Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[cottonisking]

WMD is LBHI's Plan Administrator today:

WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP
500 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10110
___________
TELEPHONE [phone]
FACSIMILE [phone]
September 27, 2022
VIA ECF/EMAIL
The Honorable Shelley C. Chapman, U.S.B.J.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York
One Bowling Green
New York, New York 10004
Re: In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.,
Case No. 08-13555 (SCC)
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. 1st Advantage Mortgage. LLC, et al.,
Adv. Pro. No. 16-01019 (SCC)
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. Suburban Mortgage, Inc.,
Adv. Pro. No. 16-01295 (SCC)
Dear Judge Chapman:
We represent the Plan Administrator and write regarding Suburban Mortgage, Inc.’s
(“Suburban”) September 21, 2022 letter to the court enclosing the Objections of Suburban
Mortgage, Inc. to the Bankruptcy Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Determining
that Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Has Standing to Bring “Contractual Indemnification”
Complaint (the “Objection”).1 The Plan Administrator respectfully requests that the Court dismiss
the Objection because it is procedurally improper and responding to the 38-page Objection
(excluding exhibits) would be wasteful of the resources of both the Plan Administrator and the
Court.
Suburban has it backwards when it claims that the Court was obligated to make findings
of fact and conclusions of law in denying its motion to dismiss. In Carter v. HealthPort, the Second
Circuit addressed an appeal from a decision granting a motion to dismiss for lack of standing,
which was thus a final order subject to review by the district court. 822 F.3d 47, 57 (2d Cir. 2016)
(citing decisions granting summary judgment for defendant). Nothing in Rule 9033 obligates the
Court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in any particular order—rather, it specifies
the procedures for objecting “n a proceeding in which the bankruptcy court has issued proposed
1 Case No. 08-13555, Dkt. No. 61499; Adv. Pro. No. 16-01019, Dkt. No. 1725; Adv. Pro. No. 16-01295, Dkt. No. 82.
08-13555-scc Doc 61502 Filed 09/27/22 Entered 09/27/22 17:31:04 Main Document
Pg 1 of 2

TruPS case too, WMD:

WMD Law
FIRM OBTAINS FAVORABLE RULINGS FOR HOLDERS OF OVER $200 MILLION IN TRUPS DEBENTURES
April 11, 2022

The Firm recently obtained a favorable trial court ruling in New York State Court on behalf of its clients, holders of more than $200 million in Trust Preferred Securities (“TruPS”), against certain Defendants who allegedly facilitated and/or participated in wrongdoing that greatly diminished the value of Plaintiffs’ TruPS (the “April 2022 Decision”).

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that, in 2013-2014, certain individual defendants, and certain entities they dominate and control, sought to take advantage of the Tower Insurance Group’s financial distress by engaging in a series of transactions that triggered certain successor obligor provisions of the TruPS’ Indentures, without that successor entity assuming the TruPS’ obligations. Plaintiffs allege that the shareholders of the parent company of Tower Insurance Group were paid $143 million, ahead of the TruPS debenture holders, for worthless stock while the company was insolvent.

Previously, in June 2021, the Firm had obtained a significant victory in a related case when a California appellate court ruled that the California insolvency proceedings of the Tower Insurance Group’s operating insurance companies did not bar the bulk of Plaintiffs’ claims in New York. See In re CastlePoint Nat’l Ins. Co. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 668.

The April 2022 Decision provides full faith and credit to the California appellate court decision and squarely rejects Defendants’ position that the California appellate court decision actually carved back Plaintiffs’ claims in the New York litigation. The New York trial court determined that Plaintiffs could pursue the following claims against certain Defendants in the New York litigation:

? breach of contract for breach of successor liability provisions

? breach of contract for improper distributions and dividends

? tortious interference with contract

? fraud, and for aiding & abetting fraud

? derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, and for aiding & abetting breach of fiduciary duty

The New York Court also permitted Plaintiffs to pursue alter ego and common law successor liability theories of liability for each of the above-referenced claims to which they are applicable.

See Alesco Preferred Funding VIII, Ltd. v. ACP Re, Ltd., 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1262, 2022 NY Slip Op 50258(U), 2022 WL 1087515 (Sup Ct. N.Y. County Apr. 11, 2022) (Borrok, J.)

A copy of the Court’s decision is available here and the supplemental decision is available here.

TruPS - Decision and Order (04-11-22).pdf
TruPS - Amendment to Decision and Order dated 04-11-22 (04-14-22).pdf
WMD PRACTICE AREAS
Litigation & Dispute Resolution Group
Corporate
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Insolvency
CONTACT US
500 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10110
Telephone: [phone]
90 Washington Valley Road

Bedminster, NJ 07921

Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Legal Disclaimer and Attorney Advertising


Designed by Revolver New York