WEIL:\97024259\10\58399.0011 a subordination agreement is unambiguous, the parties’ rights are governed exclusively by that agreement. In re Leasing Consultants, Inc., 2 B.R. at 169. This Court has enforced subordination provisions consistently in these cases, including through the classification and treatment of Subordinated Debt pursuant to the Plan. 27. The prospectuses upon which Wu purports to have relied clearly provides that any liability that LBHI would have on the Subordinated Guarantee is subordinated to the level of preferred equity interests in LBHI: [LBHI’s] [g]uarantee will constitute unsecured obligations of [LBHI] and will rank (i) subordinate and junior in right of payment to all other liabilities of [LBHI], (ii) on a parity with the most senior preferred or preference stock… and (iii) senior to [LBHI’s] common stock. [Prospectus IV at 21.]. Thus, if LBHI had any liability on account of the Subordinated Guarantee, such liability would be subordinate and junior in right of payment to all other liabilities of LBHI and pari passu with LBHI’s preferred equity, which is not expected to recover from LBHI. Wu acknowledges this. [Mot. ¶6.] 28. Wu’s cites two letters filed on the docket by Mr. Rickey Gregory. [Mot. ¶¶ 7, 8, citing ECF Nos. 46304, 59555.] Neither Wu nor either of Mr. Gregory’s letters is clear, but neither alters the clear fact that any liability under the Subordinated Guarantees is not entitled to recover as a claim against LBHI. JOINDERS 29. Mr. Gregory filed a joinder to the Motion. [ECF No. 59659.] The joinder contains no substantive argument and alleges no new fact pertinent to the Motion. Wu subsequently filed a letter on the docket expressing his support for Mr. Gregory. [ECF No. 59715.] Subsequently, Dan Lanello and Julie Lanello each filed separate (but identical) joinders to the Motion. [ECF Nos. 59735, 59736.] Like Mr. Gregory’s joinder, the Lanello joinders contain no 08-13555-scc Doc 59738 Filed 05/29/19 Entered 05/29/19 11:47:27 Main Document Pg 10 of 11