Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[cottonisking]

JPMCB IS A TRANSFER AGENT FOR LBHI'S TRUPS LEHLQ:

"New Non-CDA claims definition = "claims filed by or on behalf of a JPMorgan Entity as agent, for a customer or for a fund that it manages, claims
relating to Canary Wharf and claims held from time to time by a JPMorgan entity’s
distressed claims trading desk, and any other filed claims that JPMorgan did not
assert were covered by LBHI’s August and September 2008 guaranties and security agreements."

I SEE A LEHLQ CLAIM BASED ON AGENT ABOVE:

JPMCB: claim filed by a JPMorgan Entity as agent, for a fund that it manages
COMMENT: "JPMorgan did not assert were covered by LBHI’s August and September 2008 guaranties and security agreements."


***

"JPMorgan Chase Bank

Transfer Agent
ADR Department
1 Chase Manhattan Plaza
New York, NY 10005



No business description available.
Associated Companies/Securities All OTCQX Sponsored Companies
Name City Country Symbol Tier
ASML Holding N.V. Veldhoven Netherlands ASML
ASML Holding N.V. Veldhoven Netherlands ASMLF Pink Current
Danone Paris France GPDNF OTCQX International Premier
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. Capital Trust IV New York United States LEHLQ Grey Market
Lupatech S.A. Sao Paulo Brazil LUPTQ Grey Market
.
.
.
"

http://www.otcmarkets.com/research/service-provider/JPMorgan-Chase-Bank?id=2288

*** Old Posts***

I see these string of characters and words as the "New Non-CDA Claims" definition in the 2/1/2017 Settlement Agreement, via rules of deduction, from dockets 51904 (1/25/2016 SA) and 54683 (2/1/2017 SA):

New Non-CDA claims = "claims filed by or on behalf of a JPMorgan Entity as agent, for a customer or for a fund that it manages, claims
relating to Canary Wharf and claims held from time to time by a JPMorgan entity’s
distressed claims trading desk, and any other filed claims that JPMorgan did not
assert were covered by LBHI’s August and September 2008 guaranties and security agreements."

The following words are no longer in the definition of New Non-CDA Claims: "as trustee, in any other representative capacity," WHY? WE WILL FIND OUT REAL SOON!

The new definition provides more details about specific claims.

"“Excluded Actions” means the LBSF Action, SOLVED
the Tassimo Action, SOLVED
the Other Objections SOLVED
and the Non-CDA Claims. ??? " - Unaffected Matters. Unaffected by the Settlement are remaining claims not the subject of the objections enumerated above"



$$$$$$$$$$$$$

&&&& LBHI AND JPMCB SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 1/25/2016 - DOCKET 51904 &&&&

$$$ ONLY NON-CDA CLAIMS ARE NOT SOLVED BELOW AS OF 2/1/2017 IN DOCKET 54683 $$$

"“Excluded Actions” means the LBSF Action, the Tassimo Action, the Other
Objections and the Non-CDA Claims."


$$$ DEFINES TWO DEFINITIONS FOR Non-CDA Claims $$$

"14 “Non-CDA Claims” refers to claims filed by JPMorgan for a customer, as agent, as trustee, in any
other representative capacity, or otherwise in respect of which JPMorgan did not assert in the relevant proofs of
claim that such claims were secured by the collateral posted by LBHI pursuant to the parent level guaranties at issue
in the Avoidance Action."


"“Non-CDA Claims” means any claims filed by JPMorgan for a customer, as
agent, as trustee, in any other representative capacity, or otherwise in respect of which
JPMorgan did not assert in the relevant proofs of claim that such claims were secured by
the collateral posted by LBHI pursuant to its August and September 2008 Guaranties and
Security Agreements in favor of JPMorgan."


$$$$$$$$$$$$

*** Old Post ***

Final Draft of recent history - It looks like LBHI and JPMCB are working on our issue "Non-CDA Claims (LBHI TRuPS 2008 Guarantee) in bankruptcy court in tune with Judge Sullivan and Judge Chapman:


"U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11-cv-06760-RJS

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Assigned to: Judge Richard J. Sullivan
Date Filed: 09/27/2011
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 423 Bankruptcy Withdrawal
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Case in other court: USBC-SDNY, 08-B-13555 (JMP)
Cause: 28:157 Motion to Withdraw Reference


02/04/2016 115
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of two letters from non-party Ricky M. Gregory-dated January 27, 2016 and January 29, 2016, and received in chambers on February 1, 2016 and February 2, 2016, respectively-setting forth his views regarding the proposed settlement in this matter. (Doc. Nos. 113, 114.) Since the settlement agreement is currently being reviewed by the Bankruptcy Court (Doc. No. 111), the Court will take no action on these submissions at this time. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Sullivan on 2/4/2016) (mro) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
.
.
.
05/18/2016 117 STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties and/or their respective counsel(s) that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice against the defendant(s) All Parties pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Document filed by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc..(Rossman, Andrew) (Entered: 05/18/2016)"

***

Excerpt from letter sent to Judge Shelley C. Chapman on January 29, 2016:

"3) A party objects to the existing "Non-CDA Claims" definition and collect a collateral payment from JPMorgan based on a new bankruptcy approved definition."

!!! From 2/1/2017 LBHI AND JPMCB SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. I SEE A NEW DEFINITION IN THE WORKS BELOW FOR NON-CDA CLAIMS !!!

"- Unaffected Matters. Unaffected by the Settlement are remaining claims not the
subject of the objections enumerated above, including claims filed by or on behalf of
a JPMorgan Entity as agent, for a customer or for a fund that it manages, claims
relating to Canary Wharf and claims held from time to time by a JPMorgan entity’s
distressed claims trading desk, and any other filed claims that JPMorgan did not
assert were covered by LBHI’s August and September 2008 guaranties and security
agreements."






&&&& LBHI AND JPMCB SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 1/25/2016 - DOCKET 51904 &&&&

$$$ ONLY NON-CDA CLAIMS ARE NOT SOLVED BELOW AS OF 2/1/2017 IN DOCKET 54683 $$$

"“Excluded Actions” means the LBSF Action, the Tassimo Action, the Other
Objections and the Non-CDA Claims."


$$$ DEFINES TWO DEFINITIONS FOR Non-CDA Claims $$$

"14 “Non-CDA Claims” refers to claims filed by JPMorgan for a customer, as agent, as trustee, in any
other representative capacity, or otherwise in respect of which JPMorgan did not assert in the relevant proofs of
claim that such claims were secured by the collateral posted by LBHI pursuant to the parent level guaranties at issue
in the Avoidance Action."


"“Non-CDA Claims” means any claims filed by JPMorgan for a customer, as
agent, as trustee, in any other representative capacity, or otherwise in respect of which
JPMorgan did not assert in the relevant proofs of claim that such claims were secured by
the collateral posted by LBHI pursuant to its August and September 2008 Guaranties and
Security Agreements in favor of JPMorgan."






&&&& LBHI AND JPMCB SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 2/1/2017 -DOCKET 54683 &&&&


"I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. The Settlement finally resolves the last of LBHI’s disputes with JPMorgan, its
largest secured creditor, and enables creditor distributions of nearly $800 million, on the
following terms:

- Cash Payment. JPMCB will pay to LBHI for the benefit of LBHI and its subsidiaries
cash totaling $797.5 million (the “Settlement Payment”).

- Tassimo Action. LBHI will withdraw with prejudice its Objection to Proofs of Claim
No. 66462 Against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and No. 4939 Against Lehman
Brothers Inc. of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Regarding Triparty Repo-Related
Losses (the “Tassimo Action”) [ECF No. 19604], objecting to portions of Claim No.
66462 (by JPMCB against LBHI) (the “Deficiency Claim”) relating to the purported
deficiency remaining after JPMCB’s application of proceeds from the disposition of
securities held by JPMorgan as collateral against intraday credit extended in
connection with JPMorgan’s role as triparty repo custodian for Lehman Brothers Inc.
(“LBI”).

- Securities Lending Objection. LBHI will withdraw with prejudice its Objection to
Portions of Proofs of Claim No. 66462 Against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and
No. 4939 Against Lehman Brothers Inc. of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Regarding
Securities Lending (the “Securities Lending Objection”) [ECF No. 47719],
concerning JPMCB’s claims relating to its disposition of collateral held pursuant to
certain LBI securities lending transactions for which JPMCB served as custodian.

- 492nd Omnibus Objection. LBHI will withdraw with prejudice its 492nd Omnibus
Objection to Miscellaneous Claims by Various Subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase &
Co. Against Various Debtors (Insufficient Documentation Claims (the “492nd
Omnibus Objection”) [ECF No. 47715], objecting to portions of Claims Nos. 66474
(by JPMML against LBHI), 66452 (by JPMSI against LBHI) 66455 (by JPMCB
against LBSF), 66462 (by JPMCB against LBHI), 66465 (by JPMCB against LBDP),
66466 (by JPMCB against LCPI), 66468 (by JPMCB against LBOD), 66469 (by
JPMCB against LBFP), and 66473 (by JPMCB against LBCS), concerningmiscellaneous claims for which LBHI has alleged JPMorgan has failed to supply
sufficient documentation.

- LBSF Action. LBSF will dismiss JPMCB and JPMSL with prejudice from the
adversary proceeding commenced by LBSF against various parties in the Bankruptcy
Court on September 14, 2010 [Case No. 10-03547 at ECF No. 1] (the “LBSF
Action”), to which JPMCB and JPMSL were added as parties in the second amended
complaint on July 23, 2012 [Case No. 10-03547 at ECF No. 303-1].7

- Claims Allowance and CDA. JPMorgan’s Claim No. 66462 against LBHI will be
reduced, allowed in an amount consistent with the Settlement Payment and the
settlement of the LBSF Action, and the 492nd Omnibus Objection, as set forth in an
instruction letter (the “Instruction Letter”) to be submitted to the claims agent retained
in the Chapter 11 Cases: Epiq Systems Inc. (the “Claims Agent”), and deemed fully
satisfied because it had been previously fully satisfied pursuant to the Collateral
Disposition Agreement dated March 16, 2010 [ECF No. 7619] (as amended and
supplemented from time to time, the “CDA”). Claim Nos. 66474, 66452, 66455,
66465, 66466, 66468, 66469, and 66473 will be assigned to certain of the Lehman
Parties on a final basis and reconciled in amounts not to exceed $200 million, as set
forth in the Instruction Letter. All true-up and other remaining obligations of the
parties under the CDA will be terminated and discharged.

- Unaffected Matters. Unaffected by the Settlement are remaining claims not the
subject of the objections enumerated above, including claims filed by or on behalf of
a JPMorgan Entity as agent, for a customer or for a fund that it manages, claims
relating to Canary Wharf and claims held from time to time by a JPMorgan entity’s
distressed claims trading desk, and any other filed claims that JPMorgan did not
assert were covered by LBHI’s August and September 2008 guaranties and security
agreements."

************

LBHI & JPMCB; January 25, 2016; Settlement Agreement (Bankruptcy docket 51904 and case 11-cv-6760)
From: rickeygregory47 <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]
To: andrewrossman <[e-mail]>; PVizcarrondo <[e-mail]>; jpizzurro <[e-mail]>
Cc: scc.chambers <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Jan 29, 2016 10:36 am
Subject: LBHI & JPMCB; January 25, 2016; Settlement Agreement (Bankruptcy docket 51904 and case 11-cv-6760)
Date: January 29, 2016
To: Andrew J. Rossman , [e-mail],
Paul Vizcarrondo, [e-mail],
Joseph D. Pizzurro, [e-mail]
From: Rickey M. Gregory, [e-mail]
CC: Shelley C. Chapman, [e-mail]
Dear Andrew J. Rossman,
I am a LBHI Capital Trust holder (TRUPS) and Preferred Stock holder in the Lehman bankruptcy. As a creditor and equity holder, we need the January 25, 2016 settlement agreement (docket 51904) approved in bankruptcy court. However, I strongly feel that a trustee is an affiliate to a LBHI Capital Trust holder. Which makes them eligible to receive a payment from JPMorgan and LBHI based on the JPMorgan August and September 2008 Security Agreement. For the sake of Judicial Efficiency, it would be nice to have the Bankruptcy Court issue a report and recommendation to the District Court, Judge Sullivan, on this topic. I have a motion for intervention, under rule 24 (docket 95) in case 11-cv-6760. If my request makes sense to the group, perhaps, your group can meet and work on my request. This question is bound to come up again in future Lehman Plan Administrator objections and counterparty responses based on the existing definition for Non-CDA Claims:
"08-13555-jmp Doc 23499 Filed 12/16/11 Entered 12/16/11 15:37:42 Main Document
1. The JPM Funds and the Objectors have a dispute about the meaning of the
term "affiliate" in the September Agreements. Under the applicable Claims Hearing
Procedures, the Objectors have challenged the "legal sufficiency" of the Claims based on
the Objectors’ proffered definition of the term.2 In this regard, the Objectors
acknowledge that contract terms are to be given their "plain and ordinary" meanings.
(Objection, p. 21.)"
The Debtors and JPMorgan want to treat the LBHI CT (TRUPS) holders as a customer relative to their trustee in the LBHI bankruptcy. Fully aware that a customer has not been able to collect as a secured creditor under the JPMorgan August and September 2008 security agreements:
"Lehman and its creditors argued that the 2008 agreement — which it said was "forced" upon it — allowed JPMorgan to apply the $8.6 billion in collateral to its affiliates, subsidiaries and successors, but that customers do not qualify as any of those.
"
http://www.law360.com/articles/305329/jpmorgan-to-return-700m-to-lehman-in-settlement
The LBHI CT holders are an affiliate to their trustee.
""Non-CDA Claims" means any claims filed by JPMorgan for a customer, as
agent, as trustee, in any other representative capacity, or otherwise in respect of which
JPMorgan did not assert in the relevant proofs of claim that such claims were secured by
the collateral posted by LBHI pursuant to its August and September 2008 Guaranties and
Security Agreements in favor of JPMorgan."
These are our options:
1) After the LBHI/JPMorgan settlement agreement (docket 51904)is approved in bankruptcy court, Judge Sullivan rule in our favor for Barclays failure to assume the LBHI CTs (TRUPS) when Barclays purchased LBI.
2) JPMorgan assert a guarantee claim for the LBHI CT holders in bankruptcy court under their existing definition (Non-CDA Claims). The LBHI Plan Administrator will object and win based on its history. The settlement agreement states that the Plan Administrator can object to excluded actions:
""Excluded Actions" means the LBSF Action, the Tassimo Action, the Other Objections and the Non-CDA Claims."
3) A party objects to the existing "Non-CDA Claims" definition and collect a collateral payment from JPMorgan based on a new bankruptcy approved definition.
I strongly feel that the LBHI Lehman Brothers Capital Trust Preferred Securities (TRUPS) holders are an affiliate to JPMorgan more than a customer to JPMorgan:
affiliate
Definitions (2)
1.Commerce: Two parties are affiliates if either party has the power to control the other, or a third party controls or has the power to control the both. Affiliation also exists in (1) in interlocking directorates or ownership
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/affiliate.html
The LBHI TRUPS Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) is a subsidiary to LBHI via LBHI's ownership of the LBHI TRUPS common shares. JPMorgan and LBHI are co-debtors in the Lehman bankruptcy. JPMorgan, LBHI's TRUPS Guarantee Trustee, is an affiliate to the TRUPS holders via control.
Our LBHI CTs Guarantee Trustee controls our interest and our claims and our money. JPMorgan can ignore asserting successor rights or assumption clauses in our underwriters guarantee (Barclays purchase of LBI). JPMorgan can assert or not assert claims in court for the LBHI TRUPS holders.
A customer can just walk away from JPMorgan most of the time.
An affiliate has to always engage in a transaction (sell securities) before walking away from JPMorgan.
LBHI CT holders are JPMorgan's affiliate. JPMorgan does not control its customers.
New definition:
"Non-CDA Claims" means any claims filed by JPMorgan for an affiliate, as
agent, as trustee, in any other representative capacity, or otherwise in respect of which
JPMorgan did not assert in the relevant proofs of claim that such claims were secured by
the collateral posted by LBHI pursuant to its August and September 2008 Guaranties and
Security Agreements in favor of JPMorgan.
or
"Non-CDA CT Claims" means any claims filed by JPMorgan for an affiliate, as trustee.
Current definition:
"Non-CDA Claims" means any claims filed by JPMorgan for a customer, as
agent, as trustee, in any other representative capacity, or otherwise in respect of which
JPMorgan did not assert in the relevant proofs of claim that such claims were secured by
the collateral posted by LBHI pursuant to its August and September 2008 Guaranties and
Security Agreements in favor of JPMorgan.
cus•tom•er/'k?st?m?r/
noun
a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or business.
a person or thing of a specified kind that one has to deal with.
I did not pay for any services from JPMorgan! LBHI is paying JPMorgan to be our Guarantee Trustee. No rules of construction are needed to understand this definition.
A JPMorgan affiliate or subsidiary has to deal with JPMorgan the same as a customer. A JPMorgan subsidiary or affiliate is a JPMorgan customer as well.
"Lehman and its creditors argued that the 2008 agreement — which it said was "forced" upon it — allowed JPMorgan to apply the $8.6 billion in collateral to its affiliates, subsidiaries and successors, but that customers do not qualify as any of those.
"
http://www.law360.com/articles/305329/jpmorgan-to-return-700m-to-lehman-in-settlement
"a) recover judgment, in its own name and as trustee of an express trust, against the Guarantor for the whole amount of any Guarantee Payments remaining unpaid "
_________
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.10. Guarantee Trustee May File Proofs of Claim. Upon the occurrence of a Guarantee Event of Default, the Guarantee Trustee is hereby authorized to (a) recover judgment, in its own name and as trustee of an express trust, against the Guarantor for the whole amount of any Guarantee Payments remaining unpaid and (b) file such proofs of claim and other papers or documents as may be necessary or advisable in order to have its claims and those of the Holders of the Securities allowed in any judicial proceedings relative to the Guarantor, its creditors or its property.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806085/000104746903008869/a2105775zex-4_05.htm
See LBHI TRuPS/subordinate notes Bank of New York Mellon claim numbers below:
Ticker
Claim Number
Cusip Number
Issuer/Trust
LEHKQ
21805
52519Y209
Lehman Brothers Holdings Capital Trust III
LEHLQ
22122
52520B206
Lehman Brothers Holdings Capital Trust IV
LHHMQ
22123
52520E200
Lehman Brothers Holdings Capital Trust V
LEHNQ
67753
52520X208
Lehman Brothers Holdings Capital Trust VI
Regards,
By /s/ Rickey M. Gregory
_____________________
Rickey M. Gregory