Linklaters leads as High Court rejects Lehman repayment plan
Lehman Brothers' European creditors have suffered a blow after the High Court rejected a proposed scheme of arrangement which would have seen a timetable put in place for the return of assets. Linklaters is advising Lehman's administrator PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), which made an application to the High Court in relation to the proposed scheme at the beginning of August when presiding judge Mr Justice Blackburne decided to reserve his judgment.
August 24, 2009 at 09:01 AM
2 minute read
Lehman Brothers' European creditors have suffered a blow after the High Court rejected a proposed scheme of arrangement which would have seen a timetable put in place for the return of assets.
Linklaters is advising Lehman's administrator PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), which made an application to the High Court in relation to the proposed scheme at the beginning of August when presiding judge Mr Justice Blackburne decided to reserve his judgment.
The proposed scheme aimed to see more than 1,000 creditors reunited with their assets – largely hedge funds and trust assets – by sorting them into three distinct classes to ease the process of returning billions of pounds of assets.
Blackburne decided that the court had no jurisdiction to sanction the scheme, leaving the Linklaters team – headed up by David Ereira and Simon Firth – to consider alternative arrangements.
Steven Pearson, joint administrator at PwC, commented: "The proposed scheme sought to significantly reduce the period clients have to wait before they get their assets back. This judgment is disappointing as it could create further delay for many of Lehman Brothers International Europe's clients."
PwC has been given permission to appeal the judgment but it is not known whether the firm will do so. If the scheme had been approved, creditors would have begun to see their assets returned at the beginning of next year.
Kirkland & Ellis European restructuring head Lyndon Norley said: "What they were trying to do was commendable as it was a means to cutting through the complexity of returning assets. The fundamental flaw though was that that they were trying to deal with assets that were not the assets of the company."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBig Law Heavyweights Wrestle in High-Stakes Sale of Venezuela’s Citgo
Cleary vs. White & Case: NYC Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
Singapore's Drew & Napier Secures $3.5B Award in Civil Suit
Trending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250