Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[cottonisking]

The main claim was Enasarco's direct contractual claim against the Swiss entity Lehman Brothers Finance SA (LBF) under a derivative agreement, while the Class 9A claim is a separate, related claim against the U.S. parent company, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI), based on a third-party guarantee of that same LBF obligation.
The Main Claim
Nature: This was a direct claim by Enasarco (initially its subsidiary ARIC) against LBF for approximately $61.5 million under a 1992 ISDA Master Agreement. The claim arose from the early termination of a put option following the Lehman collapse.
Jurisdiction: The underlying derivative agreement was subject to English law and had an exclusive English court choice of jurisdiction clause.
Status: This claim was largely resolved by the English High Court's ruling in May 2015, which validated Enasarco's calculation of the loss and found they were entitled to the payment plus interest from LBF.
The Class 9A Claim
Nature: This claim is a "Class 9A – Third Party Guarantee Derivative claim" in the U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy of LBHI. It is an assertion that LBHI, the parent company, had guaranteed LBF's obligations to Enasarco. This provides an alternative or additional source of recovery for Enasarco, separate from the primary claim against LBF itself.
Jurisdiction: The status and allowed amount of this claim are determined within the LBHI U.S. bankruptcy proceedings, though they are contingent on the outcome of a related, residual part of the litigation in Switzerland.
Difference from Main Claim: The key difference is the obligor (the entity responsible for payment).
The main claim was against LBF (the primary obligor).
The Class 9A claim is against LBHI (the guarantor of the LBF obligation).
This structure is common in complex bankruptcies: a creditor may have a primary claim against one entity and a separate claim based on a parent company's guarantee. The existence of a third-party guarantee often leads to separate classification of the claim in the guarantor's bankruptcy to ensure fair treatment among creditors, as a claim with an alternative source of recovery is considered different from a claim without one.
The current ongoing litigation in Switzerland relates to the final determination of this residual Class 9A claim's allowed amount in the U.S. bankruptcy.