Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[toogoodfella]

paid in full vs. satisfied in full."
+++++++++++++++
The argument is only on the definition of "satisfied in full" because "Paid in full " is self explanatory.

Hestheman started it by referencing the section in the POR that tells to distribute additional asset (If there is any) prorated to the creditors as if they are not satisfied in full.

"Logically" he said , the creditors are satisfied in full at 65B because of the additional distribution of the cash flow adjusted to 80B. From his own logic he made the statement that the Cts will get their money because the allocation to the higher class will stop .

Cts did not receive anything but he maintained his belief that the creditors are satisfied in full.

Many are in fact still expecting money from the coming sixth distribution because of this belief that creditors are satisfied in full.

His logic sounds reasonable indeed "but it does not mean correct".

The POR is in fact saying directly that the the "Creditors must receive its "Pro-Rata share of available cash"

This line itself is self explanatory because of the written definition of "Available cash" which means all asset" according to the POR.

Or all cash from all sales of asset .

In this argument, I am saying that the creditors will receive all asset prorated to the last penny.

Must be "satisfied in full" at this point because nothing is left .

Hard to accept for those expecting some cash .