Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[inesdefilia]

Joe Stocks Member Level Saturday, 01/30/16 10:48:41 AM
Re: camaro4me post# 64547
Post #
64556
of 68044 Go
Camaro, Item 95 is just a filing of the "letter" from Cotton. If his request was allowed it would show as an "Order". Cotton after being turned down should have filed a "motion". The court gave cotton a "bye" on the first letter by interpreting as a "motion". Highly unlikely the court would give him another pass for simply writing another letter. There is no Order filed for cotton approving his intervention. There was a response from JPM attorneys after the first letter showing up on the court docket telling Cotton that he misconstrued the claim and that he should seek counsel or speak to the trustee for the security.

Here the key point, and I read Cotton's second letter. Cotton did not provide any fact that would support the motion for intervention by rule of law showing that he is or should be a party to the action.


LETTER addressed to Judge Richard J. Sullivan from Rickey Gregory, dated 11/6/14 re: MOTION FOR INTERVENTION: UNDER RULE 24, UPON THE COURT'S PERMISSION. (sc)


92 Filed: 11/3/2014, Entered: 11/4/2014 OrderCourt Filing
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of a letter from Mr. Rickey Gregory, dated October 23, 2014, requesting that the Court "add" him as a party to this action. (Doc. No. 86.) The Court interprets this request as a motion for intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. However, Mr. Gregory has made no showing as to why he should be permitted to intervene under Rule 24, either as of right or upon the Court's permission, and the Court is not aware of any fact that would support the motion. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Mr. Gregory's request is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 11/3/2014) Copies Sent by Chambers. (mro)