BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (Trustee) SUPPORTS LEHMAN!
On September 15, 2009, LBHI filed the instant LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion.2 Collectively, these Rule 60(b) Motions assert that certain Lehman representatives failed to disclose key components of the transaction to the Court and, even where information was disclosed, the Court and creditors were never informed of “critical changes” to the Sale that took
place both prior to the final Sale Hearing and after the Sale Hearing but prior to the closing on September 22, 2008. (LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at 1.)
As one of the few parties-in-interest with the ability to discover this critical information, LBHI has thus far estimated that Barclays received at least $8.2 billion in excess Lehman assets. (LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at ¶ 12.)
More troubling still is LBHI’s allegation that certain key employees responsible for negotiating a supposedly arms-length sale for the benefit of all the Debtors’ estates may have been complicit with Barclays in the misrepresentation of information regarding the Sale due to their competing allegiances and improper incentives as future Barclays employees. (See LBHI Rule 60(b) Motion at ¶ 14.)
3. On September 24, 2009, the Committee filed the Committee Unsealing Motion. LBHI and the SIPA Trustee filed statements joining the Committee Unsealing Motion [Docket Nos. 5270 and 5271]. In the Committee Unsealing Motion, the Committee argues that Barclays improperly designated as confidential and highly confidential much of the information provided pursuant to the LBHI 2004 Motion.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
4. Even after hundreds of pages of redactions, the skeletal Motions (and their gutted exhibits) suggest that misrepresentations were made to the Court concerning the assets to be 2 Concurrent with the filing of the LBHI Rule 60(b), the Committee filed the Committee Rule 60(b) Motion. The
SIPA Trustee filed a Joinder to LBHI’s Rule 60(b) Motion stating that it would also file a similar motion in the
SIPA proceedings [Docket No. 5173]. transferred to Barclays upon the consummation of the Sale.
Absent granting the relief requested in the Committee Unsealing Motion, the Trustee, like other parties-in-interest, will be left to wonder about such improper transfers of LBHI (and potentially LBCS) estate assets. Such obfuscation of the truth, as underscored by the Committee, serves no valid or justifiable purpose.
Accordingly, the Trustee joins in the arguments raised in the Committee’s Unsealing Motion to further expose the facts of the Sale to the “sunlight” of public examination.
5. The Trustee also agrees with the arguments set forth in the Rule 60(b) Motions, and files this Statement in support of the Rule 60(b) Motions. However, the Trustee respectfully
requests that any Order of the Court granting the Rule 60(b) Motions should leave intact the representations made in the Clarification Letter concerning the exclusion of LBCS from the
Asset Purchase Agreement.
The world is getting smaller and the truth is coming out!
Coach T
