Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------x
:
In re 	: 	Chapter 11
:
LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC., et al., 	: 	Case No. 08-13555 (SCC)
:
Debtors. 	: 	(Jointly Administered)
---------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION IN AID OF
EXECUTION OF THE MODIFIED THIRD AMENDED JOINT CHAPTER 11 PLAN
OF LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC. AND ITS AFFILIATED DEBTORS
A P P E A R A N C E S:
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
By: 	Jacqueline Marcus, Esq.
Garrett A. Fail, Esq.
Counsel for Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
and Certain of Its Affiliates
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10178
By: 	Joshua Dorchak, Esq.
Melissa Y. Boey, Esq.
-and-
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10019
By: 	Alex R. Rovira, Esq.
Counsel for Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 1 of 18

ii
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
One Liberty Plaza
New York, New York 10006
By: 	Luke A. Barefoot, Esq.
Counsel for Barclays Bank PLC
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
KIRKLAND & ELLIS INTERNATIONAL LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, Illinois 60654
By: 	David R. Seligman, P.C.
Joseph M. Graham, Esq.
555 California Street
San Francisco, California 94104
By: 	Mark McKane, P.C.
Kevin Chang, Esq.
Counsel for the Joint Liquidators of the General Partner
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019
By: 	Kyle J. Kimpler, Esq.
Dan Youngblut, Esq.
Counsel for Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York 10019
By: 	Emil A. Kleinhaus, Esq.
Counsel for Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
and Merrill Lynch International
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
200 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, New York 10166
By: 	Luc A. Despins, Esq.
James T. Grogan, Esq.
Counsel to CarVal Investors UK Limited
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 2 of 18

1
SHELLEY C. CHAPMAN
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
Before the Court is the motion (the “Motion”),1 dated November 21, 2017, of Lehman
Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI” or the “Plan Administrator”), as Plan Administrator under the
Modified Third Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Its
Affiliated Debtors (the “Plan”), pursuant to sections 105(a) and 1142(b) of title 11 of the United
States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) for an order in aid of execution of the Plan. In support of
the Motion, the Plan Administrator filed the Declaration of Richard Katz (the “Katz Decl.”).2
Objections to the Motion were filed by (i) Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch (“DB”
and, such objection, the “DB Objection”)3 on January 17, 2018, together with the accompanying
Declaration of Michael Sutton (the “Sutton Decl.”)4 in support thereof; and (ii) Barclays Bank
PLC (“Barclays” and, such objection, the “Barclays Objection”)5 on January 30, 2018. Joinders
to the DB Objection were filed by Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“Citi”);6 Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. and Merrill Lynch International (collectively, “Merrill Lynch”); 7
and CarVal Investors UK Limited (“CarVal”).8 DB, Barclays, Citi, Merrill Lynch, and CarVal
each objected to the Motion in its capacity as a holder of the securities at issue in the Motion.
On January 31, 2018, Bruce Alexander Mackay and Matthew Robert Haw of RSM
Restructuring Advisory LLP, in their capacity as the joint liquidators of the General Partner (as
defined below) (the “Liquidators” and, together with DB, Barclays, Citi, Merrill Lynch, and
CarVal, the “Objecting Parties”) filed (i) a limited objection to the Motion (the “Liquidators’
1 	ECF No. 57036.
2 	ECF No. 57037.
3 	ECF No. 57490.
4 	ECF No. 57493.
5 	ECF No. 57595.
6 	ECF No. 57596.
7 	ECF No. 57600.
8 	ECF No. 57601.
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 3 of 18

2
Objection”),9 pursuant to which the Liquidators also joined in the arguments made in the DB
Objection, and (ii) the Declaration of Mark McKane10 in support thereof.
On May 24, 2018, the Plan Administrator filed a Reply in Support of the Motion (the
“Reply”).11 On June 7, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the Motion (the “Hearing”) at which
the Court heard oral argument from the Plan Administrator, DB, Barclays, and the Liquidators.12
BACKGROUND
A. The Partnerships and ECAPS
Between 2005 and 2007, LBHI and certain other parties, including certain of its affiliates,
established five partnerships: Lehman Brothers UK Capital Funding LP (“LB UK I”), Lehman
Brothers UK Capital Funding II LP (“LB UK II”), Lehman Brothers UK Capital Funding III LP
(“LB UK III”), Lehman Brothers UK Capital Funding IV LP (“LB UK IV”), and Lehman
Brothers UK Capital Funding V LP (“LB UK V” and, each of the foregoing, a “Partnership”).
The Partnerships were created to increase regulatory capital for LBHI and Lehman Brothers
Holdings plc (“LBH PLC”), an LBHI non-controlled affiliate, through “back-to-back
subordinated arrangements.”13 Specifically, the Partnerships issued equity securities known as
Enhanced Capital Advantaged Preferred Securities or “ECAPS;” the value of the ECAPS was
broadly equal to the value of the Partnership assets less the costs associated with administering
the applicable Partnership and any distribution rights of certain other partners.14 Using the
proceeds raised from the issuance of ECAPS, the Partnerships purchased (i) subordinated debt of
9 	ECF No. 57603.
10 	ECF No. 57605.
11 	ECF No. 58100.
12 	At the Hearing, counsel for the Liquidators stated that he was appearing primarily in the event and to the
extent that LBHI challenged the standing of DB and the other Objecting Parties to object to the Motion. See June 7,
2018 Hr’g Tr. 42:14-19. Because LBHI did not challenge the standing of DB or Barclays to make arguments at the
Hearing, the Liquidators provided limited argument. See June 7, 2018 Hr’g Tr. 7:6-19.
13 	Katz Decl. ¶ 7.
14 	See Katz Decl. ¶ 7.
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 4 of 18

3
LBH PLC (the “LBH PLC Subordinated Notes”) in the case of LB UK I, LB UK II, and LB UK
III, or (ii) subordinated debt of LBHI (“LBHI Subordinated Notes” and, together with the LBH
PLC Subordinated Notes, the “Subordinated Notes”) in the case of LB UK IV and LB UK V. 15
In addition to purchasing the Subordinated Notes, LB UK III, LB UK IV, and LB UK V also
invested in certain money market funds, the proceeds of which were held by LBHI. 16 Because
the value of the ECAPS was approximately equal to the value of the Partnership assets, an
investment in ECAPS was, in substance, an indirect investment in the Subordinated Notes of
LBHI or LBH PLC, as applicable.17
LBHI indirectly controlled each of the Partnerships (i) as the sole member of the
Partnerships’ general partner, LB GP No. 1 Ltd. (the “General Partner”), and (ii) through its
indirect ownership of LB Investment Holdings Ltd., the “Preferential Limited Partner” of each
Partnership. The General Partner is a company incorporated in England and Wales and the
agreements governing each of the respective Partnerships (the “Partnership Agreements”) are
governed by the laws of the United Kingdom. 18 LBH PLC guaranteed certain obligations of LB
UK I, LB UK II, and LB UK III under their respective Partnership Agreements and, similarly,
LBHI guaranteed certain obligations of LB UK IV and LB UK V under their respective
Partnership Agreements.19 None of the Partnerships, the General Partner, or the Preferential
Limited Partner is a debtor in these chapter 11 proceedings.
15 	See Katz Decl. ¶ 7.
16 	See Motion ¶ 9, n.3; DB Objection ¶ 15.
17 	See Motion ¶ 11.
18 	See Motion ¶ 8. LBHI has stated that true and correct copies of the Partnership Agreements and other
transaction documents are attached as exhibits to the Katz Decl. See Motion ¶ 8, n.2.
19 	See Motion ¶ 10.
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 5 of 18

4
B. Substitution of Preferred Stock for ECAPS
The terms of the ECAPS (the “ECAPS Terms”), 20 which are substantially identical under
each Partnership Agreement, provided a mechanism pursuant to which the ECAPS could be
substituted for preferred stock of LBHI. Specifically, the ECAPS Terms state that “[i]f a Trigger
Event occurs . . . the General Partner shall take all reasonable steps to cause the substitution of
the [ECAPS] [for] Substituted Preferred Stock (the “Preferred Securities Substitution”) on the
Substitution Date . . . .”21
“Substituted Preferred Stock” is defined under the ECAPS Terms as “fully-paid non-
cumulative preferred stock issued directly by LBHI bearing a right to dividends calculated in the
same manner as the [ECAPS], having no voting rights (except as required by law) and being
subject to optional redemption in the same manner as the [ECAPS].”22 A “Trigger Event,” as
defined under the ECAPS Terms, occurs “if LBHI is placed into bankruptcy, reorganisation,
conservatorship or receivership” or fails to meet certain capital-adequacy requirements.23
Pursuant to its corporate charter in effect prior to the Petition Date (as defined below)
(the “Pre-Effective Date Charter”), LBHI was authorized to issue 24,999,000 shares of preferred
stock, of which over 17,000,000 shares remained available to be issued as of the Effective Date
(as defined below).24
C. The Chapter 11 Cases and the Plan
On September 15, 2008 (the “Petition Date”) and periodically thereafter, LBHI and
certain of its subsidiaries (the “Debtors”) commenced with this Court voluntary cases under
20 	An example of the ECAPS Terms can be found on Schedule 2 of the LB UK I Partnership Agreement,
which is attached as Ex. A to the Katz. Decl.
21 	See ECAPS Terms § 5.1.
22 	See ECAPS Terms § 1.
23 	See ECAPS Terms § 1.
24 	See Motion ¶ 18 (citing section 4.1 of the Pre-Effective Date Charter).
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 6 of 18

5
chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (collectively, the “Chapter 11 Cases”). On December 6,
2011, the Court entered an order confirming the Plan (the “Confirmation Order”)25 and the Plan
became effective on March 6, 2012 (the “Effective Date”).
Pursuant to the ECAPS Terms, a Trigger Event occurred on the Petition Date, the date on
which LBHI was placed into bankruptcy. Notwithstanding the occurrence of a Trigger Event,
the General Partner did not take the requisite steps to effect a Preferred Securities Substitution
prior to the Effective Date.26
D. Reinstatement of the General Partner
On June 22, 2010, the General Partner was dissolved and stricken from the Register of
Companies in the United Kingdom on the basis that the Registrar of Companies had reasonable
cause to believe that the General Partner was no longer conducting business.27 As a result, each
of the Partnerships was also dissolved.28
DB, in its capacity as an ECAPS holder, subsequently determined that the Partnerships
might have assets that it believed would need to be protected and ultimately distributed to
ECAPS holders; as such, it sought to restore the General Partner to the Register of Companies.29
On June 20, 2016, DB filed an application to restore the General Partner, and, on February 3,
2017, the General Partner was restored to the Registrar of Companies.30 On February 28, 2017,
pursuant to a special resolution of LBHI acting as the General Partner’s sole shareholder, the
25 	ECF No. 23023. A copy of the Plan is attached as Exhibit A to the Confirmation Order.
26 	See Motion ¶ 19.
27 	See DB Objection ¶ 18.
28 	See Motion ¶ 12.
29 	See Sutton Decl. ¶ 25; Liquidators’ Objection ¶ 15.
30 	See Liquidators’ Objection ¶ 15.
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 7 of 18

6
General Partner was placed into creditors’ voluntary liquidation and the Liquidators were
appointed as joint liquidators of the General Partner.31
In October 2017, the Liquidators received money market fund proceeds from the Plan
Administrator in the amounts of approximately €12.8 million, €10.8 million, and $26.7 million
on behalf of LB UK III, LB UK IV, and LB UK V, respectively (the “Investment Proceeds”);
however, in distributing the Investment Proceeds to the Liquidators, LBHI reserved its rights to
obtain the Liquidators’ agreement not to distribute the Investment Proceeds until all competing
claims to such proceeds have been resolved.32
E. The Proposed Substitution
By the Motion, the Plan Administrator requests authority to issue Substituted Preferred
Stock under LBHI’s Pre-Effective Date Charter as if such stock had been issued on the Petition
Date. If the Plan Administrator is authorized to issue Substituted Preferred Stock, LBHI states
that it will then seek authority to instruct the General Partner to deliver such Substituted
Preferred Stock to ECAPS holders to effectuate a Preferred Securities Substitution, after which
(i) ECAPS holders would be entitled to a portion of the distributions for holders of LBHI Class
12 Equity Interests under the Plan; and (ii) the net value of the Partnerships, including the
Investment Proceeds and the Subordinated Notes, would inure to the creditors of LBHI through
LBHI’s ownership of the General Partner and indirect ownership of the Preferential Limited
Partner.33
Notwithstanding the complex backdrop against which the Motion was brought, the
question before this Court is a simple one: whether or not the Plan Administrator may cause
31 	See Liquidators’ Objection ¶ 15. The appointment of the Liquidators was later ratified by a meeting of the
General Partner’s creditors on April 12, 2017. See Liquidators’ Objection ¶ 15.
32 	See DB Objection ¶ 36.
33 	See Motion ¶ 20.
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 8 of 18

7
LBHI to issue Substituted Preferred Stock under its Pre-Effective Date Charter as if such stock
had been issued on the Petition Date. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that
neither the Bankruptcy Code nor the Plan authorizes the Plan Administrator to issue Substituted
Preferred Stock under LBHI’s Pre-Effective Date Charter.34
DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Law
The Plan Administrator moves this Court pursuant to the Court’s authority under sections
105(a) and 1142(b) of the Bankruptcy Code to issue orders necessary to implement the
provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the Plan, respectively.35
Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that “[t]he court may issue any order,
process or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of [the
Bankruptcy Code].” 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Although section 105(a) grants a court broad equitable
powers, courts have long recognized that section 105(a) does not confer on the court the power
to create substantive rights not otherwise available under applicable law, nor does it “constitute a
roving commission to do equity.” New England Dairies, Inc. v. Dairy Mart Convenience Stores,
Inc. (In re Dairy Mart Convenience Stores, Inc.), 351 F.3d 86, 92 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing United
States v. Sutton, 786 F.2d 1305, 1308 (5th Cir. 1986)). Instead, a court’s equitable powers under
section 105(a) must be exercised within the confines of the Bankruptcy Code. Id.
Section 1142(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that
[t]he court may direct the debtor and any other necessary party to execute or
deliver or to join in the execution or delivery of any instrument required to
34 	Accordingly, the Court need not address the question of the Plan Administrator’s ability to compel a
Preferred Securities Substitution under the ECAPS Terms, which DB maintains would be a matter for the High
Court in London to decide. See DB Objection ¶ 2.
35 	See Motion ¶ 23.
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 9 of 18

8
effect a transfer of property dealt with by a confirmed plan, and to perform any
other act . . . that is necessary for the consummation of the plan.
11 U.S.C. § 1142(b). “Section 1142(b) ‘empowers the bankruptcy court to enforce the
unperformed terms of a confirmed plan.’” In re WorldCom, Inc., Case No. 02-13533, 2009 WL
2959457, at *7 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2009) (citing United States Brass Corp. v. Travelers
Ins. Group, Inc. (In re United States Brass Corp.), 301 F.3d 296, 306 (5th Cir. 2002)). However,
courts have held that section 1142(b) is not an independent source of power; section 1142(b)
does not confer any substantive rights on a party apart from what is provided for in the plan. See
Vill. of Rosemont v. Jaffe, 482 F.3d 926, 935 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing In re U.S. Brass Corp., 301
F.3d at 306).
B. Relevant Provisions of the Plan
1. 	Authority of the Plan Administrator
The Plan confers upon LBHI, as the Plan Administrator for each of the Debtors,36 broad
authority to carry out and implement the provisions of the Plan. Specifically, section 6.1(b) of
the Plan provides that
the Plan Administrator shall have the authority and right on behalf of each
of the Debtors, without the need for Bankruptcy Court approval (unless
otherwise indicated), to carry out and implement all provisions of the Plan,
including, without limitation, to . . .
(iii) 	exercise its reasonable business judgment to direct and
control the wind down, liquidation, sale and/or abandoning of the
assets of the Debtors and/or Debtor-Controlled Entities under the Plan
and in accordance with applicable law as necessary to maximize
Distributions to holders of Allowed Claims; . . . and
(xiv) 	perform other duties and functions that are consistent
with the implementation of the Plan.
Plan § 6.1(b)(iii) and (xiv).
36 	See Plan § 6.1(a) (“LBHI shall serve as Plan Administrator for each of the Debtors.”).
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 10 of 18

9
2. 	Treatment of LBHI Common and Preferred Stock
The Plan provides that, on the Effective Date, all outstanding shares of LBHI common
and preferred stock were cancelled and exchanged for one new share of LBHI common stock
which was issued to the Plan Trust (as defined in the Plan); the Plan Trust holds such share of
LBHI stock for the benefit of all holders of former LBHI stock. See Plan § 4.17(b) (“[A]ll LBHI
Stock shall be cancelled [and one new share of LBHI common stock] shall be issued to the Plan
Trust which will hold such share for the benefit of the holders of such former LBHI Stock
consistent with their former relative priority and economic entitlements . . . .”); Confirmation
Order ¶ 81 (same). Pursuant to section 7.4(a) of the Plan, “[a]ny distribution from assets of
LBHI that is made to the Plan Trust as holder of such share shall be for the benefit of the holders
of Equity Interests in accordance with Section 4.17(b).” Plan § 7.4(a).
3. 	The Pre-Effective Date Charter and the Amended Charter
Pursuant to section 7.7 of the Plan, “[a]s of the Effective Date, the certificate of
incorporation and by-laws of each Debtor shall be amended to the extent necessary to carry out
the provisions of the Plan.” Plan § 7.7. In connection with the Effective Date of the Plan, (i) the
Pre-Effective Date Charter was amended and restated by that certain Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation dated March 2, 2012 (the “Amended Charter”) and (ii) LBHI
adopted the Amended and Restated By-Laws (the “Amended By-Laws”). 37 The Amended
Charter amended and restated the Pre-Effective Date Charter in its entirety. See Amended
Charter ¶ 3 (The “Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation amends and restates in its
entirety the Certificate of Incorporation of [LBHI], as amended”); Amended Charter ¶ 7 (“The
37 	See Ex. L to the Sutton Decl. (Form 8-K filed by LBHI with Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 6, 2012 announcing filing of Amended Charter and adoption of Amended By-Laws); Ex. M to the Sutton
Decl. (Amended Charter); Ex. N to the Sutton Decl. (Amended By-Laws).
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 11 of 18

10
text of the Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended and restated to read, in its entirety, as
follows:”).
Pursuant to the terms of the Amended Charter and the Amended By-Laws, LBHI is
prohibited from issuing any non-voting capital stock except the one share of common stock to be
held by the Plan Trust. Specifically, the fourth provision of the Amended Charter provides that
“[LBHI] shall not be authorized to issue any non-voting capital stock of any class, series or other
designation to the extent prohibited by section 1123(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code . . . .”38 See
Amended Charter at 2. Additionally, the Amended By-Laws provide that “[u]nless otherwise
required by law, no capital stock of the Corporation shall be issuable or transferable to any
person other than the Plan Trust (as defined in the Plan).” See Amended By-Laws, Article VI,
§1.
C. The Parties’ Positions
The Plan Administrator asserts that it is authorized to issue Substituted Preferred Stock
under the Pre-Effective Date Charter “in furtherance of LBHI carrying out the most important
operative provision of the Plan: Section 6.1(b).”39 Specifically, the Plan Administrator points to
its authority under subsections (iii) and (xiv) of section 6.1(b), “to carry out and implement all
provisions of the Plan, including, without limitation, to . . . exercise its reasonable business
38 	Section 1123(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code provides:
(a) Notwithstanding any otherwise applicable nonbankruptcy law, a plan shall
(6) provide for the inclusion in the charter of the debtor, if the debtor is a corporation, or of any
corporation referred to in paragraph (5)(B) or (5)(C) of this subsection, of a provision prohibiting the
issuance of nonvoting equity securities, and providing, as to the several classes of securities possessing
voting power, an appropriate distribution of such power among such classes, including, in the case of
any class of equity securities having a preference over another class of equity securities with respect to
dividends, adequate provisions for the election of directors representing such preferred class in the
event of default in the payment of such dividends.
11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(6).
39 	Reply ¶ 23.
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 12 of 18

11
judgment . . . as necessary to maximize Distributions to holders of Allowed Claims” and to
“perform other duties and functions that are consistent with the implementation of the Plan.”40
The Plan Administrator does not cite to any precedential decision in which a debtor has
been granted nunc pro tunc relief to issue stock after the effective date of its confirmed plan as
though such stock had been issued on the petition date. Instead, the Plan Administrator
emphasizes that these Chapter 11 Cases are “unique” and complicated because the administration
of the LBHI estate, which has continued long after the Effective Date of the Plan, depends on the
Plan Administrator’s collection on claims related to a myriad of intricate cross-border
transactions with its non-controlled affiliates; as such, the Plan Administrator urges this Court to
find that the relief sought by the Motion is reasonable given such unusual circumstances.41 The
Plan Administrator also argues that the Motion should be granted because a Preferred Securities
Substitution, which can only be effectuated if LBHI first issues Substituted Preferred Stock, is in
the best interest of LBHI and its creditors and will provide an opportunity to maximize
distributions to holders of Allowed Claims without adversely affecting any creditor or equity
holder of the Debtors’ estates.42
The Objecting Parties vehemently disagree with the Plan Administrator, arguing most
pertinently that the relief sought by the Plan Administrator directly contradicts the intent of the
Plan and the Confirmation Order which, among other things, (i) cancelled the type of securities
that the Plan Administrator now seeks to issue pursuant to the Motion; (ii) fixed the sole
constituent of LBHI Class 12 Equity Interests as the Plan Trust (and such class did not include
the ECAPS holders); (iii) nullified the Pre-Effective Date Charter (pursuant to which LBHI now
40 	See Motion ¶ 4.
41 	See Motion ¶ 21; see also June 7, 2018 Hr’g Tr. 6:9; 44:21-45:4; 46:13-22.
42 	See Motion ¶ 25; Reply ¶ 39.
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 13 of 18

12
seeks authority to issue new Substituted Preferred Stock); and (iv) effectuated an amended
charter and amended by-laws which expressly prohibit LBHI from issuing new non-voting
capital stock.43
The Objecting Parties also argue that issuance of the Substituted Preferred Stock – which,
pursuant to the ECAPS Terms, must be non-voting shares – would violate section 1123(a)(6) of
the Bankruptcy Code, which mandates that a plan shall “provide for the inclusion in the charter
of the debtor . . . a provision prohibiting the issuance of nonvoting equity securities . . . .” 44 11
U.S.C. § 1123(a)(6). Accordingly, the Objecting Parties assert that, because issuing Substituted
Preferred Stock is prohibited under the Plan and by the Bankruptcy Code, the Plan
Administrator’s request to “execute” the Plan is really an attempt to modify the Plan.45 The
Objecting Parties argue that the Plan cannot be modified because it has been substantially
consummated and, pursuant to section 1127(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, a plan may not be
modified after it has been substantially consummated.46
D. Neither the Bankruptcy Code Nor the Plan Permits the Plan Administrator to Issue
Stock Under the Pre-Effective Date Charter
Section 1142(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that this Court may direct the Plan
Administrator “to perform any . . . act . . . that is necessary for the consummation of the plan.”
43 	See DB Objection, ¶ 3.
44 	See DB Objection ¶ 47; see generally June 7, 2018 Hr’g Tr. 15:1-17:10.
45 	See DB Objection ¶ 51.
46 	See DB Objection ¶ 52 (citing In re Rickel & Assocs., Inc., 260 B.R. 673, 677 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2001)
(collecting cases); In re Boylan Int’l, Ltd, 452 B.R. 43, 48 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing 7 C OLLIER ON
BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1127.03[1][a])).
Section 1127(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that
The proponent of a plan or the reorganized debtor may modify such plan at any time
after confirmation of such plan and before substantial consummation of such plan, but
may not modify such plan so that such plan as modified fails to meet the requirements
of sections 1122 and 1123 of this title. Such plan as modified under this subsection
becomes the plan only if circumstances warrant such modification and the court, after
notice and a hearing, confirms such plan as modified, under section 1129 of this title.
11 U.S.C. § 1127(b) (emphasis added).
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 14 of 18

13
11 U.S.C. § 1142(b). Section 1142(b) of the Bankruptcy Code does not operate on a stand-alone
basis; it does not confer any substantive rights beyond what is provided for in a plan. See In re
WorldCom, Inc., 2009 WL 2959457, at *7 (citation omitted); Vill. of Rosemont v. Jaffe, 482 F.3d
at 935 (citation omitted). Here, the Plan Administrator concedes that the Plan does not expressly
authorize LBHI to issue Substituted Preferred Stock under the Pre-Effective Date Charter;
notwithstanding, it emphasizes that the Plan does not expressly prohibit such action either.47
Since the Plan does not explicitly bar LBHI from retroactively issuing preferred stock under its
Pre-Effective Date Charter as though such shares had been issued on the Petition Date, the Plan
Administrator asserts that it has the authority to issue such stock pursuant to its broad mandate
under section 6.1(b) of the Plan. The Court disagrees with the Plan Administrator’s
interpretation of section 6.1(b) of the Plan.
Section 6.1(b) sets out the authority of the Plan Administrator to act on behalf of the
Debtors and “to carry out and implement all provisions of the Plan, including, without
limitation, to . . . exercise its reasonable business judgment to direct and control the wind down .
. . of the Debtors . . . as necessary to maximize Distributions to holders of Allowed Claim [and]
perform other duties and functions that are consistent with the implementation of the Plan.” Plan
§ 6.1(b)(iii) and (xiv) (emphasis added). The plain language of section 6.1(b) reflects that the
Plan Administrator’s authority is tethered to and must be consistent with other provisions of the
Plan. Section 6.1(b)(iii) does not, as the Plan Administrator suggests, confer authority on the
Plan Administrator to fulfill its duty to maximize distributions to holders of allowed claims under
the Plan by any means possible; instead, the Plan Administrator is required to operate within the
confines of the Plan. That the Plan does not expressly prohibit the Plan Administrator from
47 	See Reply ¶ 33.
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 15 of 18

14
issuing stock pursuant to LBHI’s Pre-Effective Date Charter is unsurprising and of no
consequence; it would indeed be impossible to include in a plan an exhaustive list of all
“prohibited” actions.
While issuing preferred stock under the Pre-Effective Date Charter is indeed not
explicitly prohibited by the Plan, the Court finds that such an action would contravene core
provisions of the Plan both as written and as implemented. First, the Pre-Effective Date Charter
was amended and restated in its entirety by the Amended Charter. Even if the Pre-Effective Date
Charter was only amended to the extent necessary to carry out the provisions of the Plan, as the
Plan Administrator contends,48 it nonetheless specifically prohibits LBHI from issuing new, non-
voting stock to any party other than to the Plan Trust. The Amended By-Laws also prohibit
LBHI from issuing new, non-voting stock. Although the Plan Administrator contends that it
does not seek to issue the Substituted Preferred Stock pursuant to the Amended Charter, and,
therefore, the prohibitions against the issuance of new securities under the Plan, the Amended
Charter, and the Bankruptcy Code are not implicated,49 the Plan Administrator ignores the
incontrovertible fact that the Plan incorporates the terms of the Amended Charter and the
Amended By-Laws and nullifies the Pre-Effective Date Charter. The Pre-Effective Date Charter
cannot selectively be brought back to life. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plan
Administrator does not have the power to issue Substituted Preferred Stock pursuant to section
6.1(b) the Plan and, therefore, it declines to grant the Motion pursuant to section 1142(b) of the
Bankruptcy Code.
The Plan Administrator also asserts that Court has authority to grant the Motion pursuant
to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court disagrees. Section 105(a) grants a court
48 	See Reply ¶ 23.
49 	See Reply ¶¶ 21-25.
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 16 of 18

15
broad power to “issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry
out the provisions of [the Bankruptcy Code].” 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). However, section 105(a)
does not operate on a stand-alone basis; it does not authorize a court to create substantive rights
that are otherwise unavailable under applicable law. See In re Dairy Mart Convenience Stores,
Inc., 351 F.3d at 92 (citing United States v. Sutton, 786 F.2d 1305, 1308 (5th Cir. 1986)). The
Plan Administrator moves pursuant to section 105(a) of the Code, but it has cited to no other
applicable law that provides authority for LBHI to issue Substituted Preferred Stock. Instead, the
Plan Administrator merely asserts that issuance of the Substituted Preferred Stock “may increase
the value of the Chapter 11 Estates, without adversely affecting any creditor of the Chapter 11
Estates (in its capacity as such), and should be approved.”50 Notwithstanding the Plan
Administrator’s laudable goal of increasing value, a general bankruptcy concept or objective is
insufficient to provide a basis on which this Court can grant the Motion pursuant to section
105(a); rather, “an exercise of section 105 power [must] be tied to another Bankruptcy Code
section.” In re Dairy Mart Convenience Stores, Inc., 351 F.3d at 92 (citation omitted) (“The
equitable power conferred on the bankruptcy court by section 105(a) is the power to exercise
equity in carrying out the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, rather than to further the purposes
of the Code generally, or otherwise to do the right thing.”). The Court has not been provided
with any provision of the Code which supports the relief requested by LBHI; accordingly, the
Court declines to grant the Motion pursuant to section 105(a).
50 	Motion ¶ 25.
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 17 of 18

16
By their objections, the Objecting Parties have also raised the issues of (i) whether the
Partnership Agreements were executory contracts that were rejected; (ii) whether any issuance of
Substituted Preferred Stock would comport with U.S. securities laws and Delaware corporate
law; and (iii) whether the Motion seeks a modification of the Plan and the Confirmation Order.
Because the Court has determined that the Plan Administrator is not authorized to issue
Substituted Preferred Stock, the Court declines to address these issues.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 11, 2018
New York, New York
/S/ Shelley C. Chapman
HONORABLE SHELLEY C. CHAPMAN
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
08-13555-mg Doc 58884 Filed 10/11/18 Entered 10/11/18 14:43:22 Main Document
Pg 18 of 18