Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[cottonisking]

Moreover, LBHI has informed the Court that it is not aware of any of its
subsidiaries having made any payments on account of LBHI’s equity or on account of LBHI’s
subordinated claims, nor is LBHI aware of any motivation for any of its subsidiaries to do so. (See
ECF No. 61063 ¶ 9.)

1) See case 20-cv-05083

ECAPs' IV & V Cash Payouts after SCOTUS' May 20, 2019 Ruling:


1) Class 10A Notes were issued by LBHI for the following securities,

Lehman Brothers UK Capital Funding IV LP
€200,000,000
Euro Fixed Rate Enhanced Capital Advantaged Preferred Securities
XS0282978666


Lehman Brothers UK Capital Funding V LP
US$500,000,000
Fixed Rate Enhanced Capital Advantaged Preferred Securities
XS0301813522


Quote:

2) Interim Payment: an initial interim payment will be paid for value on 28 October 2020 relating to the Liquidation Preference in respect of the Securities to beneficial holders of the Securities as of 21 October 2020. The value of the distribution for LP IV and LP V is set out in the table below. This distribution represents a significant proportion of the total funds likely to be available for distribution. The balance of funds will be distributed when outstanding cost issues and allocations have been determined.


Click on, or paste the following link into your web browser, to view the associated PDF document.
http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/5236C_1-2020-10-19.pdf


Quote:
4.16 The motion was heard on 13 March 2019 but the U.S. bankruptcy court took the matter
under advisement after that hearing. Following the hearing, the parties engaged in
negotiations with respect to the Swaps and the allowance of the claims. In accordance
with extensive legal advice concerning the Swaps and the motion, the Joint Liquidators
in due course agreed a full and final settlement of any claims relating to the Swaps with
LBHI, LBSF and the PLP and Sarah Megan Rayment and Mark James Shaw acting as
liquidators of the PLP (lithe PLP Liquidators"). In summary, the settlement has
resulted in:
4.16.1 the sum of $2,000,000 being paid by LBHI, on behalf of LBSF, to LP V;
___________________________



http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/6592N_1-2019-9-25.pdf

2)

Quote:
"
9
17. The Court also denies the request for injunctive relief requested by the Motion to
Compel with respect to distributions, if any, received by LBHI from its affiliates. First, the Court
has not been made aware of any claim held by the Wossileks against any of LBHI’s foreign or
domestic affiliates;7
according to the Motion to Compel, the Wossileks are preferred shareholders
of the Trusts. The Trusts hold Subordinated Debt Securities issued by LBHI only, not by any
affiliate of LBHI. The Wossileks’ purported investments in the Trusts have nothing to do with
LBHI’s affiliates. Moreover, LBHI has informed the Court that it is not aware of any of its
subsidiaries having made any payments on account of LBHI’s equity or on account of LBHI’s
subordinated claims, nor is LBHI aware of any motivation for any of its subsidiaries to do so. (See
ECF No. 61063 ¶ 9.) The Wossileks’ request for the Court to enjoin LBHI from receiving any
affiliate distributions is unsupported by any basis in fact or law. The Motion to Compel is denied
in its entirety, with prejudice.
18. The 19a Motion. By the 19a Motion, the Wossileks seek to join Rex Wu “as
Plaintiff under 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” because Mr. Wu and the Wossileks
“share common grievances and arguments and all parties are seeking relief from the court to
require LBHI to file the ‘Covenant Certificates’ . . . .” (19a Motion, 3-4.) The Wossileks submit
that joining Rex Wu as a plaintiff “will allow the court to complete relief” regarding the Motion
to Compel. (19a Motion, 2.)
19. This Court has denied the Motion to Compel; accordingly, the relief sought by the
19a Motion is now moot and is denied on that basis. Even assuming, arguendo, that the Motion
to Compel had not been denied, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy
Rules”) provide an independent basis for denial of the 19a Motion. Part VII of the Bankruptcy
7
This Court also has found, supra, that none of the Movants holds a direct claim against LBHI or has an
individual entitlement to an allowed claim against LBHI. See ¶ 9, supra.
08-13555-scc Doc 61352 Filed 11/18/21 Entered 11/18/21 15:36:27 Main Document
Pg 9 of 15