MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER
CONFIRMING THE TRUSTEE'S DETERMINATIONS DENYING TREATMENT OF
CERTAIN CLAIMS AS AGAINST LEHMAN BROTHERS INC.
AND EXPUNGING ANY CORRESPONDING OBJECTIONS
THE CLAIMS DETERMINATION PROCESS
8. Beginning in early 2009, the Trustee’s staff and professionals undertook the
examination of all timely filed Customer Claim Forms in the SIPA proceeding. In reaching
recommended determinations, the Trustee’s professionals consulted the Customer Claim Form
and attached documents, LBI’s books and records and sources of information, including account
analysis systems, and any additional documentation provided by the claimant. Further, the
Trustee’s professionals ran searches in LBI’s account systems based on a claimant’s name,
address, and social security number to identify any relationships the claimant may have had with
LBI. Requests for supplemental information were mailed to claimants where an initial review
showed that the claim could not be reconciled based on the Customer Claim Form and any
attached materials.
9. This process identified at least several hundred cases where the claimant did not
have a relationship with LBI, but may have had a relationship with another Lehman or non-
Lehman entity. The Trustee notified each affected claimant of this determination by a Letter of
Determination (“LOD”), which, in accordance with the Claims Procedures Order, set forth the
procedure for filing a written objection if the claimant disagreed with the Trustee’s determination
and wished to have a Court hearing on its objection.
10. Thirty-three claimants (representing forty-one claims) filed written objections to
the Trustee’s LODs, sometimes providing further materials or explanations in support of their
claims. The Trustee’s staff and professionals reviewed and analyzed any new information
submitted with a claimant’s objection, and contacted each of the objecting claimants. In some
instances, new information submitted with the claimant’s objection supported amending the
Trustee’s determination, and the claimants withdrew their objections. In other instances, review
of the objections confirmed the initial conclusion that the claim was not based upon an obligation
of LBI.
11. With respect to each of the six claims that remain in dispute, the related Customer
Claim Forms and written objections reveal on their face that the claim is not based on any
obligation of LBI or is not otherwise a valid customer claim protected under SIPA. Exhibit A
hereto displays in tabular form the defects directly evidenced by the materials filed by the
claimants themselves (which are admissions for present purposes).2 In addition, searches by the
2. Customer Claim Forms (submitted both through mail and electronically) and Objections of the Claimants are
attached hereto as Exhibits B through G. For the Court’s convenience, the exhibits were individually Bates
Stamped and numbered by the Trustee.
6
Trustee’s staff and professionals have confirmed that no other LBI relationships or obligations to
these claimants appear on the Debtor’s books and records.
Looks like out of the "Hundreds" of LBI Claims left to be reconciled, 41 Claims were objected to and only 6 are left!
JUST IN CASE YOU MISSED IT!
REMEMBER THIS IS ONLY THE BROKER/DEALER SIDE BEING LIQUIDATED, NOT LBHI. BUT THE MORE MONEY LEFT OVER...COMES TO LBHI.
