Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[cottonisking]

Top Judges call the CTs prospectuses' contracts a novel. So we wait another year on fourteen pages. Law is now 90 percent politics. We will get positive results when we appeal the next decision in the fourth quarter.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOSEPH WASKE,
Appellant,
v.
LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC.,
Appellee.
20-CV-5083 (RA)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER
RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
This appeal arises from a group of pro se litigants’ novel reading of a trust prospectus that they
maintain entitles them to recover from the dwindling pool of assets in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy
filed thirteen years ago. These individuals own shares of trusts that in turn own Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) subordinated debt. For nearly a decade, that subordinated debt has ranked
behind billions of dollars owed to creditors, but Appellant Joseph Waske and others argue their
interpretation of the trusts’ guarantees entitles them to leapfrog ahead of countless unpaid creditors. The
bankruptcy court (Chapman, J), explaining that the time for such arguments had “long since passed,”
denied all of Mr. Waske’s motions.1
Mr. Waske now appeals that decision, and also alleges that the
bankruptcy court violated his due process rights and was biased against him. For the reasons that follow,
the bankruptcy court’s decision is affirmed, and Mr. Waske’s appeal is denied.
BACKGROUND2
In the years preceding its bankruptcy, LBHI borrowed billions of dollars of subordinated debt,
some of which was purchased by trusts that issued securities based on that debt. The dispute here
1 The bankruptcy court also denied substantively similar requests by Mr. Rex Wu six months before
the events of this case. See Dkt. 5-2, A702–A736 (transcript of Wu hearing, denying similar motion).
2 The Court recites only the history of the Lehman bankruptcy that is relevant to the appeal.
USDC-SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED:

Time wasters...