Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[cottonisking]

Updated: I like this new BIG DADDY definition for NON-CDA CLAIMS:

"means claims filed on behalf of any affiliates of a JPMorgan Entity, or in which any
affiliates of a JPMorgan Entity has an interest, that are not Settled Matters, including without limitation claims filed by a JPMorgan Entity as agent, for a fund that it manages,and any other
claims that JPMorgan did not assert were covered by LBHI’s August and September 2008 guaranties and security agreements in favor of JPMCB’s subsidiaries and affiliates."

Note: JPMCB is the Transfer Agent for LEHLQ.

We would like to thank everyone who worked on this definition!


***

"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

***

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."




*** Old Post ***

The new BIG DADDY definition for NON-CDA CLAIMS:

*** LBHI AND JPMCB SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 2/1/2017 - Docket 54683 page 25 of 53 ***

BIG DADDY Non-CDA claims definition =

"“Unaffected Matters” means claims filed by or on behalf of any JPMorgan Entity
or any affiliates or funds of a JPMorgan Entity, or in which any JPMorgan Entity or any
affiliates or funds of a JPMorgan Entity has an interest, that are not Settled Matters,
including without limitation 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, claims held
from time to time by a JPMorgan Entity’s distressed claims trading desk, and any other
claims that JPMorgan did not assert were covered by LBHI’s August and September
2008 guaranties and security agreements in favor of JPMCB’s subsidiaries and affiliates.

For the avoidance of doubt, claims relating to the LBSF Action are not Unaffected
Matters. Lehman reserves all objections and defenses to the Unaffected Matters."


***
How much cash is left in the JPMCB general ledger account (LBHI's $6.9 Billion in pre-bankruptcy collateral) after the 2/1/2017 settlement agreement is approved and executed, for JPMCB's BIG DADDY NON-CDA CLAIMS resolution? ($6.9B - ($1.4B + $0.8B)) = $4.7B

*** Old Post ***

JPMCB had already filed LBHI's TRuPS Guarantee Claim(s) before the deadline:

*** LBHI AND JPMCB SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 2/1/2017 - Docket 54683 *** LOL

"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."

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

"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."

***


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUARANTEE AGREEMENT


This GUARANTEE AGREEMENT (the "Guarantee"), dated as of March 17, 2003, is executed and delivered by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Guarantor"), and JPMorgan Chase Bank, as trustee (the "Guarantee Trustee"), for the benefit of the Holders (as defined herein) from time to time of the Securities (as defined herein) of Lehman Brothers Holdings Capital Trust III, a Delaware statutory trust (the "Trust").
.
.
.
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

***

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

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