Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:23:04 PM
Cotton wrote;
This was in response to securities law claims, or in other words, claims for damages that JPM may have suffered due to a security law breach whereas JPM was an underwriter. Exhibit C lists all securities that JPM was an underwriter along with others, and the CTs were among them. This was a blanket claim basically saying that if a securities law was broken, and a claim was made against JPM that they may come back and place a claim against LBHI for recovery. That is why it says; "The name of each such creditor is not currently known."
To date we have not see any motion or docket that indicates such a claim. For this to be "applicable" JPM must have made a securities law violation under the scope as an underwriter to the CTs and have been charged with such and claim made. That has not happened. So, this theory of JPM being a co-debtor has been misconstrued. Just because cotton sees the word "co-debtor" in their claim against the Lehman estate does not mean they are a co-debtor.
North Bay Resources Reports Assays up to >25% Mg, 0.1% Ni, 0.1% Cu, 0.01% Co, 0.3 ppm Pt at Tulameen Platinum Project, British Columbia • NBRI • May 29, 2024 9:03 AM
One World Products, Inc. Issues Shareholder Update • OWPC • May 29, 2024 8:20 AM
Green Leaf Innovations, Inc. Engages Olayinka Oyebola & Co for Two-Year Audit • GRLF • May 28, 2024 8:30 AM
HealthLynked Introduces AI-Powered Chat Function to Enhance Healthcare Accessibility • HLYK • May 28, 2024 8:00 AM
Avant Technologies Engages Wired4Tech to Evaluate the Performance of Next Generation AI Server Technology • AVAI • May 23, 2024 8:00 AM
Branded Legacy, Inc. Unveils Collaboration with Celebrity Tattoo Artist Kat Tat for New Tattoo Aftercare Product • BLEG • May 22, 2024 8:30 AM