Replies to post #64219 on Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[stocksnoway]

It is easy to understand why you think that this Lehman bankruptcy reads like a tall tale, however, this is the real deal. Wakeup out of your dream and keep on reading.


Your tenacity for Lehman is applaudable however you have reached a point that I can no longer believe your tall tails!

You can read all you want into these BK's but it comes to a point that yelling WOLF so many times (when wolf ain't around) you stand back and go REALLY?

You should hire legal council.. Say put your money where your mouth is?

I know you won't and no one else will either I am sure based on the facts that would be throwing money out the window.

Continue your wolf crying it has and will continue to be very entertaining!
Maybe when this is over you could write some children stories and do some good with your crying wolf stories?

[JERSEYHAWG]

good reply cotton. I saw "to whom"

now I got what your talking about. ty

fingers crossed X

[cottonisking]

Read it again Cotton! Something to think about this week!

Fact pattern:

1) LBI subordinate notes (claim 5615) indenture created prior to September 2008: Indenture is active.

2) Barclays will not buy LBI (USA/Canada) until LBI file Chapter 7 on September 19, 2008.

3)Barclays and LBHI added line item 6 in the September 20, 2008 clarification letter to get around or break the terms of the LBI subordinate notes indenture (article ten). LBI subnote indenture is not enforced for "assumption" by SIPA Trustee and/or Judge Peck????

4) LBI order 7849 demote claim 5615 on December 13, 2013 (no objections ???). LBI subnote indenture is enforced for "subordination" by SIPA Trustee and/or Judge Peck.

7489 10/23/2013 Motion for Objection to Claim(s)
Number: 5615.

Docket 7489 filed on 10/23/13
Docket 7489 response date 12/9/13 - no objections???
"Order signed on 12/13/13"
Docket 7489 hearing date 1/16/14

5)Judge Peck retires on 1/31/14


a)Can a bankruptcy Judge cherry pick when to enforce and not enforce a subnote indenture?

b)What bearing did the September 20, 2008 clarification letter have on the LBI subnote indenture?

c) What impact did the September 20, 2008 clarification letter have on Mr. Kelly's $2.25 billion estimated for Barclays contract cure cost?

d) Who wrote the clarification letter on the Lehman side of the deal/contract? Why did they give in to Barclays demands on contract cure cost?

*** Read this old post again Cotton ***

Another tale or fact:

"The talk of unbelievable tales just keep rolling along."


1) LBI has a $201 million subordinate note that was not assumed by Barclays (claim # 5615) in September 2008.

Why? Barclays added line item 6 in the September 20, 2008 clarification letter to get around or break the terms of the LBI subordinate notes indenture (article ten). Can a contract be written to break a subnote indenture? tale or fact

2) Despite the fact that the SIPA Trustee demoted the LBI subordinate notes, a motion is still open on the LBI subnotes: docket 8485.

3) Will the oldest investment bank in America prevail (BBH, founded in year 1818)with motion 8485?

4) Will hope prevail?

5)Will justice/law prevail?

6) Perhaps, this is part of the reason why Barclays assumed liabilities of only $238 million versus billions.

It is easy to understand why you think that this Lehman bankruptcy reads like a tall tale, however, this is the real deal. Wakeup out of your dream and keep on reading.


***

5615 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, AS TRUSTEE 06/01/2009 $201,949,500.00 Image
Creditor Address:
ATTN: JOHN GUILIANO
101 BARCLAY, 8W
NEW YORK, NY 10286


Debtor:
08-01420 SIPC vs. Lehman Brothers, Inc. Amounts:
Allowed Unsecured: $201,949,500.00
Claimed Unsecured: $201,949,500.00


Remarks: This claim is subordinated.
Related Dockets
Docket No. Docket Date Docket Text Related Documents
8485 03/14/2014 Motion for Omnibus Objection to Claim(s) / Trustees Two Hundred Nineteenth Omnibus Objection to General Creditor Claims (Insufficient Documentation Claims) [Amended] filed by Christopher K. Kiplok on behalf of James W. Giddens, as Trustee for the SIPA Liquidation of Lehman Brothers Inc. with hearing to be held on 4/24/2014 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 621 (SCC) Responses due by 4/4/2014, . (Kiplok, Christopher)


Case: SIPC vs. Lehman Brothers, Inc.


Related: none Document
7849 12/13/2013 Order Signed on 12/13/2013 Regarding the Proof of Claim of The Bank of New York Mellon, as Indenture Trustee for Certain Subordinated Notes of Lehman Brothers Inc. (Claim No. 5615). (Related Doc # [7489]) (Nulty, Lynda)


Case: SIPC vs. Lehman Brothers, Inc.


Related: 7489 Document
7489 10/23/2013 Motion for Objection to Claim(s) Number: 5615 / Trustees Objection to the General Creditor Proof of Claim of The Bank of New York Mellon as Indenture Trustee for Certain Subordinated Notes of LBI (Claim No. 5615) filed by Christopher K. Kiplok on behalf of James W. Giddens, as Trustee for the SIPA Liquidation of Lehman Brothers Inc.. with hearing to be held on 1/16/2014 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 601 (JMP) Responses due by 12/9/2013, (Kiplok, Christopher)


Case: SIPC vs. Lehman Brothers, Inc.


Related: none