Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[cottonisking]

Yes, but read and share the BS below:

***

Two $13 billion (10 billion pounds) claims were blocking the flow of money in Europe. The Settlement Agreement removed the block. The river of money will start flowing again in Europe.

***

"3.19 At a hearing on 20 January 2017 in the Central London County Court an order was made by District Judge Hart restoring the Company to the Register of Companies. The restoration was effective from 3 February 2017.

3.20 The reason it was sought to restore the Company to the Register of Companies was that it was the general partner of the Partnerships and it had become apparent that the Partnership might be entitled to assets which would need to be distributed to those who are ultimately entitled to them."

http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/9507I_1-2017-6-22.pdf

***

Apparent | Define Apparent at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/apparent - Cached
capable of being easily perceived or understood; plain or clear; obvious: The solution to the problem was apparent to all. 3. according to appearances, initial evidence, incomplete results, etc.; ostensible rather than actual: He was the apparent winner of the election.

***

Administrators
Hearing dates: 24 July 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this
Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
.
.
.
9. There is a complex web of substantial claims and cross-claims between the various
companies in the Lehman Group. As a result, several of the parties to the Proposed
Settlement have submitted numerous claims in the administrations of other parties,
each of which is typically valued in the tens or hundreds of millions of pounds. Of
particular significance for the purposes of Waterfall III (described below) are two £10
billion claims submitted by LBIE, one in each of LBL’s and LBHI2’s administrations,
in respect of those companies’ respective contingent liabilities to LBIE as
contributories under section 74 (“section 74”) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the 1986
Act”) which arose according to the decisions at first instance and of the Court of
Appeal in the Waterfall I litigation referred to below.

10. As of the date of the present applications:
i) The LBIE Administrators have paid dividends to LBIE’s ordinary unsecured
creditors, with proved claims of 100 pence in the pound (in aggregate) in
respect of such claims.
ii) The LBL Administrators have paid a dividend of 100 pence in the pound to
former employees of LBL with preferential unsecured claims (comprising
claims for unpaid wage and holiday pay) and a first interim dividend of 1.66
pence in the pound to ordinary unsecured creditors.
iii) The LBHI2 Administrators obtained permission on 15 June 2017 to make
interim distributions to unsecured creditors, subject to a requirement to give
four weeks’ notice to the LBIE Administrators before filing a notice of
intended distribution. However, the LBHI2 Administrators have not made any
distributions to creditors to date.
iv) The LBEL Administrators have paid dividends to LBEL’s ordinary unsecured
creditors totalling 100 pence in the pound. In addition, the LBEL
Administrators received permission of the Court on 24 July 2017 to appoint a
director of LBEL and authorise him and LBEL’s sole member, LBH, to
implement (after reserving for statutory interest and other matters) a capital
reduction and distribution to LBH.
v) The LBH Administrators have paid dividends to LBH’s unsecured, nonpreferential
(unsubordinated) creditors of 6.08 pence in the pound in respect of
such claims.
.
.
.
44. Finally, Mr Lewis identifies in his witness statement, the following advantages of the
Proposed Settlement for LBH and its creditors:

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HILDYARD
Approved Judgment
Lehman Brothers Waterfall III
i) LBL will withdraw and release the claims pursued against LBH in Waterfall
III, by which LBL seeks to pass on any liability for a contribution claim to
LBH or to rectify LBIE’s share register so as to substitute LBH as a member
of LBIE in its place.
ii) In addition to removing the threat of that liability, such release will remove the
need for LBH to reserve for that claim (and no other party has asserted any
claim of that sort), thereby removing the present block upon any distributions
being made by LBH to its creditors (which might otherwise remain for several
years to come while Waterfall III runs its course).
iii) The dismissal of Waterfall III will lead to substantial savings in legal costs and
expenses.
iv) LBHI2 will not be obliged to continue to reserve for a contingent contribution
liability as a member of LBIE, meaning that its administrators would be able
to pay dividends to its admitted unsecured creditors. LBH has a substantial
unsecured claim in LBHI2 which is to be admitted and form the basis of
distributions to LBH, together with statutory interest, as part of the Proposed
Settlement. There is also a possibility that LBH might in due course receive a
return from LBHI2 in respect of LBHI2’s subordinated debt liability to LBH
and any such return will be increased to the extent that LBHI2 makes
distributions to its unsecured creditors more quickly and thereby limits the
accrual of statutory interest in that estate.
v) It is anticipated that as a consequence of the Proposed Settlement, LBEL will
make a substantial distribution to LBH as its sole member.
vi) There will be an agreed resolution of intercompany positions as between LBH
and the other affiliate entities, which reduces the scope for further litigation
between those entities."

Thanks for the link NEWFLOW:

http://www.pwc.co.uk/business-recovery/administrations/assets/waterfall-iii-settlement-judgment.PDF