Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[cottonisking]

Chapter 22 is very interesting:

Notwithstanding the obvious facts that all the CTs holders retain the same Executory Securities Contracts' Rights, a good Settlement Agreement would not open a single floodgate [Example: Specific Performance has less Impact on creditors' cash distributions]:

https://millerlawpc.com/6-remedies-breach-of-contract/#Types_of_Remedies_for_Breach_of_Contract


Quote:
WEIL:\97346378\1\58399.0011
S.a.r.l. v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 445 B.R. 137 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).13 Allowing Waske to assert
a claim now will open the floodgates for the thousands of similarly-situated, individual holders of
Subordinated Guarantees to file motions to allow claims and motions for reconsideration of the
disallowance of their prior claims. A number of parties have recently filed pleadings seeking to
assert such relief, including Wu and Olivo. See Joinder of Rickey M. Gregory (ECF No. 59659);
Joinder of Dan Ianello (ECF No. 59735); Joinder of Julie Ianello (ECF No. 59736); Joinder of
Alex Olivo (ECF No. 59741); Joinder of Glen A. Blaze (ECF No. 59753); Joinder of Elizabeth
Harrison (ECF No. 59755).
21. Impact on creditors: Admission and allowance of new claims clearly would
dilute remaining recoveries for current creditors. As the Court stated at the June 19, 2019 hearing
in connection with Wu’s previous motion, “[t]his exercise has cost creditors money.” See June
19, 2019 Hr’g Tr. At 88:4-10; In re Waterman S.S. Corp., 59 B.R. 724, 728 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
1986) (“Creditors must be able to learn what they will receive under a Plan . . . [f]ailure to [identify
the creditor body] prejudices the entire community of interest . . .”). Here, the prejudice would be
extraordinary given (a) the potential magnitude of additional claims that could be asserted
(discussed above), and (b) LBHI has no liability for these claims, and even if it did, any liability
would be subordinated to all other creditors of LBHI (discussed below).
Waske’s Purported Claims Cannot Be Allowed
22. The Court has disallowed and expunged timely-filed claims similar to those
that Waske purports to hold on the basis that LBHI has no liability under the Subordinated

13 “Creditors act at their peril where they fail to adequately investigate and pursue their rights.” Id. Cf. In re Hooker
Invs., Inc., 937 F.2d 833, 840 (2d Cir. 1991) (stating a deadline for asserting claims is more than a “procedural
gauntlet” and functions as “an integral part of the reorganization process.”); In re Keene Corp., 188 B.R. 903, 907
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995) (same).
08-13555-scc Doc 60378 Filed 01/21/20 Entered 01/21/20 17:48:49 Main Document
Pg 8 of 11