LEHMAN BROTHERS QUARTO ATTO
- Creatore Discussione duetto
- Data di Inizio
duetto
Forumer storico
Lugano, a processo per un buco da oltre 8 milioni
www.laregione.ch
Lugano, a processo per un buco da oltre 8 milioni
Rinviato oggi, a causa dell’assenza dell’imputato principale, il procedimento a carico di quattro persone accusate di reati finanziari e patrimoniali
www.laregione.ch
duetto
Forumer storico
Honorable Shelley C. Chapman
Wednesday, September 28, 2022
09:00 AM | ||
| 08-13555-scc Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Ch. 11 | ||
| Adversary proceeding: 08-01420-scc Lehman Brothers Inc. et al Omnibus Hearing | ||
| Adversary proceeding: 08-01420-scc Lehman Brothers Inc. et al Doc #15406 Final Application of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP for (I) Final Allowance of Compensation for Services Rendered and Reimbursement of Actual and Necessary Expenses Incurred from September 19, 2008 Through July 31, 2022, (II) Release of Remaining Hold Back, and (III) Related Relief. | ||
| Adversary proceeding: 08-01420-scc Lehman Brothers Inc. et al Doc #15407 Trustees Motion for Order Discharging Trustee, Canceling His Bond, Closing the Estate, and Granting Related Relief |
duetto
Forumer storico
Docket # 61502
Filed Sep 27 2022
Letter to the Honorable Shelley C. Chapman re: Suburban Mortgage, Inc.'s Responses and Objections Pursuant to Fed. R. Bank. P. 9033 (related document(s)[61499]) Filed by Brant Kuehn on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.. (Kuehn, Brant)
Debtor 08-13555 Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Related Dockets
Filed Sep 27 2022
Letter to the Honorable Shelley C. Chapman re: Suburban Mortgage, Inc.'s Responses and Objections Pursuant to Fed. R. Bank. P. 9033 (related document(s)[61499]) Filed by Brant Kuehn on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.. (Kuehn, Brant)
Debtor 08-13555 Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Related Dockets
duetto
Forumer storico
WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP
500 FIFTH A VENUE
NEW YORK , NEW YORK 10110
___________
T ELEPHONE (212) 382-3300
FACSIMILE (212) 382-0050
September 27, 2022
VIA ECF/EMAIL
The Honorable Shelley C. Chapman, U.S.B.J.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York
One Bowling Green
New York, New York 10004
Re: In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.,
Case No. 08-13555 (SCC)
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. 1st Advantage Mortgage. LLC, et al.,
Adv. Pro. No. 16-01019 (SCC)
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. Suburban Mortgage, Inc.,
Adv. Pro. No. 16-01295 (SCC)
Dear Judge Chapman:
We represent the Plan Administrator and write regarding Suburban Mortgage, Inc.’s
(“Suburban”) September 21, 2022 letter to the court enclosing the Objections of Suburban
Mortgage, Inc. to the Bankruptcy Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Determining
that Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Has Standing to Bring “Contractual Indemnification”
Complaint (the “Objection”).1 The Plan Administrator respectfully requests that the Court dismiss
the Objection because it is procedurally improper and responding to the 38-page Objection
(excluding exhibits) would be wasteful of the resources of both the Plan Administrator and the
Court.
Suburban has it backwards when it claims that the Court was obligated to make findings
of fact and conclusions of law in denying its motion to dismiss. In Carter v. HealthPort, the Second
Circuit addressed an appeal from a decision granting a motion to dismiss for lack of standing,
which was thus a final order subject to review by the district court. 822 F.3d 47, 57 (2d Cir. 2016)
(citing decisions granting summary judgment for defendant). Nothing in Rule 9033 obligates the
Court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in any particular order—rather, it specifies
the procedures for objecting “n a proceeding in which the bankruptcy court has issued proposed
1 Case No. 08-13555, Dkt. No. 61499; Adv. Pro. No. 16-01019, Dkt. No. 1725; Adv. Pro. No. 16-01295, Dkt. No. 82.
08-13555-scc Doc 61502 Filed 09/27/22 Entered 09/27/22 17:31:04 Main Document
Pg 1 of 2
2
findings of fact and conclusions of law....” The requirement that bankruptcy courts submit
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in non-core matters to the district court applies
only to final orders or judgments. In re: Windstream Holdings v. Charter Communs., Inc., Nos.
19-22312 (RDD), 19-08246, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 468, at *1 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2020)
(citing 28 U.S.C.S. § 157(c)(1)). A denial of a motion to dismiss (or a motion for summary
judgment) is not a “final order or judgment.” See Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140
S. Ct. 582, 205 L.Ed.2d 419, 424, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 526 (2020) (“Orders in bankruptcy cases
qualify as ‘final’ when they definitively dispose of discrete disputes within the overarching
bankruptcy case.”); O’Toole v. McTaggart (In re Trinsum Group, Inc.), 467 B.R. 734, 741 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“[An] adversary proceeding being the relevant judicial unit, the order ending the
adversary proceeding would generally be the only final order.”).
The Objection requests that the District Court treat this Court’s recent order as proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law, but no proposed order or motion on this issue is pending
before the District Court. In 2018, when this Court denied Suburban’s previous motion to dismiss,
Suburban and SecurityNational Mortgage Company filed a motion in the District Court to treat
that denial order as findings of fact and conclusions of law for de novo review. Case No. 18-00392
(VEC), Dkt. No. 1. That motion was denied. See In re Lehman Bros. Holdings, No. 18-CV-8986-
VEC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77887, at *36-*40 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2019). Now, Suburban seeks
an end run around a similar denial by filing the Objection in this Court without following the
proper procedures to initiate a review by the District Court. Suburban fails to satisfy this procedural
gating element and the Objection should be struck on that basis alone. Suburban is, in effect,
demanding that this Court convert its Order on the motion to dismiss into a final order which it
can then appeal.
Suburban’s approach is contrary to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the
Bankruptcy Code, and the caselaw on point. Rule 9033 requires the Plan Administrator to respond
within 14 days—i.e., by October 5, 2022. Suburban’s “Objection” runs to 38 pages, not including
attachments, and responding would impose significant costs on the Plan Administrator. The
“Objection” is without any merit under the Rules or the law and is nothing more than an effort to
“multipl[y] the proceedings in [the] case unreasonably and vexatiously.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The
Court is empowered to dismiss the “Objection” sua sponte, and the Plan Administrator respectfully
requests that the Court do so immediately to avoid incurring additional costs and expenses. See,
e.g., In re: Windstream, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS at *5 (dismissing sua sponte “Objections” to
interlocutory orders, and noting that “ecause their Rule 9033 process is self-executing...the
Defendants are trying to impose its unwarranted delay, uncertainty and cost...”).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Brant Duncan Kuehn
Brant Duncan Kuehn
500 FIFTH A VENUE
NEW YORK , NEW YORK 10110
___________
T ELEPHONE (212) 382-3300
FACSIMILE (212) 382-0050
September 27, 2022
VIA ECF/EMAIL
The Honorable Shelley C. Chapman, U.S.B.J.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York
One Bowling Green
New York, New York 10004
Re: In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.,
Case No. 08-13555 (SCC)
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. 1st Advantage Mortgage. LLC, et al.,
Adv. Pro. No. 16-01019 (SCC)
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. Suburban Mortgage, Inc.,
Adv. Pro. No. 16-01295 (SCC)
Dear Judge Chapman:
We represent the Plan Administrator and write regarding Suburban Mortgage, Inc.’s
(“Suburban”) September 21, 2022 letter to the court enclosing the Objections of Suburban
Mortgage, Inc. to the Bankruptcy Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Determining
that Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Has Standing to Bring “Contractual Indemnification”
Complaint (the “Objection”).1 The Plan Administrator respectfully requests that the Court dismiss
the Objection because it is procedurally improper and responding to the 38-page Objection
(excluding exhibits) would be wasteful of the resources of both the Plan Administrator and the
Court.
Suburban has it backwards when it claims that the Court was obligated to make findings
of fact and conclusions of law in denying its motion to dismiss. In Carter v. HealthPort, the Second
Circuit addressed an appeal from a decision granting a motion to dismiss for lack of standing,
which was thus a final order subject to review by the district court. 822 F.3d 47, 57 (2d Cir. 2016)
(citing decisions granting summary judgment for defendant). Nothing in Rule 9033 obligates the
Court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in any particular order—rather, it specifies
the procedures for objecting “n a proceeding in which the bankruptcy court has issued proposed
1 Case No. 08-13555, Dkt. No. 61499; Adv. Pro. No. 16-01019, Dkt. No. 1725; Adv. Pro. No. 16-01295, Dkt. No. 82.
08-13555-scc Doc 61502 Filed 09/27/22 Entered 09/27/22 17:31:04 Main Document
Pg 1 of 2
2
findings of fact and conclusions of law....” The requirement that bankruptcy courts submit
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in non-core matters to the district court applies
only to final orders or judgments. In re: Windstream Holdings v. Charter Communs., Inc., Nos.
19-22312 (RDD), 19-08246, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 468, at *1 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2020)
(citing 28 U.S.C.S. § 157(c)(1)). A denial of a motion to dismiss (or a motion for summary
judgment) is not a “final order or judgment.” See Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140
S. Ct. 582, 205 L.Ed.2d 419, 424, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 526 (2020) (“Orders in bankruptcy cases
qualify as ‘final’ when they definitively dispose of discrete disputes within the overarching
bankruptcy case.”); O’Toole v. McTaggart (In re Trinsum Group, Inc.), 467 B.R. 734, 741 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“[An] adversary proceeding being the relevant judicial unit, the order ending the
adversary proceeding would generally be the only final order.”).
The Objection requests that the District Court treat this Court’s recent order as proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law, but no proposed order or motion on this issue is pending
before the District Court. In 2018, when this Court denied Suburban’s previous motion to dismiss,
Suburban and SecurityNational Mortgage Company filed a motion in the District Court to treat
that denial order as findings of fact and conclusions of law for de novo review. Case No. 18-00392
(VEC), Dkt. No. 1. That motion was denied. See In re Lehman Bros. Holdings, No. 18-CV-8986-
VEC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77887, at *36-*40 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2019). Now, Suburban seeks
an end run around a similar denial by filing the Objection in this Court without following the
proper procedures to initiate a review by the District Court. Suburban fails to satisfy this procedural
gating element and the Objection should be struck on that basis alone. Suburban is, in effect,
demanding that this Court convert its Order on the motion to dismiss into a final order which it
can then appeal.
Suburban’s approach is contrary to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the
Bankruptcy Code, and the caselaw on point. Rule 9033 requires the Plan Administrator to respond
within 14 days—i.e., by October 5, 2022. Suburban’s “Objection” runs to 38 pages, not including
attachments, and responding would impose significant costs on the Plan Administrator. The
“Objection” is without any merit under the Rules or the law and is nothing more than an effort to
“multipl[y] the proceedings in [the] case unreasonably and vexatiously.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The
Court is empowered to dismiss the “Objection” sua sponte, and the Plan Administrator respectfully
requests that the Court do so immediately to avoid incurring additional costs and expenses. See,
e.g., In re: Windstream, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS at *5 (dismissing sua sponte “Objections” to
interlocutory orders, and noting that “ecause their Rule 9033 process is self-executing...the
Defendants are trying to impose its unwarranted delay, uncertainty and cost...”).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Brant Duncan Kuehn
Brant Duncan Kuehn
duetto
Forumer storico
Lehman Brothers, storia di un sogno finito in un crack
27/09/2022 di Staff Press
Il crack della quarta banca d’affari americana, Lehman Brothers, costrinse il mondo a riflettere sulla forza, ma anche sulla fragilità del sistema finanziario globale. Quello che nessuno pensava potesse accadere, era accaduto: il fallimento di una grande banca, con un effetto domino sugli altri istituti di credito nel mondo. Una crisi finanziaria, innescata dalla crisi dei mutui subprime, che divenne presto economica mettendo in ginocchio le economia dei Paesi più ricchi. Un tracollo provocato da prodotti finanziari, i CDO, che contenevano pezzi di pezzi di mutui, in scatole dove i mutui sicuri a tripla A erano agganciati a mutui ad alto rischio. Prodotti che si diffusero in tutto il mondo esportando la crisi. Dagli Stati Uniti all’Europa, i governi furono costretti a intervenire, mettendo mano ai portafogli, per garantire i debiti e nazionalizzare le banche. Ma qual è la storia di Lehman Brothers? E come si arrivò a quel terribile 15 settembre del 2008, quando i vertici della società dichiararono l’adesione al Chapter 11? La storia completa, nel video-racconto del Sole 24 Ore, con i commenti di Stefano Rossi, Professor of Finance, Generali Chair in Insurance and Risk Management Università Bocconi e Morya Longo, IL SOLE 24 ORE.
PER SAPERNE DI PIÙ
A 10 anni dal crack Lehman politica in pressing sulle banche centrali
Dieci anni fa la bufera «subprime». Tre lezioni dalla «grande crisi» Mutui subprime: come si reggeva il castello di carta e perché è crollato
27/09/2022 di Staff Press
Il crack della quarta banca d’affari americana, Lehman Brothers, costrinse il mondo a riflettere sulla forza, ma anche sulla fragilità del sistema finanziario globale. Quello che nessuno pensava potesse accadere, era accaduto: il fallimento di una grande banca, con un effetto domino sugli altri istituti di credito nel mondo. Una crisi finanziaria, innescata dalla crisi dei mutui subprime, che divenne presto economica mettendo in ginocchio le economia dei Paesi più ricchi. Un tracollo provocato da prodotti finanziari, i CDO, che contenevano pezzi di pezzi di mutui, in scatole dove i mutui sicuri a tripla A erano agganciati a mutui ad alto rischio. Prodotti che si diffusero in tutto il mondo esportando la crisi. Dagli Stati Uniti all’Europa, i governi furono costretti a intervenire, mettendo mano ai portafogli, per garantire i debiti e nazionalizzare le banche. Ma qual è la storia di Lehman Brothers? E come si arrivò a quel terribile 15 settembre del 2008, quando i vertici della società dichiararono l’adesione al Chapter 11? La storia completa, nel video-racconto del Sole 24 Ore, con i commenti di Stefano Rossi, Professor of Finance, Generali Chair in Insurance and Risk Management Università Bocconi e Morya Longo, IL SOLE 24 ORE.
PER SAPERNE DI PIÙ
A 10 anni dal crack Lehman politica in pressing sulle banche centrali
Dieci anni fa la bufera «subprime». Tre lezioni dalla «grande crisi» Mutui subprime: come si reggeva il castello di carta e perché è crollato
etienne55
Nuovo forumer
Lehman's 111,000 customers received all $106 billion they were owed, and secured creditors also received full payouts.
Synopsis
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Shelley Chapman in Manhattan closed the brokerage's estate on Wednesday and awarded final payments to the trustee who oversaw its liquidation and his law firm.
By Reuters
Last Updated: Sep 28, 2022, 09:44 PM IST
Synopsis
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Shelley Chapman in Manhattan closed the brokerage's estate on Wednesday and awarded final payments to the trustee who oversaw its liquidation and his law firm.
By Reuters
Last Updated: Sep 28, 2022, 09:44 PM IST