Replies to post #100227 on Lehman Brothers Financial SA (LEHNQ)

[cottonisking]

Affiliates' Equity Cash and LBHI Successors' Rights by way of the SCOTUS' May 20, 2019 Ruling:

The CTs prospectuses' entitlement(s) puts them at the top of the Global equity waterfall.

5
Disclosure Statement [ECF No. 19629].) “Any Distributions that would have been paid to such
Claims are automatically redistributed to holders of [allowed senior unsecured claims against
LBHI].” (Id.)
7. In dozens of pleadings filed in the form of motions, joinders, and letters to
this Court, the Movants (or a subset thereof) have alleged and continue to allege that they are
entitled to payment from LBHI at this time on account of Trust Preferred Securities that they hold.
The Movants have alleged, among other things, that (i) the Trust Preferred Securities rank higher
than the Subordinated Debt Securities and, as such, they are entitled to payment from LBHI before
holders of subordinated debt issued by LBHI; (ii) the equity issued by the Trusts is actually in
parity with preferred equity of LBHI affiliates who received payment under the Plan; and (iii) the
indenture trustees for the Subordinated Debt Securities purportedly failed holders of the Trust
Preferred Securities by not properly enforcing the Subordinated Guarantees and, as such, this error
should be corrected by reclassifying the Trusts’ claims from Class 10B to Class 4 under the Plan.
The majority of the Movants’ assertions are based on recycled, cut-and-paste arguments that
misinterpret LBHI’s obligations under the Subordinated Guarantees and ignore the language of
the relevant prospectuses for the Trust Preferred Securities, arguments which this Court and the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York have each previously heard and
rejected several times.6

6
See ECF No. 59801 (order denying Re Wu’s motion to file late claim); Ianello v. Lehman Bros. Holdings
Inc., No. 19-cv-06397, Dkt. No. 15 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020) (order denying Dan Ianello’s appeal of bankruptcy
court’s order at ECF No. 59801); ECF No. 60678 (order denying Joseph Waske’s (a) motion to reclassify/amend Plan,
(b) motion to reserve, and (c) motion for summary judgment); Joseph Waske v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., No. 20-
cv-5083, Dkt No. 8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2021) (Memorandum Opinion and Order affirming bankruptcy court’s order
at ECF No. 60678); Rex Wu v. Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., No. 20-cv-5823, Dkt. No. 10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2021),
(Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing Rex Wu’s appeal of bankruptcy court’s order at ECF No. 60678).
08-13555-scc Doc 61352 Filed 11/18/21 Entered 11/18/21 15:36:27 Main Document
Pg 5 of 15