Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[cottonisking]

$8.6B - $6.9B = $1.7B

Difference = $1.7B = reserved for CTs in Exhibit C? = securities transactions? = misconstrued? = District Judge Richard Sullivan will fix it for us CT holders! = Relax!

JPMCB corresponding guarantee claim # 66462 against LBHI list the CTs in Exhibit C under Security Law claims.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck said Lehman cannot claim money from JPMorgan for securities transactions governed by so- called safe harbor law, devised to protect banks dealing with weak companies. Lehman is entitled to pursue the remaining “complex and fact driven causes of action,” he said in a decision filed yesterday in Manhattan.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-19/jpmorgan-wins-narrowing-of-8-6-billion-lehman-lawsuit-1-.html

*****Docket 238****

Plaintiffs' Claims
The Complaint challenges, among other things, the propriety of JPMorgan's demand for
and extraction of a sweeping new set of guaranty and security agreements from LBHI
collateralizing virtually all exposures, as well as $8.6 billion of cash and cash equivalents
(comprised of $6.9 billion of cash, and $1.7 billion of money market funds). The vast majority
of these claims are factually intensive and present numerous material issues of genuinely
disputed fact for trial. See generally Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., 469 B.R. 415, 420 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012).
However, Plaintiffs intend to request summary judgment with respect to the limited
claims that are based on undisputed facts and that present pure legal issues. Specifically,
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that JPMorgan has no lien or other security interest with
respect to the $6.9 billion of LBHI funds that were deposited at JPMorgan in the week prior to
LBHI's bankruptcy. The essential facts are undisputed. LBHI delivered the $6.9 billion to
JPMorgan in stages from September 9 through September 12, in response to JPMorgan's
demands. Although the funds were initially deposited in a LBHI cash account designated as a
collateral account under the relevant security agreements, JPMorgan swept those funds to its own
general ledger account immediately upon receipt. The only explanation that JPMorgan has
provided for this unilateral action was to ensure that LBHI could not access those funds.