Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[cottonisking]

January 2020 CTs' new facts verification in progress! Pass 5 Status Code: P

Status Codes:

P = Pennies
D = Dollars
F = Fraud dollars+


" ver·i·fi·ca·tion
/?ver?f?'kaSH(?)n/

noun
the process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something."

***** It is time to let Judge Engelmayer answer all of our questions. I am only a peasant man child in the Lone Star State of Texas.

"In Re: Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.
New York Southern District Court
Judge: Paul A Engelmayer
Case #: 1:19-cv-06397
Nature of Suit 422 Bankruptcy - Appeal 28 USC 158
Cause 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BA
Case Filed: Jul 10, 2019
Case in other court: USBC-SDNY, 08-B-13555 (SCC)
Docket
Parties (4)
Debtor?

*****

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_A._Engelmayer

***** LBHI's Objection to Waske's motion

"08-13555-scc Doc 60378 Filed 01/21/20 Entered 01/21/20 17:48:49 Main Document


On July 2, 2019, Wu was denied permission by the Court to file a late claim based shares in the same capital truststhat Wu now seeks to have reclassified in the Wu Joinder. (See ECF No. 59801.) The Court’s order denying Wupermission to file a late was appealed by a third-party, Dan Ianello, which remains pending before the District Court. See Dan Ianello v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-06397 (PAE). To the extent that Wu seeksreconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling, it should be denied without a hearing. See In re AMR Corp., 2016 WL675543 *1 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“Motions for reconsideration and to amend or alter judgment serve a limitedfunction - to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. But a motion forreconsideration is neither an occasion for repeating old arguments previously rejected nor an opportunity for makingnew arguments that could have been previously advanced. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employedsparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.”).

2 Waske failed to disclose the date on which he acquired the other shares (if any) he is seeking a claim in respect of. Waske should disclose this information to the Court and parties in interest."



Note: Personally, I purchased many CT shares between August 28, 2018 [ a day after Docket 58763 was filed] and June 18, 2019 based on the 2005 Corporate Resolution, a day prior to the June 19, 2019 hearing. I will disclose the date that I acquired my shares to the court as well.

%%%Pass 5 recent update%%%

***** Excerpt from our June 19, 2019 hearing (docket 59859)***


"This is not like the situation in the pleading
15 from which Mr. Wu, you copied your objection. In this case
16 in fact, the indenture trustee for these securities filed a
17 proof of claim. The beneficial interests and the individual
18 holders of the securities were represented by $1 billion in
19 allowed claims against the estate. So, that's one reason
20 why Mr. Wu, you cannot prevail.
21 Secondly, as has been made clear, you acquired
22 these positions after the bar date, so that places you in a
23 whole separate category.
24Under the test for filing a new proof of claim,
25 I've heard nothing today that would provide a basis for me
to give you leave to file a new claim. There are no new
2 facts. The simple statement that there would not be
3 prejudice has been undermined by, among other things, the
4 many joinders that have been filed to your motion indicating
5 that there are folks out there who should -- the relief
6 requested -- I grant -- your request would be granted by the
7 Court would start filing claims and the notional amount of
8 these securities is very large."

*****

New Facts! New Facts! New Facts! Facts that the Debtors avoided!

" a·void
/?'void/

verb
keep away from or stop oneself from doing (something).
"avoid excessive exposure to the sun"
synonyms: keep away from, stay away from, steer clear of, circumvent, give a wide berth to, give something a miss, keep at arm's length, fight shy of, refrain from, abstain from, desist from, forbear from, eschew"


Our case is not totally about filing late claims. Our case is mainly
about the two guarantees below gives a non-subordinated guarantee:

a) LBHI's 2005 written consent

b) LBHI’s August and September 2008 guaranties and security agreements
in favor of JPMCB’s subsidiaries and affiliates


Excerpt from the CTs' June 19, 2019 hearing with Judge Chapman (docket 59859):


"THE COURT: So, what you're referring to is the
22 law that's clear and that I set forth in the recent SRM
23 decision, which I wouldn't charge Mr. Gregory or Mr. Wu with
24 being aware of. But the law is that when there is a general
25 guarantee, as opposed to a specific guarantee, and corporate

resolution is a general guarantee, it's necessary to show
2 that one acted in reliance -- with knowledge of and in
3 reliance on the general guarantee. So, by definition,
4 that's not the case here."



*****

1) The 2005 LBHI Board of Directors' corporate resolution is a general
guarantee as discussed above. A CTs' holder has to show knowledge of
or reliance on this general guarantee before purchasing their CTs as
seen in the June 19, 2019 hearing transcript.

2) However LBHI’s August and September 2008 guaranties and security
agreements is a specific guarantee. Which means that a holder was not
required to show knowledge of or reliance on this specific guarantee
before purchasing their CTs. This specific guarantee was not addressed
at the June 19, 2019 hearing. See the specifics of this guarantee
below:

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

"“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."



*****

"Mr. Gregory also referred to, I believe, a 2005
6 written consent by the Board of Directors of LBHI that have
7 been referred to from time to time as the corporate
8 resolution. We've discussed that in numerous pleadings,
9 Your Honor, and I believe Your Honor referred to it in her
10 recent decision with SRM.
11 That guarantee has been argued that it guaranteed
12 the obligations, certain obligations, from PLC. Mr.
13 Gregory, and perhaps Mr. Wu, are trying to now say somehow
14 that this written consent gives a non-subordinated guarantee
15 because HI allegedly guaranteed PLC, which guaranteed
16 something else."

The CTs' subordinated guarantee "parity clause" can generate lovely court orders(3) that may lead to "Legal Tender" and always "In God We Trust:"

I.
ORDERED that LBHI's Capital Trust Preferred Securities are parity with
LBIE's 5% redeemable Class A preference shares per LBHI's relevant
prospectuses.

II.
ORDERED that LBHI's Capital Trust Preferred Securities are parity with
LBHI's Capital Trust Preferred Securities held by JPMCB or JPMCB's
affiliates per LBHI's relevant prospectuses and with or without a
securities holder's, prior to purchase, knowledge of and reliance on
LBHI’s August and September 2008 guaranties and security agreements in
favor of JPMCB’s subsidiaries and affiliates.

III.
ORDERED that LBHI's Capital Trust Preferred Securities are parity with the ECAPS' Preferred Securities per LBHI's relevant prospectuses and with a securities holder's, prior to purchase, knowledge of and reliance on the general guarantee.

**** From SRM case - docket 59739

"1. Applicable Law
A guarantee is a contractual promise by one party, the guarantor, to fulfill the debts or
obligations of another party, the primary obligor, in the event of a default by such primary
obligor. See Lakhaney v. Anzelone, 788 F. Supp. 160, 163 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); 38 AM. JUR. 2D
Guaranty § 1 (2019). Under New York law, guarantees are governed by contract law and, like
any other contract, a guarantee can only be made by mutual assent of the parties. See Cavendish
Traders, Ltd. v. Nice Skate Shoes, Ltd., 117 F. Supp. 2d 394, 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Davis
Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Richards, 115 U.S. 524, 525 (1885).
“Guaranties are distinguished in the law as being either general or special.” Evansville
Nat. Bank v. Kaufmann, 93 N.Y. 273, 276 (1883). A “special” or “specific” guarantee identifies
the benefiting creditor or underlying agreement being guaranteed, whereas a “general” guarantee
is addressed to persons generally and may be enforced by anyone to whom it is presented. See
id.; 38 AM. JUR. 2D Guaranty § 14. To enforce a general guarantee, a creditor must demonstrate
that it had definite knowledge of the existence of the guarantee and that it acted in reliance on it
when entering into the transaction with the primary obligor. See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v.
Schuhmacher, 660 F. Supp. 6, 8 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) (“It is, of course, elementary that a creditor’sright to enforce a contract of guaranty must be based upon knowledge of the existence of the
guaranty and that the credit must be extended in reliance thereof.”) (citation omitted); 38 AM.
JUR. 2D Guaranty § 14."