Replies to post #48982 on Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[VivaLasVegas]

Thank you once again Cotton. The Board was suddenly going to the Dogs today and it's just what the subtle bashing posters want to create, which is doubt.

There are no sure things in life, everyone knows that.

Goodluck to All and a laurel and hardy thank you to all the posters who provide such great due diligence. Pro and Con.

Cheers

[Joe Stocks]

Cotton, You posted;

Please read claim number 66462, page 10 of 109.
Quote:,hereby files pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3005(a) a proof of claim on behalf of each such creditor...JPMSI and the Affiliate of JPMSI, as applicable, is a codebtor with LBHI. The name of each such creditor is not currently known.

I think you should include the whole section to lend context to the excerpt above.


This was in response to securities law claims, or in other words, claims for damages that JPM may have suffered due to a security law breach whereas JPM was an underwriter. Exhibit C lists all securities that JPM was an underwriter along with others, and the CTs were among them. This was a blanket claim basically saying that if a securities law was broken, and a claim was made against JPM that they may come back and place a claim against LBHI for recovery. That is why it says; "The name of each such creditor is not currently known."

To date we have not see any motion or docket that indicates such a claim. For this to be "applicable" JPM must have made a securities law violation under the scope as an underwriter to the CTs and have been charged with such and claim made. That has not happened. So, this theory of JPM being a co-debtor has been misconstrued.