Continue: Stop Cotton! You should be quiet! Okay, public info! I am not a lawyer. I am a computer programmer (20 years plus) by trade. I started driving big trucks to get away from the computer. I came back to the computer for this Lehman bankruptcy. I have researched this case like reviewing computer code.
Can you see what is going on in this Lehman bankruptcy? I can...WLOLW
Clue: Bad lawyer code generated on September 18,19,20, of 2008.
c) What impact did the September 20, 2008 clarification letter have on Mr. Kelly's $2.25 billion estimated for Barclays contract cure cost?
"17. Second, this Court’s approval of the Sale Transaction was premised on
Barclays’ undertaking an obligation to pay certain contract “cure” amounts described as being in
the range of $1.5-$2.25 billion. The above-referenced financial statement listed the accrual for
such “cures” at $2.25 billion (see Exhibit A hereto), although for some reason (not yet clear to
the Debtor) a $1.5 billion figure was presented to the Court during the Sale Motion. (See 9/19/08
Hearing Tr. at 101:1-4; see also 9/17/09 Hearing Tr. at 23:5-24:8)"
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3596 05/18/2009 Application for FRBP 2004 Examination Motion of Debtor and Debtor in Possession for an Order, Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004, Authorizing Discovery from Barclays Capital, Inc. filed by Benjamin Rosenblum on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.. with hearing to be held on 6/3/2009 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 601 (JMP) Responses due by 5/29/2009, (Attachments: # (1) Exhibits A-G) (Rosenblum, Benjamin)
Case: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Related: none Documents
Main Document Exhibits A-G
***
2. Since the completion of this expedited negotiation and sale of one of the
largest investment banks in the world, the Debtor has become aware of apparent material
discrepancies relating to the liabilities Barclays was to assume and the benefits LBHI (or related
entities) was to receive under this and related transactions. As noted below, these apparent
discrepancies concern, inter alia, Barclays’ obligation to pay employee bonuses and certain
contract cure amounts (both of which materially impacted the value of the sale) as well as to
certain asset transfers related to repurchase transactions conducted during the week the Sale
Transaction was negotiated. In the aggregate, these apparent discrepancies may have resulted in
a windfall to Barclays at the expense of the estate, its creditors and other parties in interest, in an
amount that could reach into the billions of dollars. As a result, the Debtor now seeks discovery
from Barclays to enable the estate to properly review these issues and determine Debtor’s rights
and obligations (and to assess whether it may have claims) under these transactions.
.
.
.
17. Second, this Court’s approval of the Sale Transaction was premised on
Barclays’ undertaking an obligation to pay certain contract “cure” amounts described as being in
the range of $1.5-$2.25 billion. The above-referenced financial statement listed the accrual for
such “cures” at $2.25 billion (see Exhibit A hereto), although for some reason (not yet clear to
the Debtor) a $1.5 billion figure was presented to the Court during the Sale Motion. (See 9/19/08
Hearing Tr. at 101:1-4; see also 9/17/09 Hearing Tr. at 23:5-24:8) Either way, there appears to
be a large discrepancy between these stated amounts and the actual “cure” costs ultimately paid
by Barclays. Indeed, the closing date contract cure amounts publicly posted on September 19th
and October 1st were in the range of only $100-$200 million. And based on Debtor’s
preliminary analysis it appears that Barclays has paid slightly more than $200 million (as of
2/24/09) in contract cure costs. The requested discovery seeks information relating to this
apparent material discrepancy concerning the consideration Barclays was to have given in the
Sale Transaction.
.
.
.
29. Thus, over three months have passed since the Debtor first requested
information from Barclays about these matters and Barclays has produced nothing to date.
Accordingly, the Debtor files this motion as this is the most efficient means for moving this
discovery ahead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
