreements, but that the claims for the fiscal years 2009 to 2013 (BdL, RESPARCS I, RESPARCS II) or 2014 (HSH N) have expired for the reasons stated in Section II.1, you may, if necessary, hold yourself harmless in a second legal action against the respective issuers (BdL, RESPARCS I, RESPARCS II).
    
    
    
    For example, the action structure for SPARC bonds would be as follows:
    
    In our opinion, this is the safest way from a legal point of view, despite the imponderables that exist in this respect.
    
    
    
    2. Option 2
    
    
    
    Since the aforementioned route would involve costs for you (attorneys' fees and court costs), we initially requested RESPARCS I and II out of court by letter dated 26 August 2019 to enter into negotiations with us regarding the conclusion of a waiver of limitation agreement with the bondholders represented by us, including you depending on the issuance, in view of the possible recourse claims.
    
    
    
    The writs are attached to this e-mail.
    
    
    
    RESPARCS I and RESPARCS II and their lawyers from Deloitte Legal have so far been cooperative. Whether these are prepared to conclude a waiver of limitation agreement is, however, open.
    
    
    
    But even if we succeeded in concluding a waiver of limitation agreement with RESPARCS I and RESPARCS II as well as with the respective general partners of these companies and their managing directors, you would still run the risk that courts would later hold the view that not RESPARCS I and RESPARCS II, but that you as the bondholder would have had to enforce the claims in good time. For this reason, option 1 is safer.
    
    
    
    BdL has not been cooperative so far.
    
    
    
    Nevertheless, we will address BdL with identical letters and request them to enter into negotiations with us regarding the conclusion of a waiver of limitation agreement. Based on our previous correspondence with BdL, we estimate that the probability that BdL is already involved in this is low.
    
    
    
    3. Option 3
    
    
    
    The most cost-effective way, but not legally secured at all, is not to take any measures and to rely on you participating in a later repurchase offer.
    
    
    
    We do not consider it likely that a repurchase offer will be made any longer. Assumed the termination of the silent partnership agreements declared by HCOB is effective, the bonds expire on 31.12.2020. A legally binding decision will most likely not be available in any legal action until this point in time. As things stand today, we assume that, if an out-of-court settlement is reached at all, it will not be reached until the bonds expire.
    
    
    
    You may be able to participate in such out-of-court settlements, but this is by no means certain. On the contrary, we do not rule out the possibility that - assuming the (partial) success of the respective lawsuits - only those bond holders who become active themselves will participate in a legal success.
    
    
    
    We are aware that other market participants advertise 'to use their best endeavours to engage each other in any settlement negotiations with HCOB, its advisers and/or shareholders', but such effort clauses do not alter the risks set out above for those market participants who do not take action themselves. If the statute of limitations were to apply, HCOB would have no reason to accept that bondholders who have not prevented the statute of limitations would be "taken along" in settlement agreements with bondholders who have prevented the statute of limitations. Bondholders who prevented the statute of limitations from becoming effective would most likely not allow any settlement with HCOB to fail if HCOB resisted, because HCOB is not prepared to integrate bondholders who did not prevent the statute of limitations from becoming effective into the settlement. At any rate, the effort clauses mentioned above do not offer any protection against this.
    
    
    
    IV. Further action
    
    
    
    As soon as it has been determined whether option 2 can be considered at all, which depends on the willingness of BdL, RESPARCS I and RESPARCS II to cooperate, we will ask you how you would like to proceed.
    
    
    
    We would then send you a cost estimate for option 1.
    
    
    
    A cost estimate can only be made if we know which investor is participating in a lawsuit with which nominal volume.
    
    
    
    This is only a convenience translation. The German version of the update is the official and authoritative version.
    
    
    
    Kind regards
15. Harrie 25 oktober 2019 10:17

    auteur info

    • Harrie

      Lid sinds: 20 okt 2019

      Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 14

      Gegeven: 8

    •    Aantal posts: 53

    Stapelaar,
    
    Bedankt voor je reactie
    Dat is inderdaad alle informatie die ik ook kon vinden.
    Ik denk dat ik mijn positie nog maar even niet uitbreid.
    
    
16. shaai 25 oktober 2019 10:20

    auteur info

    • shaai

      Lid sinds: 29 jul 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 459

      Gegeven: 1180

    •    Aantal posts: 4.565

    quote:

    lute11 schreef op 25 oktober 2019 10:10:

    IS dit de rechtszaak waarbij je je gratis kan aanmelden?
    Ben ik dan weer net te laat voor, zo te zien: by Monday, 21 October 2019.
    

    dit was een oud statement vd groep waar je je gratis voor kon aanmelden:
    www.neuwerk.legal
    status daarvan weet ik niet
    
    Note to the editors: Update on HCOB retail bondholder group led by NEUWERK
    On 8 April 2019, we issued a press release announcing the formation of a group, led by Dr. Johannes
    Deiß at NEUWERK Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB (“NEUWERK”), created to protect the
    interests of retail holders of tier 1 bonds issued by Hamburg Commercial Bank AG (“HCOB” or the
    “Bank”). This group seeks to coordinate the potentially hundreds of retail bondholders involved and
    to make sure their rights are represented in the face of an effort by the Bank and its new owners to
    inflict losses exceeding 90% on their bonds in order to extract value for the Bank’s private equity
    owners Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., J. C. Flowers & Co., and GoldenTree Asset Management
    LP.
    In just the few days since, dozens of retail holders have reached out to our newly formed group.
    Close to forty holders have already signed up and a significant number of others are in the process of
    being on-boarded.
    Given the strong support this effort has received, and in line with our mission to collaborate with
    existing HCOB creditor groups, we are now coordinating efforts with the institutional bondholder
    group represented by Dr. Nadine Herrmann at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (“Quinn”)
    which holds more than 1 billion EUR of Hamburg Commercial Bank tier 1 bonds.
    Dr. Johannes Deiß at NEUWERK said: “The overwhelming response in just a few days’ time shows
    that many retail bondholders share our view that the move by HCOB to terminate its tier 1 bonds
    and impose huge artificial losses on its own creditors has done and could do even more substantial
    damage to a large number of retail bondholders. We look forward to working with the Quinn group
    and any other creditor groups to fight the Bank’s attempt to impose losses on our clients’ savings via
    improper and in our opinion illegal write-downs of their tier 1 bonds.”
    Dr. Nadine Herrmann at Quinn Emanuel said: “We look forward to working closely with the
    NEUWERK group as part of a joint effort to ensure that all HCOB creditors are treated fairly.
    Together we will fight to make sure the Bank lives up to its obligations to creditors both under the
    contractual terms of their bonds and under German law.”
17. REX 25 oktober 2019 22:33

    auteur info

    • REX

      Lid sinds: 02 sep 2009

      Laatste bezoek: 09 okt 2024

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 105

      Gegeven: 59

    •    Aantal posts: 904

    quote:

    shaai schreef op 25 oktober 2019 10:03:

    [...]
    
    Therefore, please inform us by e-mail by Monday, 21 October 2019, which holdings you hold today in nominal value for the following bonds:
    
    RESPARCS I-bond
    
    ISIN XS0159207850
    
    Kind regards
    
    Aljoscha Schmidberger
    Lawyer| Certified Attorney in banking and capital market law
    
    ----
    
    BRP Renaud und Partner mbB
    

    Thanks Shaai,
    zat er ook een emailadres van Schnidberger bij?
18. shaai 26 oktober 2019 12:06

    auteur info

    • shaai

      Lid sinds: 29 jul 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 459

      Gegeven: 1180

    •    Aantal posts: 4.565

    Ja, haar voornaam punt haar achternaam at brp
    En dan .de
19. shaai 4 november 2019 12:30

    auteur info

    • shaai

      Lid sinds: 29 jul 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 459

      Gegeven: 1180

    •    Aantal posts: 4.565

    Opeens veel meer, grotere, en hogere biedingen bij Resparcs etc.
    Zowel de
    XS0221141400
    als de
    DE0009842542
    hebben er meer, ook meer size
20. zeurpietje 4 november 2019 12:46

    auteur info

    • zeurpietje

      Lid sinds: 04 dec 2008

      Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 1057

      Gegeven: 756

    •    Aantal posts: 3.604

    quote:

    shaai schreef op 4 november 2019 12:30:

    Opeens veel meer, grotere, en hogere biedingen bij Resparcs etc.
    Zowel de
    XS0221141400
    als de
    DE0009842542
    hebben er meer, ook meer size
    

    nou, nou. shaai, omzet 10.000 in de DE0009842542 waardoor de koers 5% stijgt. als iemand 20.000 verkoopt is de 5% stijging al weer weg.
    een zwaluw maakt nog geen zomer. maar toch. bij dergelijke obligaties kan het ook heel snel gaan als er maar een sprankje van hoop is. er is helaas amper informatie te vinden over dit fonds.
21. shaai 4 november 2019 13:01

    auteur info

    • shaai

      Lid sinds: 29 jul 2005

      Laatste bezoek: 05 feb 2025

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 459

      Gegeven: 1180

    •    Aantal posts: 4.565

    quote:

    zeurpietje schreef op 4 november 2019 12:46:

    [...]nou, nou. shaai, omzet 10.000 in de DE0009842542 waardoor de koers 5% stijgt. als iemand 20.000 verkoopt is de 5% stijging al weer weg.
    een zwaluw maakt nog geen zomer. maar toch. bij dergelijke obligaties kan het ook heel snel gaan als er maar een sprankje van hoop is. er is helaas amper informatie te vinden over dit fonds.
    

    omzet niet, maar biedingen wel veel meer,
    lag meestal 1x 10.000 oid, nu 5.
    die 2x 10k zijn vast verschillende bieders, 'de' 80k is er weer, en nog van 40 en 48k.
    
    Maar OOK bij XS0221141400
    waar sinds april op 39 NIETS meer was gebeurd en volgens mij bijna al die tijd alleen 1 klein doorlopend bod lag van 15%.
    nu 4 biedingen erbij, allicht van slechts 2 aprtijen, maar ook hier 'de' (?) 80k en 100k.
    Lijkt mij geen toeval, maar ik zie geen nieuws