Both were prepackaged bk's. GM was given to govt, union and bondholders and CIT was given to bondholders. The crappy thing about CIT was immediately after exiting BK, they marked their assets up.
If LEH can show that they dont have enough money for the most senior claims, then they dont have to pay out the rest. I think the key would be to get info on the assets and make sure they have fairly valued them. If I remember correctly, Vakulas's report stated they were fairly valued, but i believe the number he was going off of was the $200+ billion.
The cynic in me says that LEH has devalued the assets to $60-70 billion and that the senior claims will end up with all equity in LAMCO which will inherit all assets. They will probably slowly mark assets back up until full value and we will end up holding the bag.

GM? CIT Group? I'm sure there are other examples where they eliminated the owners. Even Capital trusts weren't safe there, either. I can see a situation where they hand equity in the new company to the bond holders and leave everybody else out in the cold. I didn't think it would happen with GM and CIT either, which is why I held on till the end. Going to do the same with LEH and I sure hope the outcome will be different. Don't say it's not a possibility, though.

No problem. This list was from 2008. Does anybody have a list of subsidiaries that have since been sold? To NB and Barclays?

Lehman subsidiaries...
http://lehmanlotto.blogspot.com/2010/02/lehman-subsidiary-chart.html

Why is it that they can't get something as simple as the number of employees to match correctly?
Page 5 - Combined "Actual 12/31/10" is 252
Page 7 - Combined "Actual 12/31/10" is 384

When time to file objections, would it be more beneficial to file a joinder to an existing objection? Or to file a separate objection? Would it be more compelling for the judge to see a high number of objections or joinders?

Where can we find information on what is included in the "General Unsecured" class? My assumption was that these were below "Senior Unsecured" otherwise they would've been called "Senior Unsecured".

What about pointing out that according to the prospectus, we are subordinate to senior debt, which should put us in the General Unsecured class.

Good idea. If somebody does it, they should make sure and include a quote from Paulson. In one of the articles I read, he stated they came up with their version of the POR because the original one did not treat all creditors the same. That would be a great twist...