Lehman Minibond Holders Appeal Judge’s Ruling Affecting Their Recovery

Lehman Minibond Holders Appeal Judge’s Ruling Affecting Their Recovery
By Linda Sandler and David McLaughlin - Apr 29, 2011 12:53 AM GMT+0800

A group of investors in Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEHMQ) minibonds appealed a judge’s decision to let the defunct firm settle derivatives transactions in a way that affected their pursuit of getting more money for the bonds.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck this month approved Lehman’s request to make the change, defeating an objection from Asian investors who bought Lehman structured notes known as minibonds. Ka Kin Wong and nine other investors said today in a filing that they appealed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan on behalf of a trust administered by HSBC Holdings Plc and themselves, “as well as all others similarly situated.”

About 43,000 Hong Kong investors bought an estimated $1.8 billion of the minibonds from various sellers before New York- based Lehman filed for bankruptcy in 2008. Investors protested almost daily outside bank branches in Hong Kong, banging cymbals and blaring pre-recorded statements from bullhorns after they were offered repayments of at least 60 cents on the dollar in 2009.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the receiver handling the minibond transactions, said on March 27 that the repayment offer was boosted so some minibond holders may receive 70 percent to 93 percent of their money back. Some investors want all their money refunded.

The case is In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08-13555, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporters on this story: Linda Sandler in New York at lsandler@bloomberg.net. David McLaughlin in New York at dmclaughlin9@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Pickering at jpickering@bloomberg.net

致終審法院首席大法官馬道立的信--抗議法庭濫發禁制令‏

致終審法院首席大法官 馬道立台鑑，

尊貴的馬法官閣下，我們作為星斗市民，受到大銀行、大財團的欺壓，有苦難申，有口難言，情況之艱難困頓，各位尊貴的法官大人，若有留意新聞，相信亦知大慨。由於我們無錢無支援同銀行進行昂貴的法律訴訟，只能被迫接受不公平、不自願、不全面的所謂解決方案。苦主兩年半以來堅持合法的示威請願抗爭，不單是為自已討回公道，亦是希望社會的公義得以申張，令同類事件不再發生。

眾所周知，政府(證監及金管局負責調查)明明有十六間銀行的調查報告在手，因為偏幫銀行的利益而不肯公開。雷曼事件中涉及欺詐與失實陳述詐騙個案數以萬計，政府至今只曾檢控兩件案件，其中之一還是故意選擇證據不足的案件，任令其失敗告終。政府故意偏幫銀行的種種手段，雷曼苦主焉會不知？焉能不憤怒？司法公義對苦主而言早就已經對權勢傾斜。

但苦主依然堅持守法，只在法律容許的申訴途徑下作合法抗爭。兩年半以來苦主的所有示威遊行都在警方的監視與協助下有秩序地進行，並無出現問題。須知和平的示威遊行抗議不單是人權，而且是不公平法制之下，弱勢的一方最後依靠所在。若連示威的人權也失去，社會再無任何公義可言。

我們寄望司法的獨立，法官會公平對待弱者，但最近高院法官連翻草率地批出民事禁制令，對本來已被不公平打壓欺凌的苦主，實在是落井下石，我們深感不平、無奈與忿忿不平。

銀行兩度以要進行騷擾(Nuisance)的侵權訴訟為理由，向高院單方面申請臨事禁令，禁止多名苦主進行示威行動，禁制令的內容空泛而不具體，為免觸犯蔑視法庭，苦主被迫要馬上停止行使示威的人權。最近，美孚業主的示威活動亦面臨同一竟況，這已不單是雷曼苦主的一已問題，而是香港市民的示威權利被濫用的司法程序所無理剝奪的公義問題。

人權的損失，是無法補償的事情。法庭不應在只聽一面之詞的情況下便批出禁令，雷曼苦主的示威 (近期美孚業主面臨相同情況) 一直在警方的監視下進行，違法之事根本不曾發生。既然所有苦主都是在合法的情況下行使人權，法官不應在只有單方面指控的情況下先停止了公民的人權權利。

就算接納銀行有可以訴訟的理由，亦只應先儘快安排雙方到庭，聆聽雙方的故事，對事件及情況加以了解，然後才在人權與私人權利平衡照顧的情況下批出禁令，而不是先批全面的禁令，後因司法程序的拖延而任令公民的人權被無法補償地被剝奪。

銀行自稱被民事侵權，但法律應否容許民事權利隨便凌駕於人權之上？

銀行或財團近來多次以騷擾(Nuisance)的侵權訴訟為理由，向高院單方面申請臨事禁令事件，顯示銀行或財團利用有錢請頂級律師進行訴訟的優勢，濫用司法程序，侵害市民的基本示威權利。按《人權法》第17條，人權是優先於其他人的私人權利，而且對任何人權的限制是以「必要」(necessary) 為前題。

現時法庭輕率地容許先禁制，後訴訟的安排，是不公平及有害人權尊嚴的。

我們要求作為司法之首的閣下正視問題的嚴重性。請馬法官閣下安排時間與苦主直接討論示威的人權如何可以受保障的問題。同時，請 馬法官將我們的意見轉達給所有高院法官，希望法官在批準任何影響人權的法令之時，能加倍小心謹慎。

雷曼苦主大聯盟

2011年4月29日

Reference:

HONG KONG BILL OF RIGHTS ORDINANCE, CAP. 383

Article 17

Right of peaceful assembly Right of peaceful assembly

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed
on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

[cf. ICCPR Art. 21]

和平集會之權利，應予確認。除依法律之規定，且為民主社會維護國家安全或公共安甯、公共秩序、維持公共生或風化、或保障他人權利自由所必要者外，不得限制此種權利之行使。

民事權益不應凌駕人權

資本家利用財勢作騷擾式訴訟，變相打壓弱者權益，那不是新鮮事情，可說從來就是如此。只是火不燒到自己、一直盲目崇拜英式法治的人不知批判、不懂抗爭；連深懂馬克思理論的革命家雄仔也樂此不疲，街頭籌款不是用作服務小市民，而是拿去打官司，為這個不公義的司法制度塗脂抹粉，間接增加其認受性，惡果遲早自嘗。

喜歡胡亂衝入私人地方或在私人地方之外搞示威行為藝術的雄仔和社民連新星，由於已經給人「點相」，風光日子不會長久。大財團正利用司法程序打壓示威活動——美孚多名業主被控民事侵權，指他們在3 月和4 月期間，多次擅自進入地盤和阻止負責工程的公司的工人和車輛進入地盤；申請人要求法庭頒發禁制令，禁止示威者再次非法入侵地盤和地盤通道。

以同一法律依據，港鐵可以禁制雄仔等人再次進入港鐵範圍之內貼標語做秀，因為這是民事侵權的騷擾性行為（Nuisance）。周大福（與新世界有關）也可以申請禁制令，禁制雄仔等人再到門外搭建阻擋陽光空氣的布幕、用大聲公呼籲途人不要入內光顧，或是組織業主作假光顧（已經公開在網上組織這些行動）之類的行為。

資本家以錢玩法治

財雄勢大的新世界集團可輕易動用千萬元計的金錢與社運人士玩司法遊戲，這種以本傷人的手段完全合法，也符合我們這個包括革命家也自豪崇拜的獨立司法遊戲制度。

如果大家對法治新聞有多點留意，這個資本家利用財勢玩司法遊戲、打壓人權的伎倆，早已啟動，而且過程比今次美孚官司更為野蠻霸道。

美孚業主闖入地盤，以行動阻止工程進行，彰彰在目，工程確實被迫延誤，工程公司還有可訴訟的情由；一星期前發訴狀，本星期五在高院聆訊，爭辯臨時禁制令應否頒下，還有時間準備爭辯。資本家根本就可以直接申請臨時禁制令，在雄仔等人做秀之前阻止他們示威。不必輕視這個可能，這並不是假設，而是已經發生的事，只是火沒有燒到自己之時，正義的朋友就不加理會而已。

上星期，創興銀行在高院取得臨時禁制令，禁止兩名苦主在銀行外作示威活動。劉女士購買雷曼掛票據損失百萬，銀行只肯賠五十萬元的所謂特惠金。她多方申訴無效，自己一人多次在旺角分行門外披麻戴孝，捧先夫墓碑照片，並以「大聲公」、打鑼打鼓和撒溪錢抗議，聲言要取回先夫遺產。另一苦主使用行為藝術，不斷刁難銀行職員，以千元紙幣要求存入一至二角。

這些行為，還不是出自模仿雄仔或近期八十後的行為藝術示威模式？結果法官頒下了禁令，禁止兩名苦主繼續滋擾銀行，不得在銀行五十米範圍內出現。

五十米是多遠？可以是去了油麻地，什麼示威權也沒有了；這件官司新聞性很少，所以沒人理會。今天，新世界大玩法律遊戲，豈是偶然？建制包括政府自然會互通消息，案例一開，高院法官亦只是按先例辦事，你說危機有多大？這還不是最過分的。

上月底，雷曼苦主因為不滿銀行的九成賠償方案，開始天天在中銀總行門外示威，中銀成功申請單方面的臨時禁制令。

禁制令是單方面申請，理由是示威構成民事的騷擾（Nuisance） ，三名事主未有機會抗辯，已先被禁止在中銀總行之外示威一個星期。4 月8 日，苦主出庭表示要抗辯，也準備了一些文件；但法官說中銀一方未有機會閱讀被告一方的文件，案件要延期聆訊。三名示威者的示威權，就這樣莫名其妙遭剝奪到今天。

判決違反人權公約

筆者最大的疑惑是，為何香港的尊貴法官的人權意識這樣低下？就算在我們的私有產權應受保護的原則之下，資本家銀行的物業權使用不應受到無理滋擾，但普通的民事私人權益並不能凌駕在公民的人權權益之上，法官隨意批出臨時禁制令，是先侵犯公民的人權，再保護私有產權的利益，這是不能接受的，亦是違反所有人權公約的精神的。先禁制，後審理的做法，是不可能隨意進行的，但在香港事實上發生了。

據知，雷曼苦主也第一時間接觸泛民的議員，要求協助，他們也表現熱心，是熱心介紹律師，但收費並不便宜。有律師肯為人權原則而義助嗎？自然沒有。

筆者的意見很簡單，法律只是反映管治階級的意志和利益，不是公義。法官變得更偏幫建制，是馬道立這位堅定站在高牆一方的司法之首上場之後的必然發展。

小市民與其花錢陪玩，不如以游擊戰的方法避其鋒，轉而攻其弱點。

大家近來行經中銀總行，一定還會見到數十苦主示威，有沒有記者在場，他們也天天堅持進行。這也是筆者說他們之所以抗爭有成，得到九成賠償的原因；只要他們堅持，必定會得到百分百加利息的合理結果。

王岸然

證監會六月敲定新總裁

證監會六月敲定新總裁 海外候選人佔多數

證監會行政總裁韋奕禮離任在即，港府正積極物色接班人選。消息透露，招聘證監會行政總裁的首輪面試已展開，有十多人角逐總裁寶座，當中大部分為「海外」精英，「本地薑」數目甚少，而盛傳是下任總裁熱門人選的現任證監會副行政總裁張灼華，亦有份競逐總裁之位。據悉，遴選委員會期望下月展開最終面試，六月敲定新任總裁人選。

自從韋奕禮突然宣布提早三個月掛冠離場，外界即不斷「估領袖」，推測誰是證監會新任總裁。據了解，有份初步競逐總裁職位的人選約有十多人，當中過半數為海外精英，有來自法律界、會計界及投資銀行，亦不乏海外監管機構的現任及前任要員，但暫未見到有來自內地的「海歸」精英。

「本地薑」張灼華熱門

不過，有了解高級行政人員招聘程序的人士指出，未有在首輪面試現身的人選，不一定無緣角逐，因獵頭公司如遇到適合人選，即使首輪面試已展開，仍會中途推舉，據悉港交所(388)行政總裁李小加當年亦是在遴選程序後期始現身。因此，暫不能完全排除最終會否有「海歸」精英加入競逐行列。

至於「港產」精英，據悉有份角逐的人數不多，張灼華是候選人之一。張灼華○一年加入證監會，可說是該會資歷最深厚的董事級人馬，亦為現任證監會主席方正愛將，有傳方正一直想提攜張灼華「更上一層」。再者，有傳部分港府中人希望找個「中國人」擔任證監會行政總裁，是以韋奕禮宣告請辭後，外界即盛傳她是熱門接棒人。

證券及基金業界對於張灼華的處事作風，好壞參半，而她在雷曼兄弟倒閉事件上的處理方法，或會為她接掌證監會總裁職務增添暗湧。

據悉張灼華當年主管的產品部，有份參與雷曼迷債的審批，而雷曼倒閉時，當時署任總裁職務的張灼華，因改變一貫凍結證券行資產的常規，差點令本港陷入結算危機。

有接近港府消息人士稱，當局揀選證監會總裁並沒有「地域」喜好，只求優秀人才。但不少市場人士認為，證監會總裁如能由外國人擔任會較佳，因外國人在港的人事「包袱」較細，調查上市公司及財團時，不用太多。記者姜靜嫻

Another case of HK court abuses of " Human right to protest" for protecting HK banks

Losing investors told to stop beating gongs outside bank by HK court in abuse of Human right of protest. For Minibonds saga, many old people died of heart failure due to misselling of Minibonds products and the cover up of banks' crimes by HK government.

A court yesterday ordered two unhappy investors, who protested against their financial losses by throwing "hell money" and loudly hitting gongs outside a bank, to stop the noise and behave.

The Court of First Instance granted an interim injunction to Chong Hing Bank after it successfully argued that the acts of Lau Pik-Wan and Mak Wai-sing were illegal and a nuisance.

The noise made by the hitting of the gongs was so loud that it hurt the ears of bank staff. A bank officer measured it at 142 decibels with an iPhone application that warned: "Terrible. Don't stay there."

The court heard that Lau, who was paid HK$500,000 under a settlement agreement for her HK$1 million investment in structured products, several times threw "hell money", hit gongs and worshipped her dead husband at the bank branches in Central and Mong Kok in March. The judge ordered Lau and Mak, who was absent, to halt their unlawful protest within 50 metres of the bank's branches. He said their acts damaged the bank's reputation, and the two should pursue their claims through regular channels.

The two lost money as a result of the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Lawyers for the bank said its employees also suffered financial losses because a customer who had wanted to deposit HK$1 million was scared away when he saw the "hell money" and thought that inauspicious.

In her emotional appeal to Mr Justice Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor, Lau fell to her knees and said: "Please give me a place to vent my emotion and rally support from the public.

"My husband [deceased] kept asking me to fight for the money," she said, wailing. "He asked me to jump off the building if I cannot get the money back.

"You impose a death penalty on me if I'm not allowed to claim the money - it was earned by the blood and sweat of my husband."

The judge responded: "Please stand up. I can't take [your kneeling down]."

He added: "You did not commit murder. I can't impose a death penalty."

At one point, the woman seemingly fainted and paramedics were called, but she didn't need treatment.

HK Lehman minibond resolution may be approved despite bond-holder dissent

Published online only

Author: Viren Vaghela

Source: Asia Risk | 11 Apr 2011

Categories: Counterparty Credit Risk

Topics: Lehman Brothers, Asia, Hong Kong, HSBC, Allen & Overy, Minibonds
p10-lehman-jpg

Despite objections submitted to the US bankruptcy court from the holders of Lehman Brothers minibonds, the latest resolution effort to reach settlement on the sale of credit-linked notes to retail investors in Hong Kong may still be approved, as the 75% threshold required will predominantly consist of the banks themselves, who agreed to repurchase many of the so-called bonds, say lawyers.

On April 5, minibond holders applied to the Southern District of New York bankruptcy court requesting it not make an order that would allow collateral to be released under a derivatives procedures order (DPO). These holders of credit-linked notes, dubbed ‘minibonds', are fearful their rights to further litigate would be compromised if the bankruptcy court agrees to the resolution. They are still seeking the full return of their investments, despite distributing banks sweetening their offer of compensation in late March.

Related articles

StanChart to repurchase HK$1.48bn of Lehman ELNs; regulatory probe continues
Lehman opts to settle over Dante flip-clause transactions
Hong Kong structured product providers warm to ‘cooling off’ period
HK structured product providers warm to 'cooling off' period

But lawyers at Allen & Overy (A&O), which advises PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), one of Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy trustees, believe this latest resolution from banks and trustees will receive approval as part of a settlement agreement put forward on March 27 by the 16 distributing banks in Hong Kong. This agreement would result in more than 65% of outstanding minibond holders receiving back at least 80% of their collateral, according to PWC. The resolution is contingent on approval from the US bankruptcy court, and at least 75% of minibond holders in each eligible series approving the resolution.

"In July 2009, the 16 Hong Kong banks that distributed the minibonds to the retail investors made an offer to eligible customers to buy back the minibonds. The vast majority of these eligible customers accepted the buyback offer, resulting in the distributing banks owning a significant percentage of the outstanding minibonds," says David Kidd, head of A&O's Asia-Pacific restructuring practice in Hong Kong. "The distributing banks have indicated... that they intend to vote in favour of the extraordinary resolution."

Eligible minibond holders that settled in 2009 will also see a higher amount of their original investment returned to them, as the banks have agreed to make ex-gratia payments to all eligible individuals.

Some minibond holders, however, believe they should receive their entire investment back, and many have protested with placards outside Hong Kong bank office buildings since the demise of Lehman Bothers in 2008.

One of the reasons for this could be the existence of the ‘flip clause' in many of the minibond contracts. This affects the priority of claims against the underlying collateral underpinning the minibonds structure. The collateral that underpins each series consist of securities issued under the Dante Finance Limited secured note programme.

In normal circumstances, Lehman Brothers Special Financing (LBSF), the counterparty of the underlying notes, has priority to the underlying collateral underpinning the minibond structure. However, the minibond structure also provides that the priority claim flips to the minibond note holders - meaning the minibond note holders have a claim to the underlying collateral - in the event of default caused by LBSF, which occurred when it filed for bankruptcy.

As Lehman Brothers did in fact default, the flip clause should have been triggered in favour of the minibond holders. The English courts, which govern the swap contracts, recognise the validity of the flip clause as a matter of English law. However, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in the US, and the US courts administering the bankruptcy do not recognise the flip clause under US bankruptcy law.

It is this judicial stalemate which has restricted the options available to the receiver, PWC. The prospect of pursuing the case through the UK and US courts for a determination on the status of the collateral and whether or not it is distributable could prove costly and time-consuming.

According to lawyers at A&O, the next Lehman Brothers omnibus hearing is scheduled for April 13 in New York, but parties are still awaiting confirmation whether the minibond matter will be heard at that time.

"The receivers have received approximately 200 calls from noteholders since the announcement of the conditional settlement agreement with Lehman Brothers on March 27, 2011. To date, feedback has been generally positive as to the outcome created from the unwinding of the collateral as well as the release and the ex-gratia payment," says a spokesperson at PWC.

According to a statement by the banks, approximately 97% of total minibond investors who purchased relevant minibonds from the distributing banks have already received offers to repurchase their minibonds, and 96% in total have accepted these offers, either under the repurchase scheme or under other terms.

When asked about the chances of the resolution receiving approval in the US bankruptcy court, US lawyers Chadbourne & Parke, which represents the US trustee HSBC, decline to comment.

Read more: http://www.risk.net/asia-risk/news/2042417/hk-lehman-minibond-resolution-approved-despite-bond-holder-dissent#ixzz1K3nr0cLz
Risk.net - Financial risk management news and analysis. Take a 1 month free trial to Risk now!

John Tsang Chun-wah Raymond Tam Chi-yuen

John Tsang Chun-wah, the financial secretary, joined the government in 1982 and has enjoyed “helicopter” (accelerated) promotion throughout his career, commonly attributed in no small extent to his close connection with Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, whom he met while studying at Harvard.

Another even more glaring example of a meteoric ascent is Raymond Tam Chi-yuen, currently director of the Chief Executive’s Office, a position pitched at D8 or permanent secretary level. Tam was promoted to staff grade “B”, a D3 rank, in the Administrative Service as recently as 2007. Thanks to the expansion of the ministerial system in 2008, he was appointed undersecretary for constitutional and mainland affairs that year, and was promoted to head up the Chief Executive’s Office the next year.

There can be nothing but praise for their willingness to leap into the unknown and take up the challenge of political appointment. Yet, judging by the unprecedented outcry against this year’s budget, and the poor ratings of the government as a whole and the chief executive personally, there is scant evidence that these fast-tracked civil servants turned political appointees are living up to the community’s expectations. And HK government is still unable to release all the reports of SFC and HKMA about HK banks misselling frauds.

US State Department

Please note that the following is mis-understood by your department :

The Basic Law does not protect HK people in Human right listed in United Nations as Wong Yan-lung has done nothing to change HK laws to fit Human right.

Courts are not independent as judges are controlled by CEO of HK and will be replaced very soon with those not independent and those against Human Right in future.

Lawyers only work for rich with worth of USD10 million or more to get justice in courts.

Hong Kong’s economic strengths, including a sound banking system that pretends to follow Swiss banking system for private investors but without following banking regulations and is keen to cheat on HK people to protect full profits of the banking system.

Please see the link :

http://minibondsoctaveconstellation.blogspot.com/2011/04/boc-action-threat-to-rights.html

Government
Type: Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China, with its own constitution-like charter (the Basic Law).
Branches: Executive--Administration: Chief Executive selected in March 2007; Executive Council serves in an advisory role for the Chief Executive. Legislative--Legislative Council (LegCo) elected in September 2008. Judicial--Court of Final Appeal is the highest court; there are other lower courts. Subdivisions: Hong Kong, Kowloon, New Territories.
Suffrage: Permanent residents 18 years or over who have lived in Hong Kong for the past 7 years are eligible to vote in certain local elections and for LegCo members.

Economy
GDP (2010): $224.1 billion (at current market prices).
GDP real growth rate (2010): 6.8%.
Per capita GDP (2010): $31,709 (at current market prices).
Natural resources: Deepwater harbor.
Industry: Types--textiles, clothing, electronics, plastics, toys, watches, clocks.
Trade (2010): Exports--$388.6 billion: clothing, electronics, textiles, watches and clocks, office machinery, electrical machinery, telecommunications equipment. Major partners--Mainland China 52.7%, U.S. 11.0%, EU 11.2%, Japan 4.2%. Imports--$431.4 billion: consumer goods, raw materials and semi-manufactures, capital goods, foodstuffs, fuels. Major partners--Mainland China 45.1%, Japan 9.6%, Taiwan 7.6%, Korea 4.8%, U.S. 4.7%.

PEOPLE
Hong Kong's population has increased steadily over the past decade, reaching 7.097 million in 2010. Hong Kong is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, with an overall density of some 6,426 people per square kilometer. Cantonese, the official Chinese dialect in Hong Kong, is spoken by most of the population. English, also an official language, is widely understood and is spoken by more than one-third of the population. Every major religion is practiced freely in Hong Kong. All children are required by law to be in full-time education between the ages of 6 and 15. Starting in 2008, the Hong Kong Government expanded the length of free education it offers from 9 to 12 years. Preschool education for most children begins at age 3. Primary school begins normally at age 6 and lasts for 6 years. At about age 12, children progress to a 3-year course of junior secondary education; at age 15, they can choose to continue with 3-year senior secondary education or to join full-time vocational training. More than 90% of children complete upper secondary education or equivalent vocational education. In 2010, 301,200 students were enrolled in post-secondary education. Over 25.5% of the total population aged 15 and over have attended post-secondary educational institutions.

HISTORY
According to archaeological studies, human activity on Hong Kong dates back over five millennia. Excavated neolithic artifacts suggest an influence from northern Chinese stone-age cultures. The territory was settled by Han Chinese during the seventh century, A.D., evidenced by the discovery of an ancient tomb at Lei Cheung Uk in Kowloon. The first major migration from northern China to Hong Kong occurred during the Sung Dynasty (960-1279). The British East India Company made the first successful sea venture to China in 1699, and Hong Kong's trade with British merchants developed rapidly soon after. After the Chinese defeat in the First Opium War (1839-42), Hong Kong was ceded to Britain in 1842 under the Treaty of Nanking. Britain was granted a perpetual lease on the Kowloon Peninsula under the 1860 Convention of Beijing, which formally ended hostilities in the Second Opium War (1856-58). The United Kingdom, concerned that Hong Kong could not be defended unless surrounding areas also were under British control, executed a 99-year lease of the New Territories in 1898, significantly expanding the size of the Hong Kong colony.

In the late 19th century and early 20th centuries, Hong Kong developed as a warehousing and distribution center for U.K. trade with southern China. After the end of World War II and the communist takeover of Mainland China in 1949, hundreds of thousands of people fled from China to Hong Kong. Hong Kong became an economic success and a manufacturing, commercial, finance, and tourism center. High life expectancy, literacy, per capita income, and other socioeconomic measures attest to Hong Kong's achievements over the last 5 decades.

On July 1, 1997, China resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, ending more than 150 years of British colonial rule. Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China with a high degree of autonomy in all matters except foreign and defense affairs. According to the Sino-British Joint Declaration (1984) and the Basic Law, Hong Kong will retain its political, economic, and judicial systems and unique way of life for 50 years after reversion and will continue to participate in international agreements and organizations under the name, "Hong Kong, China."

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) is headed by Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, who first took office in 2005. Tsang won re-election in 2007, running against Alan Leong Kah-kit, a senior barrister and legislator for the pro-democracy Civic Party. Tsang's current term ends in 2012. The Election Committee that votes on the Chief Executive (CE) is made up of approximately 800 Hong Kong residents from four constituency groups: commercial, industrial, and financial interests; professionals; labor, social services, and religious interests; and the legislature, the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, and the P.R.C. National People's Congress.

In July 2002, the Hong Kong Government implemented the Principal Officials Accountability System, which was designed to make the government more responsive to public concerns. Twelve political appointees, directly responsible to the Chief Executive, run the 12 policy bureaus. Three other senior civil service positions--the Chief Secretary, Financial Secretary, and Justice Secretary--are also filled by political appointments. This system was expanded in 2008 to include one Under Secretary and one Political Assistant position being filled by appointment in each bureau.

Hong Kong remains a free and open society where human rights are respected, courts are independent, and there is well-established respect for the rule of law. However, the right of residents to change their government peacefully is limited by the Basic Law, which provides for the selection of the CE by an 800-person election committee (composed of individuals who are directly elected, indirectly elected, and appointed). The Basic Law provides for the direct election of 30 of the 60 LegCo members. The other 30 seats in the LegCo are elected by 28 functional constituencies (FCs), which represent key economic and social sectors. As of 2008, the 28 FCs represented fewer voters than the electorate in a single geographic constituency. The vast majority of FC voters are represented by the three largest FCs, while the four smallest have fewer than 200 voters. FCs set their own voting rules, with some allowing heads of corporations to vote on behalf of their companies. Persons with interests in more than one sector represented by an FC may be able to cast three or more votes (one in their geographic constituency and one in each FC for which they meet eligibility requirements). In 2007 the CE Election Committee selected incumbent Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, and the P.R.C.'s State Council formally appointed him. In September 2008 voters in six geographic constituencies elected 30 legislators, half of the total LegCo, in elections that were generally free and fair.

In December 2005 the LegCo rejected a Hong Kong Government-proposed package of incremental reforms to the mechanisms for choosing the CE in 2007 and forming the LegCo in 2008. In July 2007, the Hong Kong Government's Commission on Strategic Development issued a Green Paper on Constitutional Development, which set out a myriad of options to reform the CE and LegCo electoral mechanisms, with the "ultimate aim" of universal suffrage as prescribed by the Basic Law.

On December 12, 2007, Chief Executive Donald Tsang submitted a report on the Green Paper to the central government. The report said more than half of local people wanted universal suffrage by 2012, but 2017 might be a more realistic date. In December 2007, the P.R.C. National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) issued a decision on Hong Kong's constitutional development which, while ruling out universal suffrage in 2012, appears to open the way for Hong Kong to achieve full universal suffrage for the CE in 2017, and full universal suffrage for LegCo in 2020. Any amendments to the Basic Law will require approval by the CE, at least two-thirds of LegCo, and then the NPCSC.

In November 2009, the Hong Kong Government began a public consultation for electing the CE and LegCo in 2012. The government has proposed expanding LegCo to 70 seats (five new geographic seats and five seats to be added to the District Councils Functional Constituency) and to expand the Election Committee for the CE to 1,200. In the spring of 2010, after dialogue between Beijing (through the Central Government Liaison Office in Hong Kong), the Hong Kong Government, and some pan-democrats, a compromise was reached. The five new functional constituency seats would be nominated by District Councilors, but elected by all Hong Kong voters not registered to vote in another functional constituency. This package passed the Legislative Council on June 24, 2010 by a vote of 46 to 13. Public concerns over the roadmap, the future of functional constituencies, and post-2012 constitutional development remain unresolved.

Principal Government Officials
Chief Executive--Donald Tsang Yam-kuen
Chief Secretary for Administration--Henry Tang Ying-yen
Financial Secretary--John Tsang Chun-wah
Secretary for Justice--Wong Yan-lung
Secretary for Education--Michael Suen Ming-yeung
Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development--Rita Lau Ng Wai-lan
Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs--Stephen Lam Sui-lung
Secretary for Security--Ambrose Lee Siu-kwong
Secretary for Food and Health--York Chow Yat-ngok
Secretary for the Civil Service--Denise Yue Chung-yee
Secretary for Home Affairs--Tsang Tak-sing
Secretary for Labour and Welfare--Matthew Cheung Kin-chung
Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury--K C Chan (Chan Ka-keung)
Secretary for Development--Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor
Secretary for the Environment--Edward Yau Tang-wah
Secretary for Transport and Housing--Eva Cheng Yu-wah

ECONOMY
Hong Kong is one of the world's most open and dynamic economies. In 2010 Hong Kong’s real economic growth rate rose to 6.8%, recovering from the global financial turmoil. Inflation rose gradually to 2.4% in 2010 from 0.5% in 2009. The government introduced several rounds of measures to forestall the risk of a housing market bubble arising from the low interest rates and ample liquidity in the global financial system.

Hong Kong’s economic strengths, including a sound banking system, virtually no public debt, a strong legal system, ample foreign exchange reserves, and an able and rigorously enforced anti-corruption regime, enable it to quickly respond to changing circumstances. The government promotes measures designed to improve its attractiveness as a commercial and trading center and is continually refining its financial architecture. The government is deepening its economic interaction with the Pearl River Delta in an effort to maintain Hong Kong's position as a gateway to China. These efforts include the conclusion of a free trade agreement with China, known as the “Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement” (CEPA), which applies zero tariffs to all Hong Kong-origin goods, gives preferential treatment in 44 service sectors, and increases the scope for using the Chinese yuan in Hong Kong as a trade settlement currency, in savings deposits, and to purchase RMB (renminbi)-denominated bonds. Hong Kong, along with the Macau SAR, is also participating in a new pan-Pearl River Delta trade bloc with nine Chinese provinces, which aims to lower trade barriers among members, standardize regulations, and improve infrastructure.

Hong Kong’s exports of goods and services rebounded strongly in 2010, by 17.3% and 15.0% respectively in real terms, fueled by quicker than expected recovery of the global economy and a massive Chinese fiscal and monetary stimulus program. The unemployment rate in 2010 dropped to 4.3%, the lowest since the fourth quarter of 2008. The Hong Kong Government predicts GDP growth will reach 4% to 5% in 2011.

U.S. companies have a generally favorable view of Hong Kong's business environment, including its legal system and the free flow of information, low taxation, and infrastructure.

FOREIGN RELATIONS
According to Article 13 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong's foreign relations and defense are the responsibility of China. However, Hong Kong is a customs territory and economic entity separate from the rest of China and is able to enter into international agreements on its own behalf in commercial and economic matters. Hong Kong, independently of China, participates as a full member of numerous international economic organizations including the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC), and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). It is an articulate and effective champion of free markets and the reduction of trade barriers.

U.S.-HONG KONG RELATIONS
U.S. policy toward Hong Kong is stated in the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 and grounded in the determination to promote Hong Kong's prosperity, autonomy, and way of life. The United States maintains substantial economic and political interests in Hong Kong. The U.S. supports Hong Kong's autonomy under the “One Country, Two Systems” framework by concluding and implementing bilateral agreements; promoting trade and investment; broadening law enforcement cooperation; bolstering educational, academic, and cultural links; supporting high-level visits of U.S. officials; and serving the large community of U.S. citizens and visitors.

Hong Kong is active in counterterrorism efforts. Hong Kong has joined the Container Security Initiative and remains an important partner in efforts to eliminate funding for terrorist networks and combat money laundering. Hong Kong participated in the Secure Freight Initiative in a limited capacity from November 2007 to April 2009. Hong Kong has passed legislation designed to bring it into compliance with applicable UN anti-terror resolutions and with most Financial Action Task Force recommendations. In 2010, Hong Kong passed legislation allowing it to adopt the most recent globally recognized standards for exchange of tax information. It has subsequently signed bilateral tax agreements with Brunei, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Liechtenstein, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Austria, and France.

The United States enjoys substantial economic and social ties with Hong Kong. There are some 1,400 U.S. firms, including 817 regional operations (288 regional headquarters and 529 regional offices), and over 60,000 American residents in Hong Kong. According to U.S. Government statistics, U.S. exports to Hong Kong totaled $26.6 billion in 2010. The U.S. trade surplus with Hong Kong was the largest of any U.S. surplus in 2010, owing largely to Hong Kong imports of American aircraft and spacecraft, diamonds, telecommunications equipment, and computer processors. According to Hong Kong statistics, U.S. direct investment in Hong Kong at the end of 2009 totaled about $40.5 billion (2010 figures are not yet available), making the United States one of the largest investors in Hong Kong, along with China, the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Japan, and the Netherlands.

Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy as a separate customs territory, with no changes to borders, staffing, or technology export controls since the 1997 handover. Intellectual property rights (IPR) protection is relatively strong and Hong Kong continues to take steps to improve both its legislation and its enforcement regime. Amendments to improve protections for copyrighted materials were passed in 2007, and additional amendments to protect on-line content are expected in the third quarter of 2011.

The Hong Kong Government maintains three Economic and Trade Offices in the United States. Addresses, telephone numbers, and web sites for these offices are listed below:

1520 - 18th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 331-8947
Fax: (202) 331-8958
Web Site: http://www.hketowashington.gov.hk/dc/index.htm

115 East 54th Street
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 752-3320
Fax: (212) 752-3395
Web Site: http://www.hketony.gov.hk/ny/index.htm

130 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 835-9300
Fax: (415) 421-0646
Web Site: http://www.hketosf.gov.hk/sf/index.htm

Principal U.S. Officials
Consul General--Stephen M. Young
Deputy Principal Officer--Matt J. Matthews

The U.S. Consulate General is located at 26 Garden Road, Hong Kong. Tel: (852) 2523-9011 (general). Fax: (852) 2845-1598 (general); (852) 2147-5790 (consular); (852) 2845-9800 (commercial).

TRAVEL AND BUSINESS INFORMATION
The U.S. Department of State's Consular Information Program advises Americans traveling and residing abroad through Country Specific Information, Travel Alerts, and Travel Warnings. Country Specific Information exists for all countries and includes information on entry and exit requirements, currency regulations, health conditions, safety and security, crime, political disturbances, and the addresses of the U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. Travel Alerts are issued to disseminate information quickly about terrorist threats and other relatively short-term conditions overseas that pose significant risks to the security of American travelers. Travel Warnings are issued when the State Department recommends that Americans avoid travel to a certain country because the situation is dangerous or unstable.

For the latest security information, Americans living and traveling abroad should regularly monitor the Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet web site at http://www.travel.state.gov, where the current Worldwide Caution, Travel Alerts, and Travel Warnings can be found. Consular Affairs Publications, which contain information on obtaining passports and planning a safe trip abroad, are also available at http://www.travel.state.gov. For additional information on international travel, see http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Travel/International.shtml.

The Department of State encourages all U.S. citizens traveling or residing abroad to register via the State Department's travel registration website or at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. Registration will make your presence and whereabouts known in case it is necessary to contact you in an emergency and will enable you to receive up-to-date information on security conditions.

Emergency information concerning Americans traveling abroad may be obtained by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll free in the U.S. and Canada or the regular toll line 1-202-501-4444 for callers outside the U.S. and Canada.

The National Passport Information Center (NPIC) is the U.S. Department of State's single, centralized public contact center for U.S. passport information. Telephone: 1-877-4-USA-PPT (1-877-487-2778); TDD/TTY: 1-888-874-7793. Passport information is available 24 hours, 7 days a week. You may speak with a representative Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., Eastern Time, excluding federal holidays.

Travelers can check the latest health information with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia. A hotline at 800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) and a web site at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/default.aspx give the most recent health advisories, immunization recommendations or requirements, and advice on food and drinking water safety for regions and countries. The CDC publication "Health Information for International Travel" can be found at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/contentYellowBook.aspx.

Further Electronic Information
Department of State Web Site. Available on the Internet at http://www.state.gov, the Department of State web site provides timely, global access to official U.S. foreign policy information, including Background Notes and daily press briefings along with the directory of key officers of Foreign Service posts and more. The Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) provides security information and regional news that impact U.S. companies working abroad through its website http://www.osac.gov

Export.gov provides a portal to all export-related assistance and market information offered by the federal government and provides trade leads, free export counseling, help with the export process, and more.

BOC action threat to rights

BOC action threat to rights

From South China Morning Post (HK)

I am not a victim of the Lehman Brothers' toxic products debacle, but I read with alarm your report ("Lehman victims oppose BOC injunction", April 9) of the Bank of China's legal action against three protesters who have been demonstrating outside the bank's headquarters in Central.

My consternation over the recent turn of events stems from two sources.

First, I am concerned about the implications of the bank's decision on the freedom of Hong Kong residents to assemble and air their grievances in public.

Bearing in mind that the exercise of such freedoms is an established way of life in the city and guaranteed under the Basic Law, any injunction sought by the Bank of China and granted by the courts could be construed as a direct assault on our fundamental rights.

Second, the judicial system in my view does not, and cannot, provide a fair and level playing field for the contending parties to settle their disputes.

The bank is clearly in a much stronger financial position to engage in a prolonged legal battle against three individuals who have already lost a significant portion of their life savings as a result of the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Far from protecting the rights of citizens, therefore, the law being applied in this instance is in danger of being misused as an instrument of oppression, whereby powerful vested interests in our society are allowed to stifle the weaker voices of dissent in the community.

Liu Ting, Ho Man Tin

CCB審判載晶

CCB審判載晶4月13日是由雙方律師結案陳詞，大聯盟會有人去聽審判結果

中銀及律師亂指ELI產品是高風險ELN(票據), 相近高風險迷債, 所以証人是知高風險產品, 其實ELI是借錢銀行買股票, 銀行要還利息和現金, 所以辯方的話是全錯的, 詐欺法庭及記者

而且律師指非保本產品是四級高風險, 其實債券也是一級低風險非保本銀行的產品, 而律師照舊詐欺法庭

另外警方很多人知有過千宗相同誤導證據, 律師竟說只是一單, 所以辯方是講真話, 而所以兩個證人是說謊, 當全法庭的人是豬

証人何生指律師七次問相同問題, 以令他答錯, 而控方律師也用証人的話"你只可以說我知識不多, 但不能說我說謊" 來指辯方問題別有用心

兩證人都指載晶的言論誤導他們不看說明書而錯誤簽了, 並不是說自己有錯

http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/hanhoco/article?mid=8403http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Lehman Judge Overrules Objection From Asian Minibond Holders on Settlement

Lehman Judge Overrules Objection From Asian Minibond Holders on Settlement
By David McLaughlin and Linda Sandler - Apr 13, 2011 11:56 PM GMT+0800

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEHMQ) won approval for a change in settling derivative transactions, defeating an objection from Asian investors who bought Lehman structured notes known as minibonds.

Hong Kong holders of $1.5 billion of the minibonds accused Lehman of trying to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from the minibond program, saying the procedures interfered with their dispute against Lehman and HSBC Holdings Plc, according to court documents.

About 43,000 Hong Kong investors bought an estimated $1.8 billion of the minibonds that were sold by lenders before New York-based Lehman filed for bankruptcy in 2008. Investors protested almost daily outside bank branches in Hong Kong, banging cymbals and blaring pre-recorded statements from bullhorns after they were offered repayments of at least 60 cents on the dollar in 2009.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC, Lehman’s receiver, said on March 27 the repayment offer was boosted so some minibond holders may receive 70 percent to 93 percent of their money back. Some investors want all their money refunded.

The case is In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08-13555, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporters on this story: Linda Sandler in New York at lsandler@bloomberg.net; David McLaughlin in New York at dmclaughlin9@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Pickering at jpickering@bloomberg.net

IMF chief sees larger state role in economy

To : IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn,
email : publicaffairs@imf.org

"International Monetary Fund managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn,
as he has been leading the fund through a fundamental rethinking of its economic theory. In recent remarks, he has provided a broad summary of the conclusions: State regulation of markets needs to be more extensive." But HK government is doing nothing to correct the regulations as requested by our party New People party for new Bank regulator but still keeps on covering up banks' mis-selling frauds. Bank of China HK is also using the very expensive lawyers of HK that used to protect the rich to stop demonstrations of Minibonds victims disregard Human Right of people to protest.

_________________________________________________________________________________


By Howard Schneider, Monday, April 11, 6:53 PM

Since the Wall Street bank Lehman Brothers failed more than two years ago, bringing the global economy to the brink of collapse, countries have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up their markets, intensified regulation of financial companies and deepened government involvement in the economy.

For International Monetary Fund managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the job is only half done, as he has been leading the fund through a fundamental rethinking of its economic theory. In recent remarks, he has provided a broad summary of the conclusions: State regulation of markets needs to be more extensive; global policies need to create a more even distribution of income; central banks need to do more to prevent lending and asset prices from expanding too fast.

“The pendulum will swing from the market to the state,” Strauss-Kahn said in an address at George Washington University last week. “Globalization has delivered a lot . . . but it also has a dark side, a large and growing chasm between the rich and the poor. Clearly we need a new form of globalization” to prevent the “invisible hand” of loosely regulated markets from becoming “an invisible fist.”

The effort to recast global economics will be a focus of IMF meetings this week. Finance ministers from the Group of Twenty major economies are expected to agree on the yardsticks the fund will use to judge countries and to flag instances when a nation might be pursuing economic policies that aren’t in the world’s best interest.

The undertaking has been encouraged by the United States as a way to push China, for example, to allow the value of its currency to rise and fall freely like that of the dollar or euro. But, in its broadest form, the effort would put the IMF in the role of a sort of global traffic cop — giving the go-ahead to fiscal policies and growth patterns that are deemed sound while warning countries when they’re acting in an unacceptable fashion.

The fund has no authority to enforce its conclusions, and Strauss-Kahn said in a recent interview that development of the guidelines has been fraught with posturing as nations argue for terms most advantageous to them. But he said he remains optimistic that it will produce new tools for guiding the world’s major economies.

“We have a chance at something that will really have an influence on policymakers,” Strauss-Kahn said. “Is the IMF able to have a global picture and figure out with various tools what kind of policies should be put in place in different countries — those that have to reduce a surplus, those that have to reduce a deficit? Yes, we are able to do that.”

The contours of the IMF debate over economic theory have become clear over the past year in discussions among the IMF staff and board, in seminars sponsored by the fund with top economists, and in the work the agency has presented to the G-20. The growing income gap between the rich and poor is no longer seen by many inside the IMF as a by-product of economic boom times but a cause of crisis, as poor and middle-income families turn to borrowed money to make up for stagnant incomes.

Government action to address dramatic capital flows — like the waves of capital washing into places such as Brazil and Indonesia — is no longer seen as unjustified interference. Instead, if those measures are pursued properly, they are considered a way of preventing bubble economies from inflating and then crashing.

But for the tens of thousands of union and other protesters in Europe over the weekend, there has been little solace in the IMF’s stepped-up rhetoric about protecting social safety nets. Several European nations have been cutting social programs and raising taxes partly as the result of negotiations with the IMF over bailout loans.

Strauss-Kahn continues to push for major new financial sector taxes, although that issue has never gained broad support. He has been frustrated as well in advocating an international program to ensure that the most globally connected financial firms can be put out of business if needed without costing taxpayers. That would require a deeper level of cooperation among nations than exists.

But the discussion has pushed the fund into new territory and invigorated an organization that before the crisis was declining in importance. The initiatives include the G-20 effort to develop guidelines for determining whether economies are growing too fast, collecting too much debt or stockpiling too much through trade surpluses.

The fund is helping Europe navigate problems in several of the nations that use the euro and counseling developing nations about how to best to oversee the flow of international money into and out of their economies. The IMF has also revised its long-standing opposition to “capital controls“ and researching ways that nations could control risky behavior by financial firms.

Strauss-Kahn — who is in the fourth year of a five-year term at the IMF and is being mentioned as a possible Socialist Party candidate in upcoming French presidential elections — said any suggestion that the fund is pushing for too much government is off the mark. The financial crisis is evidence, he said.

“There is a long way to go before all that has been badly done by the lack of supervision of the market will be overcome,” he said. “The whole public sphere has to do more.”

schneiderh@washpost.com

UBS fined over Lehman misselling

Walls Street’s brokerage regulator has ordered UBS to pay $10.75 (SFr9.69 million) to settle charges it misled customers about the risk of owning Lehman Brothers debt.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Finra) said the Swiss bank agreed to pay a $2.5 million fine and reimburse its customers $8.25 million. UBS did not admit or deny any wrongdoing in agreeing to settle.

Finra said UBS and its brokers failed between March and June 2008 to emphasise that payment was not guaranteed on a certain category of Lehman’s debt, sold as “100% principal-protection notes”.

UBS sold $16.2 million of these notes in the three-month period from mid March 2008, after Bear Stearns was acquired by JP Morgan Chase in a US government-backed rescue, a time of financial turmoil on Wall Street. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt on September 15, 2008.

The notes were sold to 764 unique accounts with “conservative” to “moderate” risk profiles and UBS generated $228,630 in fees and commissions on these sales, Finra said.

Lehman’s bankruptcy, the largest in US history, wiped out the value of the notes and sparked a wave of arbitration claims by investors.

swissinfo.ch and agencies

Lehman's mini-bonds The good inside the bad

http://www.economist.com/node/18486397?story_id=18486397

A settlement in Hong Kong reveals substantial value inside dud securities

Mar 31st 2011 | Hong kong | from the print edition

WILL this be the end of months of protests outside the branches of Hong Kong’s big banks by holders of so-called Lehman mini-bonds? A settlement announced on March 28th provides most of the retail investors in these structured products with a 70-93% recovery rate on their initial investment; an additional payment pushes the recovery range up to 85-96.5%.

In truth the products were neither “mini” nor all that much to do with Lehman. In Hong Kong alone, thousands of residents held the securities. Lehman structured many of the instruments and provided a sophisticated guarantee through a swap, which is why they were dragged into the firm’s bankruptcy, but the underlying assets were mostly collateralised-debt obligations issued by others.

On the surface the settlement sounds pretty good. Back in 2009 Hong Kong’s regulators and 16 banks that marketed the products offered the bondholders 60% of their investment back, and the possibility of a higher repayment based on further recovery, in exchange for title to the bonds. Almost 30,000 customers, with a total of HK$5.5 billion in assets, agreed. That allowed the banks to go after the Lehman estate for access to the assets, which in turn led to this week’s settlement.
Related topics

Hong Kong

The final payout is nowhere near as stingy as had once been feared. Locally the deal is seen as a consequence of shaming the financial institutions which sold the products into coughing up. When the “mini-bonds” stopped paying out, local regulators were deluged with complaints. Just how aggrieved investors had a right to feel is unclear: the products came with thick, and doubtless unread, prospectuses detailing the risks involved. But picket lines, clanging drums and acerbic signs focused the attention of bankers and regulators on the plight of people whose financial expertise amounted to spotting products with higher interest rates than low-yielding bank deposits.

As litigation surrounding the Lehman bankruptcy advanced, the odds against a good outcome for the little guy stacked up. A British court ruling in a related case implied the assets were the property of the bondholders; an American court ruled they were part of the Lehman estate. This kind of mess is for Goliaths, not Davids.

Yet investors may even now have cause for complaint. Just how much value was surrendered to extract the assets from the wreckage of Lehman is not clear, but the amounts are likely to have been large. The size of the payouts suggest that the assets underlying the securities are far from worthless, even if the tumultuous markets and Lehman’s bankruptcy obscured their value at the time. Working out what collateral lies behind the instruments is not easy but they include bonds issued by solid corporate names which did not default; upon maturity, the proceeds from some of these bonds were reinvested in Treasuries. If there was no default, investors might ask why they are not being fully reimbursed.

The mini-bond saga raises wider questions, too. For retail investors in particular, the risks of having securities held by people in one jurisdiction sold by companies operating in another jurisdiction that may have assets in yet another and come under multiple regulators look indefensibly complex to gauge. Yet these sort of structures continue to thrive even now.

The mini-bond recovery rates suggest, too, that other Lehman-linked securities which froze up in the panic of 2008 could yield big returns for investors that were brave enough to pick them up. The crisis was both the revelation of a broken financial system and a panic where prices evaporated because confusion reigned.

苦主心聲 集體郵件 新中銀

收件人:
"律政處司長黃仁龍" , "律政處司長黃仁龍" , "政務司司長唐英年" , "政務司署" , "特首曾蔭權" , "申訴專員公署" , "申訴專員公署" , "警務處處長鄧竟成" , "財政司司長曾俊華" , "財經事務局局長陳家強" , hk.customerresponse@rbs.com, enquiry_csc@bochk.com, 95559@bankcomm.com, info@hkbea.com, its@chiyubank.com, customerservice@chbank.com, cs@citicbankintl.com, ops@dahsing.com.hk, corpcomm.fbhk@fubon.com, enquiry@icbcasia.com, contactus@mevas.com, its@ncb.com.hk, enquiry@publicbank.com.hk, contact@shacombank.com.hk, enquiry@whbhk.com, helpdesk@winglungbank.com, customerservice.cbhk@citi.com, feedback.hk@dbs.com, customer.feedback@sc.com, qad@hangseng.com, "律政處" , "律政處" , "律政處" , "律政處" , "律政處"
副本(CC):
"功組議員何鍾泰" , "功組議員吳靄儀" , "功組議員張國柱" , "功組議員張宇人" , "功組議員張文光" , "功組議員方剛" , "功組議員李國寶" , "功組議員李國麟" , "功組議員李鳳英" , "功組議員林健鋒" , "功組議員林大輝" , "功組議員梁劉柔芬" , "功組議員梁君彥" , "功組議員梁家騮" , "功組議員潘佩璆" , "功組議員石禮謙" , "功組議員葉偉明" , "功組議員葉國謙" , "功組議員詹培忠" , "功組議員謝偉俊" , "功組議員譚偉豪" , "功組議員陳健波" , "功組議員陳茂波" , "功組議員霍震霆" , "功組議員黃定光" , "功組議員黃宜弘" , "功組議員黃容根" , "功組議員劉健儀" , "功組議員劉秀成" , "地區議員何俊仁" , "地區議員余若薇" , "地區議員張學明" , "地區議員李卓人" , "地區議員李慧琼" , "地區議員李永達" , "地區議員李華明" , "地區議員梁國雄" , "地區議員梁家傑" , "地區議員梁美芬" , "地區議員梁耀忠" , "地區議員涂謹申" , "地區議員湯家驊" , "地區議員王國興" , "地區議員甘乃威" , "地區議員葉劉淑儀" , "地區議員譚耀宗" , "地區議員鄭家富" , "地區議員陳偉業" , "地區議員陳克勤" , "地區議員陳淑莊" , "地區議員陳鑑林" , "地區議員馮檢基" , "地區議員黃國健" , "地區議員黃成智" , "地區議員黃毓民" , "地區議員劉慧卿" , "地區議員劉江華" , "立法會主席曾鈺成" , "立法會秘書處" , "中西區區議會議員" , "九龍城區議會議員" , "元朗區議會議員" , "北區區議會議員" , "南區區議會議員" , "大埔區議會議員" , "屯門區議會議員" , "東區區議會議員" , "沙田區議會議員" , "油尖旺區議會議員" , "深水埗區議會議員" , "灣仔區議會議員" , "荃灣區議會議員" , "葵青區議會議員" , "西貢區議會議員" , "觀塘區議會議員" , "離島區議會議員" , "黃大仙區議會議員"
密件(BCC):
hanhoco@yahoo.com
www.lbv.org.hk 苦主心聲 集體郵件
抄送: 特首曾蔭權, 律政處司長黃仁龍, 政務司司長唐英年,
警務處處長鄧竟成, 財政司司長曾俊華, 中聯辦, 金管證監,
財經事務局局長陳家強.立法會議員, 區議會議員, 申訴專
員公署, 各大傳媒, 各銀行, 苦主 及 關注人仕。
********************************************************************** ********
藉辭「鎮壓」苦主-- 作者:胡先生
請按: 視錄

雷曼苦主包圍新中銀(第6天) 中銀職員「挑釁」

中銀肩負國家任務,要匡扶香港經濟,使香港協助祖國,在國際間發光發熱, 誰知領導層不務正業,任由販賣毒債,禍害客戶無數.

本來「錯而能改,善莫大焉」,儘快把錯處彌補,全數賠償,客戶必定擊節讚賞,領導必定會在香港的經濟史上留下芳名.可是領導層卻因面子問題,就算證據確鑿,仍然死不認錯,更擺出施捨的嘴臉,難看至極!

最離譜的是唆使職員在門外瘋狂挑釁苦主(有影片為證),然後用各種先進器材拍攝苦主,向法庭申請禁制令,財大氣粗,恃勢凌人,中資銀行如此橫行霸道,每個香港市民也為之側目.

香港小市民被大財團欺壓,得不到公義,只有站出來遊行示威,表達不滿,這是雷曼苦主唯一的方法去爭取,也堅持了三年,中銀現在使計坑害,企圖藉辭「鎮壓」苦主,用錢迫苦主玩昂貴的司法遊戲,使人懷疑一間所謂國家的代表銀行和國家的幹部,做法是否合符公義?

不敏感嗎?

連唯一能夠發聲的渠道也要堵塞,中銀是否要大規模地「鎮壓」香港的小市民?

Crazy Restraining order over protest in HK against Human Right

To : Amnesty International Hong Kong website 23001250 Email : admin-hk@amnesty.org.hk on Human right abuses of HK gov. in laws concerning demonstration.

UN human right commissions mbogner@ohchr.org

On HK judges abuse of HK laws concerning Human rights.

IMF on HK gov. coverup of bank frauds HKGcontact@imf.org

The World Bank, 100004
Beijing
Contact: Yu, Ying
Phone: +86 10 58617600

On BOCHK mis-selling of structure products to HK people.
Email: yyu@worldbank.org

With millions of dollars, you can send a look-alike ghost to jail in HK to these evil Chinese Bank of China bankers !!!
HK laws only work for the very rich and powerful disregarding of facts, that also applies to lawyers in HK that works only for the rich

Three Lehman Brothers minibond investors contested in the High Court Friday a restraining order that forbids them from protesting outside the Bank of China Tower in Central.

The Bank of China (Hong Kong) earlier filed a restraining order to stop the three from staging protests for they were protesting outside the bank from 28th March 11 to 31st March 11, all three of them were harassing staff and displaying banners bearing inflammatory slogans for four days in Hong Kong.

But one of the protestor is relative of my classmate, and he was travelling out of HK these stated last three days. So Bank of China was seeing ghost or double outside the bank and the stupid judge did not understand the statement of the accused. What are HK judge doing in HK, is this judge crazy enough to believe lies of from Bank of China (HK) mis-statement and protecting Bank of China from thousand of bank mis-selling occuring in HK.

Appearing in the court without legal representation, the three argued they have a right to protest in public places.

Judge Arjan Sakrani advised them to consider taking legal aid service because they must bear the legal costs if they lose the case.

The judge also reminded them that a temporary restraining order is in force.

HK judges abuse of HK laws concerning Human rights

To : Amnesty International Hong Kong website 23001250 Email : admin-hk@amnesty.org.hk on Human right abuses of HK gov. in laws concerning demonstration.

UN human right commissions mbogner@ohchr.org

On HK judges abuse of HK laws concerning Human rights.

IMF on HK gov. coverup of bank frauds HKGcontact@imf.org

The World Bank, 100004
Beijing
Contact: Yu, Ying
Phone: +86 10 58617600

On BOCHK mis-selling of structure products to HK people.
Email: yyu@worldbank.org

This case has proved that for Judge Sakhrani J and other judges in Hong Kong in fact are breaking the Human Right laws of UN and HK basic laws concerning freedom to demonstrate and this proves that judges are the pets of the HK riches and government puppets. This situations need to be changed as we need the many political parties including the new ones to change shape of the do-nothing HK government officials from other top ex-government officials and university professors that criticize the existing government.

http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/hanhoco/article?mid=8369

Lehman Minibond Investors in Hong Kong Object to Settlement

By Karen Gullo and Pamela MacLean - Apr 5, 2011 9:19 AM GMT+0800

Hong Kong holders of $1.5 billion of worthless Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LEHMQ).-linked structured financial notes called minibonds objected to a proposed settlement, saying it interfered with their lawsuit against Lehman and HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA), according to court documents.

Lawyers for the minibond holders asked the bankruptcy court not to approve Lehman’s proposed order to establish a procedure for the settlement, which they say allows Lehman to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from the minibonds program, according to today’s filing in Manhattan bankruptcy court.

About 43,000 investors in Hong Kong bought an estimated $1.8 billion of Lehman minibonds that were sold by lenders before the New York-based investment bank filed for bankruptcy in 2008. Investors protested almost daily outside bank branches in Hong Kong, banging cymbals and blaring pre-recorded statements from bullhorns after they were offered repayments of at least 60 cents on the dollar in 2009.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC, Lehman’s receiver, said on March 27 the repayment offer was boosted so some minibond holders may receive 70 percent to 93 percent of their money back. Some investors want all their money refunded.

Suit Allowed
A federal district court judge in Manhattan ruled in August that Lehman and HSBC could be sued over the securities sold to the Hong Kong investors, reversing part of a decision by Lehman’s bankruptcy judge who said the investors lacked standing.

Pacific International Finance Ltd. issued the minibonds and marketed them as linked to the credit of financially sound companies and backed by AAA-rated collateral, U.S. district Judge William Pauley III said. A Hong Kong regulatory investigation disclosed that Lehman designed the minibonds program, the judge said. HSBC Bank USA was selected as trustee of the collateral securing the notes, Pauley said, citing testimony in the Hong Kong proceeding.

The case is In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 08-13555, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in San Francisco at kgullo@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Pickering at jpickering@bloomberg.net
.

To Mr. Martin Wheatley on April 2 by LBV before the new compensation deal

Mr. Martin Wheatley
Chief Executive Officer
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC)
8th Floor, Chater House
8 Connaught Road, Central
Hong Kong
2 April 2011


Dear Mr. Wheatley,
Your New Appointment with FSA in UK vs.
Lehman Brothers Victims in Hong Kong
While you might be congratulated on your forthcoming appointment with the FSA’s Consumer Protection & Markets Authority (CPMA) in the UK as from 1 Sept 2011, you might spare a thought for our “Lehman Brothers victims” in Hong Kong in the meantime.

We think your disappointing track record as CEO of the Securities & Futures Commission (SFC) in Hong Kong in the past few years shows you are not the appropriate personnel for the new position with CPMA. The fact that after such a long time, there are still Lehman Brothers victims demonstrating in Central and other places in the SAR is proof of SFC’s failure under your leadership to protect small investors and savers in Hong Kong.

Tens of thousands of ordinary, hard-working citizens in Hong Kong have lost significant amounts, for some representing their entire life savings, because SFC and HKMA have both failed in their regulatory roles in both prevention and enforcement.

The SFC has allowed extremely risky products, the Lehman Brothers “minibonds”, ELN’s and others, to be sold to the consumer public without any caution. After the demise of Lehman, the SFC cooperated with the culprit banks to “force” a 60% settlement, rather than to “enforce” a 100% reimbursement for systemic failures on the part of the financial institutions (except one and those brokers). The latter practice has been the international standard set by regulators in USA, UK, Australia and elsewhere; but you and the SFC in Hong Kong have opted for protecting the culprit financial institutions instead by limiting their liabilities to only 60%!

Mr. Wheatley, were you an incompetent regulator, impotent second-fiddle to the bankers, gagged corporate man, or did you simply not care about the weak you were supposed to protect? We have no way of knowing, but we do applaud one of your former colleagues who had the courage to speak the truth in front of the Legislative Council’s special sub-committee on the Lehman Brothers debacle. Of course, you will be leaving the mess behind before the sub-committee completes its proceedings, but we besiege you to tell the truth in public before your departure, to gain a modicum of justice for the suffering victims the SFC has so far disowned!

Legislators warn of new minibond fiasco under MPF law change plan

Several legislators believe planned legal changes that would allow four regulators to monitor Mandatory Provident Fund salespeople would create regulatory overlap and confusion, leading to a repeat of the minibond fiasco.

The government last week proposed changes to ensure all of the 28,365 MPF salespeople and new entrants be registered with the Mandatory Provident Funds Scheme Authority.

The authority is also proposed to be the sole body to receive MPF-related complaints.

But in terms of daily monitoring and investigation as well as penalties, the government proposes individual regulators monitor their respective sectors - the Hong Kong Monetary Authority for banks, the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance for insurers, and the Securities and Futures Commission for fund managers and brokers.

This would mean an errant salesperson would be pulled up by both the MPFA and the regulator of their own sector, Civic Party legislator Ronny Tong Ka-wah said.

Paul Chan Mo-po, a legislator for the accountancy sector, said allowing more than one regulator to operate in a single field was fraught with danger, as was evident in the Lehman minibond saga. Legislators and investors had then blamed a fragmented regulatory model for the crisis as the SFC regulated investment products and brokers but had no power to regulate bank staff, who were accused of mis-selling and were under the regulatory radar of the HKMA.

Now the government is allowing different regulators to share the regulatory work for MPF salespeople, Chan said. But different regulators may have different enforcement standards, which might well lead to another minibond fiasco. We don't understand why the government won't allow a single regulator to do the job.


Au King-chi, permanent secretary for financial services and the treasury, however said the MPFA would issue a code of conduct for other regulators to follow.

Allowing different regulators to monitor the salespeople of their respective sectors is the best model as it enables regulators with the best understanding of the sector to do the job, Au said.

The government's proposal is aimed at preventing mis-selling when the long-awaited employee choice arrangement comes into being. Under that system, the 2.5 million employees will be able to choose their own MPF providers to manage their share of pension contributions.

Employees contribute 5 per cent of their salary, capped at HK$1,000 a month, to a retirement account. This is matched by the employer, who also chooses the MPF provider. Copyright (c) 2011. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd.

部份雷曼苦主拒賠償方案

【本報訊】16間銷售雷曼迷債的銀行早前向客戶提出賠償額最高達九成的新方案，但至今尚未為大部份苦主接受。逾300名雷曼迷債及非迷債苦主，昨與民主黨召開大會商討賠償方案，席間七成人表態不接受新賠償方案，要求銀行百分百賠償，但大部份人去年已簽署回購和解方案，沒有投訴及訴訟的權利。聯盟指會透過法律途經抗爭到底。

逾300人出席大會

逾300苦主昨午參與由民主黨召開的大會，立法會議員甘乃威向苦主解釋新賠償方案細節。新方案只限於雷曼迷債10至36系列，涉及約3.1萬人，下月將召開迷債持有人特別會議決定是否通過方案，最快6月底取回本金。

但逾九成苦主去年與銀行達成回購和解，因此銀行已成迷債最大持有人。就算苦主表態不接受新方案，亦無法出席會議反對方案通過。

雷曼苦主大聯盟召集人陳浩偉認為，扣除抵押品價值後，銀行實際付出的賠償甚少，堅持分銷銀行需向客戶退回百分百本金。他又指，會循法律途徑要求公開下月特別會議內容，民主黨亦表示會跟進事件發展。

New Lehman deal gets thumbs-down on the cover-up of Minibonds by BOCHK, HSBC, HK gov. etc.

The bankruptcy proceedings of Lehman and the cover-up of Minibonds share certain similarity - the banks and government just make up rules as they go along and disregard those that they do not like. There is no normalcy - just look at all the secrecy imposed by the SFC and HKMA. What they say is half truth at best and what they hide renders the half-truth misleading as well. Truth comes from independent research and verification from comparing information from different sources. If I know slightly more, it does not go very far given the information blockade imposed by the bank-regulator alliance.


About 70 percent of the 400 buyers of Lehman Brothers securities are against the new compensation deal that will see them get back up to 96.5 percent of their investments.

They also include about 70 percent of the holders of minibonds.

The Hong Kong Association of Banks announced last Sunday that 31,000 buyers of Lehman Brothers-linked minibonds may be reimbursed from 85 to 96.5 percent of their original investment.

But Democratic Party legislator Kam Nai-wai, who has been helping the investors, admitted that a ballot yesterday will not affect the outcome of the voting to be held at a formal extraordinary general meeting next month.

Nearly 97 percent of the buyers of minibonds have already agreed to the 2009 deal and sold back their rights to distributing banks, making them ineligible to vote at the meeting.

``I believe the victims will have to accept reluctantly the latest compensation proposal,'' Kam said.

In July 2009, 16 banks offered to repay a total of HK$5.2 billion. This was accepted by nearly 96 percent of the holders of Lehman minibonds, according to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.

But Kam pledged to keep up the pressure in the Legislative Council and demand the government appoint a third party to evaluate the collateral for minibonds.

``The third party should be responsible for assessing the value of the collateral and judge whether it meets the market value. They should assess whether the latest compensation is reasonable,'' he said.

The Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims chairman Chan Ho-wai, which represents 7,000 of the 31,000 local holders of minibonds, said the vote shows victims are dissatisfied.

``We have to unwillingly accept not having voting rights since many of us agreed to the unfair deal in 2009,'' Chan said.

``But we are not giving up our demand for 100 percent compensation. Only a full compensation can adequately reflect the mistaken selling tactics of the banks.''

强烈要求 民主黨元老 李柱銘先生,

强烈要求 民主黨元老 李柱銘先生,
資深大律師出山打公義,
上次司法覆核走鷄,
希望呢次民主黨出動鎮黨之寶.

打公義,打公義,打公義,

星展債券 未有著落 ?
精明債券 未有著落 ?
Sparc債券 未有著落 ?
Citi ELN ?
苘蘭 ELN ?
被介定為經驗投資者 (3年買咗5次, 新定義涵蓋以前3年) ?
被介定為專業投資者 (800萬以上) ?
被星展定為第4級 and 第5級客户?

中銀入稟禁3人示威索償
【新報訊】中銀香港入稟高等法院，申請禁制3名人士進入該銀行位於中環的總行、在總行門外抗議及阻礙他人進入。入稟狀同時申請禁制3人於總行內外展示「令人生畏」的橫額及使用大聲公，但沒有說明具體原因，並要求賠償。
申請人為中國銀行（香港）有限公司，答辯人分別為倪家龍、葉晉及陳麗娟（俱譯音）。
據入稟狀稱，銀行要求禁制3人進入中銀位於中環花園道的總行，並禁止他們在總行內或外出行人路遊行抗議、煩擾他人、阻礙他人進入銀行或阻礙使用銀行的服務。
入稟狀同時禁止他們在銀行內外展示「令人生畏」的橫額，與及使用大聲公，並且要求他們就騷擾行為作出賠償。
案件編號：HCA 600/2011

迷債事件未解決！未解決！

繼一年多前賠六成大和解後，上星期銀行方面再公布雷曼迷債終極賠償方案，傳媒報道重點都放在「回本85%-96.5%」之上。單看這個標題，很多人都覺得事主「執身彩」，好應該鳴金收兵，但這幾天行經中區皇后大道各銀行門外，仍然見到一班事主鑼鼓喧天，抗爭未見止息。

文黃文英圖余俊亮

迷債終極通賠方案，坊間普遍唱好，學者傳媒陸續有論調，指事件是時候終結、事主應「見好就收」，甚至舉腳歡迎云云。沒錯，對於購買了迷你債券的事主來說，可以形容為「解決得七七八八」，大部分事主透過通賠方案可取回至少八成半以上本金，即使是抵押品已出事的部分系列，在前年大和解中，大部分事主亦可回本六至七成。社會對雷曼事件有「大團圓」的錯覺不足為奇。

然而在賣得最多、面值130 億的迷債以外，還有幾十億信貸掛產品，是不被列入通賠方案的，買了這批產品的事主，至今仍得靠個人抗爭向個別銀行索償，對銀行違規銷售欺騙提出渺小控訴，譬如陳女士。

「連六合彩都未買過」

陳女士今年50 歲，17 歲開始在銀行開戶定期儲錢。金融海嘯前，她30 多年來儲得的50 萬美元，一直平平安安以定期存款方式滾存。直至有一回，定期到期，銀行游說她將定期轉做「精明債券」，職員聲稱由大摩發行，又與大藍籌和中國作信貸掛，跟定期一樣穩陣，年期5 年，可免經常續期的麻煩。「有人批評我貪息，但息率只是多了半厘，但因為年期長了，這只可說是合理；又有人鬧我輸打贏要，我一生人都未賭過錢，連六合彩都沒有買過，一直只是安安分分在銀行儲錢， 我賭都未賭過， 教我如何去服輸？」

「與中國信貸掛」表面非常穩健的精明債券，原來背後還有以百多家歐美公司債務做抵押品的條約，當一定數目，約4 至7 家公司出現信貸問題，債券即時變廢紙，血本無歸。陳女士便是其中的不幸者。她說，這項風險在購買時隻字未提，銷售章程至今亦未收過，她指銀行的銷售方法等同詐騙，雖然已投訴，但兩年來證監、金管局、立法會馬拉松式研訊調查均未見結論，即使最終判銀行違規，譴責罰款，但按現時法例，仍無法強制銀行賠償給事主。「還有一條路，事主可循法律途徑控告銀行，向銀行追討，但我的錢已經全部被騙去，我還有能力去打官司嗎？」未受惠於任何通賠方案的陳女士，現在唯一可做的事，就只有憑個人之力，繼續到銀行外喊叫。

「銀行肯認錯錢都可以不要」

60 多歲的汪伯買了迷債，大和解時已合資格賠六成，今天的通賠方案更至少可獲八成半賠償，但他是少數由始至終沒有接納任何賠款的事主。「至今我都堅持我沒有買過，我一直做定期，職員擅自替我填表，事發後銀行更指我是主動填報自己每月有一萬元儲蓄，主動要求投資的。交易時我正失業，沒有收入，哪來一萬元儲蓄，你話幾離奇！發生事，銀行經常打來叫我簽和解協議，我不簽，不和解，要賠就賠十足，特惠金像施捨，銀行有認錯有負過責任嗎？錢沒有了我都不介意，我要的是公義！」寧為玉碎，不為瓦全，在汪伯眼中，公義值千金。

「雷曼真的與我有關？ 」

家庭主婦梁女士回憶事情經過，她還笑說自己當時算「好醒」，當職員力說她將定期轉作迷債時，她有問過職員「什麼是迷債」。不過有問跟沒問，分別似乎不大，職員解釋說，迷債即是債券，不過分成細細份，方便小額購買。即使到了今天，梁女士依然對手持的迷債產品一無所知。「職員還指定期存款只有十萬保障，這類掛存款就有百分百保障。」事件發生後，梁女士根本以為自己不受影響，直至銀行打電話來告知。「我放在銀行的明明是存款，為什麼關我事？我到今天都不明白。銀行好明顯是持牌行騙。為什麼今天事主們得回成本，會指是特惠金，這根本就是我們的錢。」街頭騙案都尚且有《警訊》關注，引來市民討論，銀行騙案懸疑未破，又有誰會關心、誰來替事主討公道？

甘乃威：銀行未負違規責任

一直協助事主的甘乃威議員，在迷債終極方案公布後，坦言對賠償未有反映銀行承擔違規銷售的責任，表示失望。「抵押品賣到幾多錢是事主應得的，迷債產品16 間分銷銀行實際平均賠償百分比只9.25%，銀行總共只賠了12 憶，究竟銀行會汲取到幾多教訓？加上有幾千人是不受惠於任何賠償方案，這班事主非常無助。」

甘乃威說近日有市民打電話到辦公室批評他，質疑為何還要繼續幫事主，都已經賠九成了。「對很多局外人來說，有這種見解不出奇，銀行、監管機構、政府都想事件淡下來，施展了一些策略技巧，不想公眾再討論下去。查了兩年多，監管機構都只是以事主可取回多少錢作為懲處標準，這一點當然重要，但事情絕對不可就此當作解決，將銀行界如此大規模的違規銷售行為掩飾下來。」

另一邊廂，立法會雷曼小組的研訊正去到傳召事主作證的階段，賠償方案無可避免會對研訊會產生一點影響。「事主如果簽了和解，作證的意欲自然會減低，亦可能會擔心被銀行追討而不敢作聲。但我相信影響不會很大。」研訊5月會有結論。

即使結論未出，事實早已在眼前，作為議員，甘乃威表示其實近兩年早已向議會提出設立金融事務專員，不過被否決了。「現制度下，即使監管機構證據確鑿證明銀行違規，可以罰銀行錢、停銀行牌，但就不可以要求銀行賠償給投資者。提議設立的金融專員，會被賦予較大的權力，包括接受投訴、調查、懲處金融機構和賠償客戶。保障投資者，免投資者被蒙騙，對香港作為金融中心非常重要。這是我們長遠的目標。」

採訪小記——我只能借出一雙耳朵

記者這天走訪駐紮多間銀行門外的事主，猶如擔當了「申訴專員」。事發已兩年有多，加上新賠款方案登台，很多人都以為事主不再苦，民間討論和傳媒報道亦早已告一段落，一批不獲通賠的少數事主成了被遺忘一群。記者通過苦主大聯盟和個別抗爭群組，預早要求安排兩至三名事主了解現，結果來到現場，苦主一個接一個排隊來申訴，更準備了大量證據和文件等等交到記者手中。記者不是判官，亦沒有能力替他們爭取什麼，起初也有點耐不住，但見他們中不乏年紀老邁的公公婆婆，說起被騙遭遇依然眼紅紅。人心肉做，記者能做的就只有暫借一雙耳朵，讓長久以來猶如向空氣而發的喊叫有個聽眾對象。願公義得到伸張，事件有真正解決的一天。

雷曼相關產品投資總人數約4.4 萬，涉及逾200 億元資金

我一生人都未賭過錢，連六合彩都沒有買過

至今我都堅持我沒有買過，我一直做定期，職員擅自替我填表！

我放在銀行的明明是存款，為什麼關我事？

2008年

9 月——全美第四大投資銀行雷曼兄弟申請破產

9 月底——雷曼迷債事主向證監會、金管局及消委會投訴求助

9 月24 日——證監宣布調查三家參與銷售的經紀行9 月26 日——金管局調查21 家銷售雷曼產品的銀行

10 月初——港府向銀行拋出回購雷曼產品方案，委任安永會計師事務所為抵押品估值，放風稱估計八成事主可取回六至七成本金

10 月中——陸續有銀行與個別事主和解，銀行公會允回購，惟因雷曼兄弟美方清盤人禁止受託人動用抵押品，回購計劃中止。雷曼苦主大聯盟組織成立

10 月底——星展公布雷曼相關Constellation 結構性零售債券贖回價，逾9 成剩餘價值為零

——消委會訴訟基金挑選50 宗事主向銀行興訟

——立法會調查雷曼事件的小組委員會正式成立

12 月——證監會、金管局分別向財政司司長交檢討報告

2009 年

1 月底——新鴻基金融與證監會達成協議，以原價向客戶回購迷債

2 月20 日——立法會雷曼專責小組首次公開研訊，至今先後傳召過財經事務及庫務局長陳家強、金管局前總裁任志剛、金管局副總裁蔡耀君、證監會行政總裁韋奕禮及企業融資部執行董事何賢通

4 月初——凱基證券與證監會達成協議，以百分百本金回購迷債

7 月初——16 家分銷銀行集體去信證監會提出「六成回購」方案

7 月22 日——金管局、證監會及16 間分銷銀行協議，擁逾800萬元的「專業投資者」及在首次購買雷曼迷債前3年內，在同一間銀行進行過5 次高風險投資產品交易的「經驗投資者」，不能參與回購

9 月26 日——近2.2 萬、約88%合資格迷債事主願和解，接受回購建議

11 月20 日——金管局首次紀律處分星展前員工違規銷售雷曼相關Constellation 產品，停牌3 個月

2010 年

3 月26 日——警方商業調查科拘捕兩中銀女經理，懷疑她們以虛假手段，誤導或誘使8名銀行客戶買雷曼結構產品，其後個人理財主任張瑰瑰判無罪，女經理戴晶案仍在審

4 月初——1200 宗購買渣打雷曼股票指數掛定息保本票據（ELN）的個案，只有152 宗已調解

6 月21 日——首宗迷債定罪，大新前經理說服顧客買「迷債36」，自行冒簽對方文件判囚

2011 年

2 月初——立法會雷曼調查委員會現「逃亡潮」， 27 人變16 人

2 月中——金管局完成調查99%雷曼投訴， 14400 宗個案達成和解協議

3 月——雷曼兄弟、迷債抵押品接管人、抵押品受託人及有關方面，協議讓所有迷債投資者收回大部分投資款項，16 家分銷銀行再向合資格客戶提供特惠款項，可收回本金最高達96.5%

——原無份賠償的迷債系列10 至36的專業投資者、經驗投資者客戶，亦可收回本金比例介乎70%至93%的款項

——雷曼大聯盟企硬要求賠償100%

資料整理：彭碧珊

Plaintiffs vs. HSBC BANK USA

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
SAMUEL H. RUDMAN
DAVID A. ROSENFELD

58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: 631/367-7100
631/367-1173 (fax)
Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]

Debtor. KA KIN WONG, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 08-13555-JMP Chapter 11 Adversary Proceeding No. 09-01120-JMP Plaintiffs KA KIN WONG, SIU LUI CHING, TIM CHOY FUNG, LIN TEI TSE, SAU KING TSE, LAI KUEN CHAN, FUK SHING WONG, SIU KWAN WONG, YEE MING SHEN and YUEN FUN TANG, derivatively on behalf of a trust administered by HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and on behalf of themselves as well as all others similarly situated (collectively, “Plaintiffs- Appellants” or “Plaintiffs”), in the matter Ka King Wong v. HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n, No. 09-01120-JMP (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. Mar. 12, 2009) (the “Adversary roceeding”), filed a Notice of Appeal on March 17, 2011, in the matter In re: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al., No. 08-13555-JMP (Dkt. No. 15143) (the “Notice”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §158 and Rule 8001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, to appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures Order for Affirmative Claims of the Debtors Under Derivatives Transactions with Special Purpose Vehicle Counterparties (the “Bankruptcy Order”) (Dkt. No. 14789), and from the Bankruptcy Court’s overruling Plaintiffs’ objection to such procedures (Dkt. Nos. 13823, 13827) (“Plaintiffs’ Objection”).

THIS APPEAL IS RELATED TO OTHER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS

The Bankruptcy Order and Plaintiffs’ Objection are related to the Adversary Proceeding currently pending before the Bankruptcy Court, and to the following Appellate Proceedings: (1) Ka Kin Wong v. HSBC USA, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-00017-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2010); and (2) Ka Kin Wong v. HSBC USA, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-00096-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2010), The Honorable William H. Pauley III, presiding. In those Appellate Proceedings, the District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of the initial complaint filed in the Adversary Proceeding. See Ka Kin Wong v. HSBC USA, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-00017-WHP, Memorandum & Order (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2010); Ka Kin Wong v. HSBC USA, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-00096-WHP, Memorandum & Order - 2 -
615963_2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2010) (together, the “District Court Orders”). Copies of the District Court Orders are attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

Plaintiffs hereby submit their statement of issues to be presented on appeal and designation of record on appeal.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Plaintiffs intend to present the following issues on appeal:

1. Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred as a matter of fact or law in failing to amend the Bankruptcy Order to comply with the District Court Orders?

2. Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred as a matter of fact or law in permitting debtor
Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) to negotiate with HSBC Bank USA, National Association (defendants in the Adversary Proceeding) (“HSBC Bank”), and/or their agents or entities under their separate or common control, to settle claims concerning the Adversary Proceeding, when the District Court Orders reversed and remanded the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of the initial Adversary Proceeding complaint, and in so reversing, the District Court found:

Despite representations in the Minibonds prospectuses that neither Lehman Brothers nor any of its subsidiaries exercised control over the Issuer, Lehman Brothers esigned the Minibonds program and directed the Issuer’s activities. As a party to the trust deeds, LBSF was substantially involved in that process. The Issuer then
created a trust that, in certain circumstances, distributes its only collateral to a
Lehman entity, rather than the trust’s sole beneficiary. Juxtaposed against the promise that the Minibonds would be secured by highly-rated collateral, this is an odd result. . . . Furthermore, the recently released Examiner’s report reveals cooperation between HSBC and Lehman Brothers at the highest levels during Lehman Brothers’ collapse.

See District Court Orders at 12-13.

3. Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred as a matter of fact or law in overruling HSBC
Bank’s objection and joinder (Dkt. No. 13315), in which HSBC Bank admitted that it “ha[d] noeconomic interest” in the subject transactions, and erred in requiring HSBC Bank to negotiate with debtors to settle claims in which HSBC Bank had no economic interest?

4. Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred as a matter of fact or law in holding that
Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Bankruptcy Order was untimely?

5. Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred as a matter of fact or law for any other reason or reasons?

DESIGNATION OF CONTENTS OF RECORD

Plaintiffs designate the following items for inclusion in the record on appeal:
Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01120(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated

1 03/12/2009 1 Adversary case 09-01120. Complaint against HSBC USA, INC., HSBC Bank PLC, Pacific International Finance Limited, HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited (f/k/a HSBC Financial Services (Cayman) Ltd.), HSBC Holdings PLC, Scott Aitken, Cereita Lawrence, Sarah Coombs, Janet Crawshaw, Sylvia Lewis, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.

2 04/13/2009 6 So Ordered Stipulation and Order Signed on 4/13/2009 Extending the Time for the Defendants to Move, Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint to May 13, 2009. (Nulty, Lynda) (Entered: 04/13/2009)

3 05/27/2009 11 Answer to Complaint (Related Doc #1 ) filed by Eric A. Schaffer on behalf of The Bank of New York Mellon. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service) (Schaffer, Eric)(Entered: 05/27/2009)

4 05/27/2009 12 Corporate Ownership Statement filed by David G. Januszewski on behalf of HSBC USA, INC. (Januszewski, David) (Entered: 05/27/2009) Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01120(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated

5 05/27/2009 13 Motion to Dismiss Case //Notice of HSBC USA, Inc’s Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint, Abstain or Stay the Adversary Proceeding filed by David G. Januszewski on behalf of HSBC USA, INC. with hearing to be held on 7/15/2009 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 601 (JMP) Responses due by 7/10/2009, (Januszewski, David) (Entered: 05/27/2009)

6 05/27/2009 14 Affidavit of Song Qun in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed by David G. Januszewski on behalf of HSBC USA, INC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit B #2 Exhibit C #3 Exhibit D-F #4 Exhibit G-J) (Januszewski, David) (Entered: 05/27/2009)

7 05/27/2009 15 Matrix //Appendix of Unreported Authorities filed by David G. Januszewski on behalf of HSBC USA, INC. (Attachments: #1 Appendix Part 2) (Januszewski, David) (Entered: 05/27/2009)

8 05/27/2009 16 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss, Abstain or Stay Action filed by David G. Januszewski on behalf of HSBC USA, INC. (Januszewski, David) (Entered: 05/27/2009)

9 05/27/2009 17 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding: Defendant Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed by Richard W. Slack on behalf of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. with hearing to be held on 7/15/2009 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 601 (JMP) Responses due by 6/23/2009, (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 #2 Exhibit 2) (Slack, Richard) (Entered: 05/27/2009)

10 05/28/2009 18 Affidavit of Service of Herb Baer of Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC (related document(s) 17) filed by Shai Waisman on behalf of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (Waisman, Shai) (Entered: 05/28/2009) 11 05/28/2009 19 Corporate Ownership Statement filed by Eric A Schaffer on behalf of The Bank of New York Mellon. (Schaffer, Eric) (Entered: 05/28/2009)

12 05/28/2009 20 Statement Plaintiffs’ Report Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) filed by Ray A. Mandlekar on behalf of Lai Mei Chan, Siu Lui Ching, Sing Heung, Chun IP, Yin Ying Leung, Jin Liu, Ka Kin Wong. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A #2 Exhibit B) (Mandlekar, Ray) (Entered: 05/28/2009) Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01120(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated

13 06/04/2009 *1174 Transcript regarding Hearing Held on 6/3/09 at 10:04
AM. (Richards, Beverly) Modified on 6/10/2009 (Richards, Beverly). (Entered: 06/05/2009) (*Docket Number in Case No. 08-01420-JMP)

14 06/15/2009 31 Motion to Stay // Defendant Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Determination of Its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed by Richard W. Slack on behalf of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Richard W. Slack #2 Proposed Order) (Slack, Richard) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

15 06/17/2009 33 So Ordered Stipulation and Consent Order Signed on 6/17/2009 Permitting Intervention of Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in Adversary
Proceeding. (Nulty, Lynda) (Entered: 06/17/2009)

16 07/08/2009 36 So Ordered Stipulation signed on 7/8/2009 Between Plaintiffs and Defendants Establishing Uniform Schedule for Answers or Motion Practice and Setting
Return Date. (Bush, Brent) (Entered: 07/08/2009)

17 07/09/2009 37 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding, Abstain, or Stay the Adversary Proceeding filed by David G. Januszewski on behalf of Scott Aitken, Sarah Coombs, Janet Crawshaw, HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited (f/k/a HSBC Financial Services (Cayman) LTD), HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Holdings PLC, Cereita Lawrence, Sylvia Lewis, Pacific international Finance Limited. (Januszewski, David) (Entered: 07/09/2009)

18 07/09/2009 38 Declaration of Patricia Farren in Support of the Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint, Abstain, or Stay the Adversary Proceeding filed by David G. Januszewski on behalf of Scott Aitken, Sarah Coombs, Janet Crawshaw, HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited (f/k/a HSBC Financial Services (Cayman) LTD), HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Holdings PLC, Cereita Lawrence, Sylvia Lewis, Pacific international Finance Limited. (Januszewski, David) (Entered: 07/09/2009) Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01120(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated

19 07/09/2009 39 Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint, Abstain, or Stay the Adversary Proceeding filed by David G. Januszewski on behalf of Scott Aitken, Sarah Coombs, Janet Crawshaw, HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited (f/k/a HSBC Financial Services (Cayman) LTD), HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Holdings PLC, Cereita Lawrence, Sylvia Lewis, Pacific International Finance Limited. (Januszewski, David) (Entered: 07/09/2009)

20 07/09/2009 40 Corporate Ownership Statement filed by David G. Januszewski on behalf of HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited (f/k/a HSBC Financial Services (Cayman)
LTD), HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Holdings PLC, Pacific international Finance Limited. (Januszewski, David) (Entered: 07/09/2009)

21 07/09/2009 42 Opposition Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Determination of Its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (related document(s) 31) filed by Ray A. Mandlekar on behalf of Lai Mei Chan, Siu Lui Ching, Sing Heung, Chun IP, Yin Ying Leung, Jin Liu, Ka Kin Wong. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A #2 Exhibit B #3 Exhibit C #4 Exhibit D #5 Exhibit E #6 Exhibit F #7 Exhibit G #8 Certificate of Service) (Mandlekar, Ray) (Entered: 07/09/2009)

22 07/10/2009 43 Statement Of Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors Of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al. In Support Of Debtors’ Motion To Stay Discovery Pending Determination Of Debtors’ Motion To Dismiss The Complaint (related document(s) 31) filed by Dennis F. Dunne on behalf of Official Committee Of Unsecured
Creditors. (Dunne, Dennis) (Entered: 07/10/2009)

23 07/14/2009 44 Reply to Motion: Reply Brief In Support of Defendant Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Determination of its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (related document(s) 31) filed by Richard W. Slack on behalf of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (Slack, Richard) (Entered:
07/14/2009) Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01120(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated

24 07/17/2009 *4440 Transcript regarding Hearing Held on 7/15/09 10:03 AM. (Richards, Beverly) (Entered: 07/17/2009) (*Docket Number in Case No. 08-13555-JMP)

25 07/30/2009 54 Order Signed on 7/30/2009 Granting the Defendant Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Determination of Its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (Related Doc #31) (Nulty, Lynda) (Entered: 07/30/2009)

26 07/31/2009 55 Motion to Withdraw the Reference (related document(s) 1) filed by Robert F. Elgidely on behalf of Lai Mei Chan, Siu Lui Ching, Chun Ip, Sing Heung, Jin Liu, Ka Kin Wong, Yin Ying Leung. Responses due by 8/14/2009, (Elgidely, Robert) (Entered: 07/31/2009)

27 07/31/2009 56 Memorandum of Law In Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion To Withdraw Reference Of Adversary Proceeding (related document(s) 55) filed by Robert F. Elgidely on behalf of Lai Mei Chan, Siu Lui Ching, Chun Ip, Sing Heung, Jin Liu, Ka Kin Wong, Yin Ying Leung. Objections due by 8/14/2009, Reply due by 8/21/2009, (Elgidely, Robert) (Entered: 07/31/2009)

28 07/31/2009 57 Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Withdraw Reference of Adversary Proceeding (related document(s) 55) filed by Robert F. Elgidely on behalf of Lai Mei Chan, Siu Lui Ching, Chun Ip, Sing Heung, Jin Liu, Ka Kin Wong, Yin Ying Leung. Objections due by 8/14/2009, Reply due by 8/21/2009, (Attachments:
#1 Exhibit Exhibit A – Complaint #2 Exhibit Exhibit B – BNY Answer #3 Exhibit Exhibit C – HSBC USA Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss #4 Exhibit Exhibit D, Part 1 – HSBC Supporting Affidavit #5 Exhibit Exhibit D, Part 2 – HSBC
Supporting Affidavit #6 Exhibit Exhibit D, Part 3 – HSBC Supporting Affidavit #7 Exhibit Exhibit D, Part 4 – HSBC Supporting Affidavit #8 Exhibit Exhibit D, Part 5 – HSBC Supporting Affidavit #9 Exhibit Exhibit E – LBSF Motion to Dismiss #10 Exhibit Exhibit F – LBSF Supporting Declaration 1 #11 Exhibit Exhibit G – LBSF Supporting Declaration 2 #12 Exhibit Exhibit H – Remaining Defendants Memorandum of Law in
Support of Motion to Dismiss #13 Exhibit Exhibit I – Remaining Defendants Supporting Declaration) Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01120(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated (Elgidely, Robert) (Entered: 07/31/2009)

29 08/03/2009 59 Civil Cover Sheet from U.S. District Court, Case Number: 0906841 Judge Laura Taylor Swain (related document(s) 55) filed by Clerk’s Office of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, S.D.N.Y. (Rouzeau, Anatin) (Entered: 08/03/2009)

30 08/10/2009 60 Opposition Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (related document(s) 17) filed by Ray A. Mandlekar on behalf of Lai Mei Chan, Siu Lui Ching, Sing Heung, Chun IP, Yin Ying Leung, Jin Liu, Ka Kin Wong. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 #2 Exhibit 2 #3
Exhibit 3 #4 Exhibit 4 #5 Exhibit 5 #6 Exhibit 6 #7 Exhibit 7) (Mandlekar, Ray) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

31 08/10/2009 61 Declaration Opinion of Fidelis Oditah QC filed by Ray A. Mandlekar on behalf of Lai Mei Chan, Siu Lui Ching, Sing Heung, Chun IP, Yin Ying Leung, Jin Liu, Ka Kin Wong. (Mandlekar, Ray) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

32 08/10/2009 62 Declaration Appendix of Foreign Authorities Cited in Opinion of Fidelis Oditah QC filed by Ray A. Mandlekar on behalf of Lai Mei Chan, Siu Lui Ching,
Sing Heung, Chun IP, Yin Ying Leung, Jin Liu, Ka Kin Wong. (Attachments: #1 Tab 1 #2 Tab 2 #3 Tab 3 #4 Tab 4 #5 Tab 5 #6 Tab 6 #7 Tab 7 #8 Tab 8 #9 Tab 9 #10 Tab 10 #11 Tab 11 #12 Tab 12 #13 Tab 13) (Mandlekar, Ray) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

33 08/10/2009 64 Opposition PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO (1) DEFENDANT HSBC USA INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DIMISS THE CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT, ABSTAIN OR STAY THE ACTION, DKT. NO. 16, AND (2) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION OF DEFENDANTS HSBC BANK PLC, HSBC BANK (CAYMAN) LIMITED, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LIMITED, SCOTT AITKEN, CEREITA LAWRENCE, SARAH CRAVEN, JANET CRAWSHAW, AND SYLVIA LEWIS TO DISMISS THE CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, ABSTAIN, OR STAY THE ADVERSARY PROCEEDING, DKT. NO. 39 filed by Jason C. Davis on behalf of Lai Mei Chan, Siu Lui Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01120(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated Ching, Sing Heung, Chun IP, Yin Ying Leung, Jin Liu, Ka Kin Wong. with hearing to be held on 9/24/2009 (check with court for location) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 #2 Exhibit 2 #3 Exhibit 3) (Davis, Jason) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

34 08/28/2009 66 Response to Motion: Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s Response to Motion to Withdraw Reference of Adversary Proceeding to Bankruptcy Court (related document(s) 5) filed by Richard W. Slack on behalf of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 #2 Exhibit 2 #3 Exhibit 3 #4 Exhibit 4 #5 Exhibit 5 #6 Exhibit 6) (Slack, Richard) (Entered: 08/28/2009)

35 08/28/2009 67 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Withdraw the Reference of the Adversary Proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court filed by Howard
G. Sloane on behalf of Scott Aitken, Sarah Coombs, Janet Crawshaw, HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited (f/k/a HSBC Financial Services (Cayman) LTD), HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC USA, INC., Cereita Lawrence, Sylvia Lewis, Pacific international Finance Limited. (Attachments: #1 Appendix Unreported Authorites) (Sloane, Howard) (Entered: 08/28/2009)

36 08/28/2009 68 Declaration of Howard G. Sloane in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Withdraw the Reference of the Adversary Proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court filed by Howard G. Sloane on behalf of Scott Aitken, Sarah Coombs, Janet Crawshaw, HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited (f/k/a HSBC Financial Services (Cayman) LTD), HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC USA, INC., Cereita Lawrence, Sylvia Lewis, Pacific international Finance Limited. (Sloane, Howard) (Entered: 08/28/2009)

37 08/28/2009 69 Motion to Join / Joinder Of Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors In Defendant Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s Response To Motion To
Withdraw Reference Of Adversary Proceeding To The Bankruptcy Court (related document(s) 66) filed by Stacey Rappaport on behalf of Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Stipulation) (Rappaport, Stacey) (Entered: 08/28/2009) Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01120(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated

38 09/15/2009 72 Memorandum of Law in Further Support of the Motion of Defendants HSBC USA Inc., HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited, HSBC Holdings PLC,
Pacific International Finance Limited, Scott Aitken, Cereita Lawrence, Sarah Craven, Janet Crawshaw, and Sylvia Lewis to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint, Abstain, or Stay the Adversary Proceeding filed by Howard G. Sloane on behalf of Scott Aitken, Sarah Coombs, Janet Crawshaw, HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited (f/k/a HSBC Financial Services (Cayman) LTD), HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC USA, INC., Cereita Lawrence, Sylvia Lewis, Pacific international Finance Limited. (Sloane, Howard)
(Entered: 09/15/2009)

39 09/15/2009 73 Supplemental Affidavit of Song Qun filed by Howard G. Sloane on behalf of Scott Aitken, Sarah Coombs, Janet Crawshaw, HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited (f/k/a HSBC Financial Services (Cayman) LTD), HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC USA, INC., Cereita Lawrence, Sylvia Lewis, Pacific international Finance Limited. (Sloane, Howard) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

40 09/15/2009 74 Matrix //Appendix of Unreported Authorities filed by Howard G. Sloane on behalf of Scott Aitken, Sarah Coombs, Janet Crawshaw, HSBC Bank (Cayman)
Limited (f/k/a HSBC Financial Services (Cayman) LTD), HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC USA, INC., Cereita Lawrence, Sylvia Lewis, Pacific international Finance Limited. (Sloane, Howard) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

41 09/15/2009 75 Reply to Motion: Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendant Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
(related document(s) 17) filed by Richard W. Slack on behalf of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 #2 Exhibit 2 #3 Exhibit 3) (Slack, Richard) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

42 10/15/2009 82 Order of U.S. District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed on 10/14/2009. Plaintiffs’ 55 Motion to Withdraw the Reference of the Adversary Proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court is denied without prejudice to renewal. (Cheng, Ka Kin) (Entered: 10/15/2009) Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01120(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated

43 10/28/2009 *23 Transcript of proceedings held on 10/14/09 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain. (ldi) (Entered: 11/02/2009) (*Docket Number in Case No. 09-cv-06841-LTS
(S.D.N.Y.))

44 11/03/2009 88 Transcript regarding Hearing Held on 10/28/09 2:16 pm RE: Motion Filed by HSBC USA, Inc. to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint, Abstain or Stay the Adversary Proceeding; Motion Filed by Lehman Brothers Special Financings Inc. to Dismiss the Complaint; Motion Filed by HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited, et al., to Dismiss, Abstain or Stay the Adversary Proceeding. (Richards, Beverly) (Entered: 11/04/2009)

45 11/09/2009 89 Letter to Judge Peck filed by Jason C. Davis on behalf of Lai Mei Chan, Siu Lui Ching, Sing Heung, Chun IP, Yin Ying Leung, Jin Liu, Ka Kin Wong. (Davis, Jason) (Entered: 11/09/2009)

46 11/19/2009 *2091 Transcript regarding Hearing Held on 11/18/09 2:03 PM. (Richards, Beverly) (Entered: 11/20/2009) (*Docket Number in Case No. 08-01420-JMP)

47 11/23/2009 90 Order Signed on 11/23/2009 Granting Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint with Prejudice. (Related Doc #17) (Nulty, Lynda) (Entered: 11/23/2009)

48 12/02/2009 91 Notice of Appeal (related document(s) 90) filed by Jason C. Davis on behalf of Lai Mei Chan, Siu Lui Ching, Sing Heung, Chun IP, Yin Ying Leung, Jin Liu, Ka Kin Wong. (Davis, Jason) (Entered: 12/02/2009)

49 12/03/2009 92 Order Signed on 12/3/2009 Granting the Motions of HSBC USA Inc., HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited, HSBC Holdings plc, Pacific international Finance Limited, Scott Aitken, Cereita Lawrence, Sarah Crave, Janet Crawshaw and Sylvia Lewis to Dismiss the Complaint with Prejudice. (Related Doc #37) (Nulty, Lynda) (Entered: 12/03/2009)

50 12/07/2009 93 Notice of Appeal (related document(s) 92) filed by Jason C. Davis on behalf of Lai Mei Chan, Siu Lui Ching, Sing Heung, Chun IP, Yin Ying Leung, Jin Liu, Ka Kin Wong. (Davis, Jason) (Entered: 12/07/2009) Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01120(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated

51 12/16/2009 94 Statement of Issues Appellants’ Statement of Issues to Be Presented on Appeal and Designation of Contents of the Record filed by Jason C. Davis on behalf of Lai Mei Chan, Siu Lui Ching, Sing Heung, Chun IP, Yin Ying Leung, Jin Liu, Ka Kin Wong. (Davis, Jason) (Entered: 12/16/2009)

52 12/24/2009 96 Counter Designation (appellee) of Items to be Included in Record on Appeal filed by Howard G. Sloane on behalf of Scott Aitken, Sarah Coombs, Janet Crawshaw, HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited (f/k/a HSBC Financial Services (Cayman) LTD), HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC USA, INC., Cereita Lawrence, Sylvia Lewis, Pacific international Finance Limited. (Sloane, Howard) (Entered: 12/24/2009)

53 01/04/2010 98 Civil Cover Sheet from U.S. District Court, Case Number: 1000017 Judge William H. Pauley III (related document(s) 91) filed by Clerk’s Office of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, S.D.N.Y.. (Rouzeau, Anantin) (Entered 01/04/2010)

54 01/07/2010 99 Civil Cover Sheet from U.S. District Court, Case Number: 1000096 (related document(s) 93) filed by Clerk’s Office of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, S.D.N.Y.. (Rouzeau, Anantin) (Entered: 01/07/2010)

55 03/19/2010 101 Order Signed on 3/19/2010 Admitting Scarlett E. Collings to Practice Pro Hac Vice in this Court. (Related Doc #100) (Nulty, Lynda) (Entered:
03/19/2010)

56 08/10/2010 103 Memorandum & Order of U.S. District Court Judge William H. Pauley, III signed on 8/9/2010. The Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of Counts One and Two
against LBSF is affirmed, and its denial of leave to replead those claims derivatively against LBSF is reversed. The Bankruptcy Court’s denial of leave to
replead Counts One and Two against the Trustee is reversed. The Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of Count Three is vacated. This action is remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum and Order. (related document(s) 93, 91) (Cheng, Ka Kin) (Entered: 08/10/2010) Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01120(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated

57 11/29/2010 104 Amended Complaint against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., BNY Corp. Trustee Services Limited, HSBC USA, INC., Lehman Brothers Special Financing
Inc. Filed by Samuel H. Rudman on behalf of Tim Choy Fung, Siu Lui Ching, Ka Kin Wong. (Rudman, Samuel) (Entered: 11/29/2010)

58 12/09/2010 105 Stipulation and Proposed Order filed by David G. Januszewski on behalf of HSBC BANK USA. (Januszewski, David) (Entered: 12/09/2010)

59 01/05/2011 106 So Ordered Stipulation and Order Signed on 1/5/2011 Between the Plaintiffs and Defendants. (related document(s) 105) (Nulty, Lynda) (Entered: 01/05/2011)

60 01/21/2011 107 Stipulation and Proposed Order filed by David G. Januszewski on behalf of HSBC BANK USA. (Januszewski, David) (Entered: 01/21/2011)

61 01/25/2011 108 So Ordered Stipulation and Order Signed on 1/25/2011 Regarding Extensions of Time. (Nulty, Lynda) (Entered: 01/25/2011)

62 01/31/2011 109 Answer to Amended Complaint (Related Doc #104) filed by Eric A Schaffer on behalf of BNY Corp. Trustee Services Limited. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service) (Schaffer, Eric) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

63 01/31/2011 110 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding :/ Defendants Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s and Lehman Brother Holdings Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action and Verified Derivative Complaint (related document(s) 104) filed by Richard W. Slack on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.,
Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. Responses due by 3/17/2011, (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A; Part 1#2 Exhibit A; Part 2 #3 Exhibit A; Part 3 #4 Exhibit B #5 Exhibit C #6 Exhibit D) (Slack, Richard) (Entered: 01/31/2011) Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01120(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated

64 01/31/2011 111 Motion to Join /Joinder of Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al. in Defendants Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action and Verified Derivative Complaint (related document(s)
110) filed by Dennis F. Dunne on behalf of Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors. (Dunne, Dennis) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

65 01/31/2011 112 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding //Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint filed by David G. Januszewski on behalf of HSBC Bank USA, National Association. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of David Januszewski #2 Memorandum of Law in Support #3 Appendix of Unreported Cases) (Januszewski, David) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

66 01/31/2011 113 Corporate Ownership Statement . filed by David G. Januszewski on behalf of HSBC Bank USA, National Association. (Januszewski, David) (Entered:
01/31/2011)

67 02/01/2011 114 Corporate Ownership Statement filed by Eric A Schaffer on behalf of BNY Corp. Trustee Services Limited. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)
(Schaffer, Eric) (Entered: 02/01/2011)

68 03/17/2011 117 Opposition Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Lehman and HSBC Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint (related document(s) 112, 110) filed by Jason C. Davis on behalf of Ka Kin
Wong. (Davis, Jason) (Entered: 03/17/2011)

69 03/17/2011 118 Declaration of Jason C. Davis in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Lehman and HSBC Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint filed by Jason C. Davis on behalf of Ka Kin Wong. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A#2 Exhibit B#3 Exhibit C#4 Exhibit D#5 Exhibit E#6 Exhibit F#7 Exhibit G) (Davis, Jason) (Entered: 03/17/2011) Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01120(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated

70 03/17/2011 119 Declaration Appendix of Foreign Authorities Cited in Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Lehman and HSBC Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the Amended Class
Action and Derivative Complaint filed by Jason C. Davis on behalf of Ka Kin Wong. (Attachments: #1 Tab 1#2, Tab 2#3, Tab 3#4, Tab 4#5, Tab 5#6, Tab 6#7, Tab 7#8, Tab 8#9, Tab 9#10, Tab 10#11, Tab 11#12, Tab 12#13, Tab 13#14, Tab 14#15, Tab 15#16, Tab 16#17, Tab 17#18, Tab 18#19, Tab 19#20, Tab 20#21, Tab 21#22, Tab 22#23, Tab 23#24, Tab 24#25, Tab 25#26, Tab 26#27, Tab 27) (Davis, Jason) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01242(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated

71 05/20/2009 1 Adversary case 09-01242. Complaint against BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited. Nature(s) of Suit: (91 (Declaratory judgment)) Filed by Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (Miller, Ralph) (Entered: 05/20/2009)

72 06/01/2009 5 Letter to the Honorable James M. Peck filed by Ralph I. Miller on behalf of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (Miller, Ralph) (Entered: 06/01/2009)

73 06/04/2009 *1174 Transcript regarding Hearing Held on 6/3/09 at 10:04 AM. (Richards, Beverly) Modified on 6/10/2009 (Richards, Beverly). (Entered: 06/05/2009) (*Docket Number in Case No. 08-01420-JMP)

74 06/10/2009 7 Motion to Intervene filed by Robert F. Elgidely on behalf of Ka Kin Wong, Yin Ying Leung, Jin Liu, Chun Ip, Sing Heung, Siu Lui Ching, Lai Mei Chan with
hearing to be held on 7/15/2009 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 601 (JMP) Responses due by 7/10/2009, (Attachments: #1 Exhibit LBHI Voluntary Petition; #2 Exhibit Proposed Answer; #3 Exhibit Lehman Brothers Asia Release) (Elgidely, Robert) (Entered: 06/10/2009) Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01242(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated

75 07/10/2009 22 Omnibus Response to Motion to Intervene in Adversary Proceeding (related document(s) 8, 7, 19) filed by Eric A Schaffer on behalf of BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited with hearing to be held on 7/15/2009 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 601 (JMP) (Schaffer, Eric) (Entered: 07/10/2009)

76 07/14/2009 27 Memorandum of Law: Corrected Plaintiff Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s Memorandum of Law In Opposition to Class Movants’ Intervention Motion (related document(s) 7) filed by Richard W. Slack on behalf of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (Slack, Richard) (Entered: 07/14/2009)

77 07/14/2009 28 Reply to Motion Movants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Class Movants’ Motion to Intervene (related document(s) 7) filed by Ray A. Mandlekar on
behalf of Lai Mei Chan, Siu Lui Ching, Sing Heung, Chun Ip, Yin Ying Leung, Jin Liu, Ka Kin Wong. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service) (Mandlekar, Ray) (Entered: 07/14/2009)

78 07/17/2009 *4440 Transcript regarding Hearing Held on 7/15/09 10:03 AM. (Richards, Beverly) (Entered: 07/17/2009) (*Docket Number in Case No. 08-13555-JMP)

79 07/22/2009 33 Order Signed on 7/22/2009 Denying Motion to Intervene Filed by Ka Kin Wong, Yin Ying Leung, Jin Liu, Chun Ip, Sing Heung, Siu Lui Ching, and Lai Mei
Chan. (Related Doc #7) (Nulty, Lynda) (Entered: 07/22/2009

80 08/12/2009 *4929 Transcript regarding Hearing Held on 8/11/09 10:02 AM. (Richards, Beverly) (Entered: 08/25/2009) (*Docket Number in Case No. 08-13555-JMP)

81 09/17/2009 *5261 Transcript regarding Hearing Held on 9/15/09 10:03 AM. (Richards, Beverly) (Entered: 09/23/2009) (*Docket Number in Case No. 08-13555-JMP)

82 01/25/2010 86 Memorandum Decision Signed on 1/25/2010 Granting Motion for Summary Judgment and Declaring Applicable Payment Priorities. (related document(s)[60], [6]) (Nulty, Lynda). Adversary Proceeding Case No. 09-01242(JMP) and Related Hearing Transcripts from Other Proceedings as Indicated

83 09/23/2010 117 Copy of Order of U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon signed on 9/20/2010 in an M-47 Proceeding. (related document(s)[102]) (Rouzeau, Anatin). 84 12/31/2010 118 Stipulation of Dismissal of All Claims filed by Lori R. Fife on behalf of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. Case No. 08-13555(JMP)

85 06/17/2010 9635 Second Amended Order Signed on 6/17/2010 Implementing Certain Notice and Case Management Procedures.

86 11/24/2010 13009 Motion to Authorize : Debtors Motion Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and General Order M-390 for Authorization to Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures for Affirmative Claims of the Debtors Under Derivatives Transactions with Special Purpose Vehicle Counterparties filed by Richard W. Slack on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. with hearing to be held
on 12/15/2010 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 601 (JMP) Responses due by 12/8/2010, (Slack, Richard).

87 12/02/2010 13172 Affidavit of Service of Eleni Manners of Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC (related document(s)[13009]) filed by Shai Waisman on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Part 2) (Waisman, Shai).
Case No. 08-13555(JMP)

88 12/8/2010 13300 Objection to Motion / Limited Objection of Aviva S.p.A., Aviva Italia Holding S.p.A., Aviva Vita S.p.A., Aviva Life S.p.A., Aviva Italia S.p.A., Aviva Assicurazioni S.p.A. and Aviva Previdenza S.p.A. to Debtors Motion Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and General Order M-390 for Authorization to Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures for Affirmative Claims of Debtors under Derivatives Transactions with Special Purpose Vehicle Counterparties (related document(s)[13009]) filed by Mark Sherrill on behalf of Aviva Previdenza S.p.A., Aviva Assicurazioni S.p.A., Aviva Italia S.p.A., Aviva Life S.p.A., Aviva
Vita S.p.A., Aviva S.p.A., Aviva Italia Holding S.p.A.. (Sherrill, Mark).

89 12/8/2010 13305 Objection to Motion Objection of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to Debtors Motion Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and General Order M-390 for Authorization to Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures for Affirmative Claims of the
Debtors Under Derivatives Transactions with Special Purpose Vehicle Counterparties (related document(s)[13009]) filed by Christopher M. Desiderio on behalf of DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS. (Desiderio, Christopher).

90 12/8/2010 13306 Objection to Motion /Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Limiteds Limited Objections To Debtors Motion And Proposed Order To Implement ADR Procedures
Concerning Special Purpose Vehicle Counterparties (related document(s)[13009]) filed by Steven J. Fink on behalf of Ballyrock ABS CDO 2007-1 Limited. (Fink,
Steven).
Case No. 08-13555(JMP)

91 12/8/2010 13307 Objection to Motion Objection of U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee to the Debtors Motion Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and General Order M-390 for Authorization To Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures For Affirmative Claims of Debtors Under Derivative Contracts With Special Purpose Counterparties (related document(s)[13009]) filed by Ann E. Acker on behalf of U.S. Bank National Association. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A# (2) Exhibit B# (3) EXHIBIT C# (4) EXHIBIT D# (5) EXHIBIT E# (6) EXHIBIT F# (7)
EXHIBIT G) (Acker, Ann).

92 12/08/2010 13308 Objection to Motion /OBJECTION OF THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A. AND BNY CORPORATE TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED TO DEBTORS MOTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 105(a) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE AND
GENERAL ORDER M-390 FOR AUTHORIZATION TO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES FOR AFFIRMATIVE CLAIMS OF DEBTORS UNDER DERIVATIVE CONTRACTS WITH SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLE COUNTERPARTIES filed by Eric A Schaffer on behalf of The Bank of New York Mellon. with hearing to be held on 12/15/2010 (check with court for location) (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A) (Schaffer, Eric).

93 12/8/2010 13311 Objection to Motion Limited Objection of Wellington Management Company, LLP to Debtors Motion Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and
General Order M-390 for Authorization To Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures For Affirmative Claims of Debtors Under Derivative Contracts With Special Purpose Counterparties (related document(s)[13009]) filed by Mark N. Berman on
behalf of Wellington Management Company, LLP. (Berman, Mark). Case No. 08-13555(JMP)

94 12/08/2010 13315 Objection to Motion Joinder Of HSBC Bank USA, National Association, As Trustee, In Objection Of The Bank Of New York Mellon, The Bank Of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. And BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited To Debtors Motion Pursuant To Section 105(a) Of The Bankruptcy Code And General Order M-390 For Authorization To Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures For
Affirmative Claims Of Debtors Under Derivative Contracts With Special Purpose Vehicle Counterparties (related document 13308) (related document(s)[13009])
filed by Tina N. Moss on behalf of HSBC Bank USA, National Association. (Moss, Tina).

95 12/08/2010 13323 Objection Joinder of HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee in Objection of The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon
Trust Company, N.A. and BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited to the Debtors Motion Pursuant to Section 105(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and General Order M-390 for Authorization to Implement Affirmative Claims of Debtors Under Derivatives Transactions with Special Purpose Vehicle Counterparties filed by David M. LeMay on behalf of HSBC Bank USA, National Association. (LeMay, David).

96 12/08/2010 13326 Objection of Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank to Debtors Motion Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and General Order M-390 for Authorization to Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures for Affirmative Claims of Debtors Under Derivatives Transactions With Special Purpose Vehicle Counterparties (related document(s)[13009]) filed by Andrew P. Brozman on
behalf of Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank. (Brozman, Andrew).
Case No. 08-13555(JMP)

97 12/09/2010 13343 Objection /Limited Objection of Bank of America, National Association Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, Solely in its Capacity as Trustee under Certain Pooling and Servicing Agreements to the Debtors Motion Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and General Order M-
390 for Authorization to Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures for Affirmative Claims of the Debtors under Derivatives Transactions with Special
Purpose Vehicle Counterparties (related document(s)[13009]) filed by Michael E. Johnson on behalf of Bank of America, National Association successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, in its capacity as the Libra Trustee. (Johnson, Michael).

98 12/13/2010 13400 Notice of Adjournment of Hearing on Debtors Motion Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and General Order M-390 for Authorization to Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures for Affirmative Claims of the Debtors Under Derivatives Transactions with Special Purpose Vehicle Counterparties (related document(s)[13009]) filed by Richard W. Slack on behalf of Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc.. with hearing to be held on 1/13/2011 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom 601 (JMP) (Slack, Richard).

99 1/06/2011 13822 Objection to Motion /Objection of The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. and BNY Corporate Trustee Services
Limited to Debtors Motion Pursuant to Section 105(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, for Entry of an Order Clarifying the Scope of the Procedures for the Settlement of Prepetition Derivative Contracts (related document(s)[13638]) filed by Michael J. Venditto on behalf of The Bank of New York Corporate Trustee Services Limited, The Bank of New York Mellon, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. with hearing to be held on 1/13/2011 (check with court for location) (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service) (Venditto, Michael). Case No. 08-13555(JMP)

100 1/06/2011 13823 Objection to Motion Limited Objection Of The Minibond Noteholders To Debtors Motion Pursuant To Section 105(A) Of The Bankruptcy Code And General Order M-390 For Authorization To Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures For Affirmative Claims Of Debtors Under Derivatives Transactions With Special Purpose Vehicle Counterparties filed by Jason C. Davis on behalf of SIU
LING CHING. (Davis, Jason).

101 1/06/2011 13827 Declaration of Jason C. Davis in Support of Limited Objection of the Minibond Noteholders to Debtors Motion Pursuant to Section 105(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and General Order M-390 for Authorization to Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures for Affirmative Claims of Debtors Under Derivatives
Transactions with Special Purpose Vehicle Counterparties filed by Jason C. Davis on behalf of KA KIN WONG. with hearing to be held on 1/13/2011 (check with court for location) (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A# (2) Exhibit B) (Davis, Jason).

102 1/11/2011 13886 Response : Debtors Omnibus Response to Objections to Motion of the Debtors Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and General Order M-390 for Authorization to Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures for Affirmative Claims of Debtors Under Derivatives Transactions with Special Purpose Vehicle Counterparties (related document(s)[13009]) filed by Richard W. Slack on
behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (Slack, Richard).

103 2/15/2011 14508 Objection to Motion /Notice of Succession of U.S. Bank to the Objection of Bank of America National Association as Trustee to the Debtors Motion Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and General Order M-390 for Authorization to Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures for Affirmative Claims of Debtors Under Derivative Contracts with Special Purpose Counterparties (related document(s)[13009]) filed by Ann E. Acker on behalf of U.S. Bank National Association. (Acker, Ann). Case No. 08-13555(JMP)

104 2/15/2011 14517 Notice of Proposed Order : Notice of Second Revised Order to Debtors Motion Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and General Order M-390 for Authorization to Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures for Affirmative Claims of the Debtors Under Derivatives Transactions with Special Purpose Vehicle Counterparties (related document(s)[13009]) filed by Richard W. Slack on behalf of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (Slack, Richard).

105 02//17/2011 14851 Transcript regarding Hearing Held on 02/16/2011 10:05AM RE: Debtor's Motion of the Bank of Nova Scotia for Relief from the Automatic Stay; Debtor's Motion for Authorization and approval of a Settlement and Compromise Among Lehman Brothers Holding Inc., Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. and Swedbank AB, New York Branch; Debtor Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. and Swedbank AB, New York Barnch .et...al. Remote electronic access to the transcript is restricted until 5/18/2011. The transcript may be viewed at the Bankruptcy Court Clerks Office.
[Transcription Service Agency: Veritext Reporting Company.]. (See the Courts Website for contact information for the Transcription Service Agency.). Notice of Intent to Request Redaction Deadline Due By 2/24/2011. Statement of Redaction Request Due By
3/10/2011. Redacted Transcript Submission Due By 3/21/2011. Transcript access will be restricted through 5/18/2011. (Villegas, Carmen) (Entered: 03/08/2011).

106 03/03/2011 14789 Order Signed on 3/3/2011 Regarding Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures for Affirmative Claims of the Debtors Under Derivatives Transactions with Special Purpose Vehicle Counterparties. Appellate Case No. 1:10-cv-00017-WHP

107 01/04/2010 1 NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO THE S.D.N.Y. from the Order of Judge James M. Peck dated November 23, 2009. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 09-1120A, 08-B-13555 (JMP). Certified copies of file received.Document filed by Yin
Ying Leung, Lai Mei Chan, Sing Heung, Ka Kin Wong, Siu Lui Ching, Chun Ip, Jin Liu. Appellant Brief due by 1/22/2010.(bkar) (Entered: 01/04/2010)

108 01/04/2010 2 DESIGNATION OF BANKRUPTCY RECORD ON APPEAL re: 1 Bankruptcy Appeal,. Document filed by Appellants Yin Ying Leung, Lai Mei Chan, Sing Heung, Ka Kin Wong, Siu Lui Ching, Chun Ip, Jin Liu. (bkar) (Entered: 01/04/2010)

109 01/04/2010 3 COUNTER DESIGNATION OF BANKRUPTCY RECORD ON APPEAL Document filed by Appellees HSBC USA, Inc., HSBC H oldings plc, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited, Pacific International Finance Limited, Scott Aitken, Cereita Lawrence, Sarah Coombs, Janet Crawshaw, Sylvia Lewis. (bkar) (Entered: 01/04/2010)

110 01/14/2010 4 STIPULATION AND ORDER, that 1. Plaintiffs- Appellants shall file their opening appellate brief(s) on or by February 3, 2010; 2. Defendants-Appellees shall file their oppositions on or by March 5, 2010; 3. Plaintiffs-Appellants shall file their reply(ies) by April 6, 2010; and, 4. The notice of appeal that is the subject of docket number 10-CV-00096 shall be deemed related to this matter, and the foregoing schedule applies to both 10-CV-00017 and 10-CV-00096. This Court will
hear oral argument on April 23, 2010, at 12:00 p.m. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 1/14/10) (pl) (Entered: 01/15/2010)

111 02/03/2010 6 Appellant’s BRIEF. Document filed by Yin Ying Leung, Lai Mei Chan, Sing Heung, Ka Kin Wong, Siu Lui Ching, Chun Ip, Jin Liu. Appellee Brief due by
2/22/2010. (Attachments: #1 Appendix Special Appendix to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #2 Exhibit SA-1 to Special Appendix to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Appellate Case No. 1:10-cv-00017-WHP Complaint, #3 Exhibit SA-2 Special Appendix to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #4 Exhibit SA-3_Part 1 to Special Appendix to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #5 Exhibit SA-3_Part 2 to Special Appendix to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #6 Exhibit SA-4 to Special Appendix to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #7 Exhibit SA-5 to Special Appendix to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #8 Appendix Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #9 Tab 1 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #10 Tab 2 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #11 Tab 3 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs- Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #12 Tab 4 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #13 Tab 5 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Appellate Case No. 1:10-cv-00017-WHP HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #14 Tab 6 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, # 15 Tab 7 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs- Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #16 Tab 8 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #17 Tab 9 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #18 Tab 10 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #19 Tab 11 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs- Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #20 Tab 12 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #21 Tab 13 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #22 Tab 14 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #23 Tab 15 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs- Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Appellate Case No. 1:10-cv-00017-WHP Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #24 Tab 16 Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #25 Tab 17 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint) (Davis, Jason) (Entered: 02/03/2010)

112 03/05/2010 8 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to Appeal from Bankruptcy Court. Document filed by HSBC USA, Inc., HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited, Scott Aitken, Cereita Lawrence, Sarah Coombs, Janet Crawshaw, Sylvia Lewis. (Attachments: #1 Appendix Special Appendix to Memo in Opposition, #2 Appendix of Unreported Authorities) (Sloane, Howard) (Entered: 03/05/2010)

113 04/06/2010 10 Appellant’s REPLY BRIEF. Document filed by Yin Ying Leung, Lai Mei Chan, Sing Heung, Ka Kin Wong, Siu Lui Ching, Chun Ip, Jin Liu. (Attachments: #1
Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Plaintiffs- Appellants’ Reply in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting HSBC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2) (Davis, Jason) (Entered: 04/06/2010)

114 04/19/2010 12 SCHEDULING ORDER: that the oral argument scheduled for April 23, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. is rescheduled for April 23, 2010 at 2:45 p.m. (Signed by
Judge William H. Pauley, III on 4/19/10) (pl) (Entered: 04/20/2010)

115 05/06/2010 13 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 4/23/10 before Judge William H. Pauley, III. (pl) (Entered: 05/07/2010) Appellate Case No. 1:10-cv-00017-WHP

116 08/09/2010 14 MEMORANDUM & ORDER: For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum & Order, the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of Counts One and Two against LBSF is
affirmed, and its denial of leave to replead those claims derivatively against LBSF is reversed. The Bankruptcy Court’s denial of leave to replead Counts One and Two against the Trustee is reversed. The Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of Count Three is vacated. This action is remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum and Order. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 8/9/2010) (tro) (Entered: 08/09/2010) Appellate Case No.: 1:10-cv-00096-WHP

117 01/07/2010 1 NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO THE S.D.N.Y. from the Order of Judge James M. Peck dated December 3, 2009. Bankruptcy Court Case Numbers: 09-1120A, 08-B-13555 (JMP). Certified copies of file received. Document filed by
Yin Ying Leung, Lai Mei Chan, Sing Heung, Ka Kin Wong, Siu Lui Ching, Chun Ip, Jin Liu. Appellant Brief due by 1/25/2010. (bkar) (Entered: 01/07/2010)

118 01/07/2010 2 DESIGNATION OF BANKRUPTCY RECORD ON APPEAL re: 1 Bankruptcy Appeal,. Document filed by Appellants Yin Ying Leung, Lai Mei Chan, Sing Heung, Ka Kin Wong, Siu Lui Ching, Chun Ip, Jin Liu. (bkar) (Entered: 01/07/2010)

119 01/07/2010 3 COUNTER DESIGNATION OF BANKRUPTCY
RECORD ON APPEAL Document filed by Appellees HSBC USA, Inc., HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Bank (Cayman) Limited, Pacific International Finance Limited, Scott Aitken, Cereita Lawrence, Sarah Coombs, Janet Crawshaw, Sylvia Lewis. (bkar) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
Appellate Case No.: 1:10-cv-00096-WHP

120 01/14/2010 5 STIPULATION AND ORDER, that 1. Plaintiffs- Appellants shall file their opening appellate brief(s) on or by February 3, 2010; 2. Defendants-Appellees shall file their oppositions on or by March 5, 2010; 3. Plaintiffs-Appellants shall file their reply(ies) by April 6, 2010; and, 4. The notice of appeal that is the subject of docket number 10-CV-00096 shall be deemed related to this matter, and the foregoing schedule applies to both 10-CV-00017 and 10-CV-00096. This Court will
hear oral argument on April 23, 2010, at 12:00 p.m. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 1/14/10) (pl) (Entered: 01/15/2010)

121 02/03/2010 7 Appellant’s BRIEF. Document filed by Yin Ying Leung, Lai Mei Chan, Sing Heung, Ka Kin Wong, Siu Lui Ching, Chun Ip, Jin Liu. Appellee Brief due by 2/22/2010. (Attachments: #1 Appendix Special Appendix to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #2 Exhibit SA-1 to Special Appendix to Plaintiffs-
Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #3 Exhibit SA-2 to Special Appendix to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order
Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #4 Exhibit SA-3_Part 1 to Special Appendix to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #5
Exhibit SA-3_Part 2 to Special Appendix to Plaintiffs- Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #6 Exhibit SA-4 to Special Appendix to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in
Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #7 Exhibit SA-5 to Special Appendix to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #8 Exhibit SA-6 to Special Appendix to Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Appellate Case No.: 1:10-cv-00096-WHP Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #9 Appendix Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs- Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #10 Tab 1 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #11 Tab 2 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #12 Tab 3 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #13 Tab 4 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs- Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #14 Tab 5 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #15 Tab 6 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #16 Tab 7 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #17 Tab 8 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs- Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #18 Tab 9 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited Appellate Case No.: 1:10-cv-00096-WHP in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #19 Tab 10 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #20 Tab 11 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #21 Tab 12 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs- Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #22 Tab 13 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #23 Tab 14 to Appendix of Unreported Authorities, Statutes and Opinion Cited in Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint) (Davis, Jason) (Entered: 02/03/2010)

122 03/05/2010 9 Appellee’s BRIEF. Document filed by Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.. Appellant Reply Brief due by 3/18/2010. (Attachments: #1 Appendix A, #2 Exhibit 1 to Appendix A, #3 Appendix B, #4 Exhibit to Appendix B, #5 Appendix of Cited Authorities, #6 Exhibit to Case Appendix, #7 Exhibit to Case Appendix) (Slack, Richard) (Entered: 03/05/2010)

123 03/05/2010 11 JOINDER to join re: 9 Appellee’s Brief, Joinder of Intervenor Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to Appellee Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s Brief on Appeal. Document filed by Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al. (Liubicic, Robert) (Entered:
03/05/2010) Appellate Case No.: 1:10-cv-00096-WHP

124 04/06/2010 19 Appellant’s REPLY BRIEF. Document filed by Yin Ying Leung, Lai Mei Chan, Sing Heung, Ka Kin Wong, Siu Lui Ching, Chun Ip, Jin Liu. (Attachments: #1
Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Plaintiffs- Appellants’ Reply in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Appendix Supplemental Appendix of Foreign Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Reply in Support of Appeal From Bankruptcy Court Order Granting Lehman Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, #5 Tab 1, #6 Tab 2, #7 Tab 3) (Davis, Jason) (Entered: 04/06/2010)

125 04/19/2010 21 SCHEDULING ORDER: that the oral argument scheduled for April 23, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. is rescheduled for April 23, 2010 at 2:45 p.m. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 4/19/10) (pl) (Entered: 04/20/2010)

126 09/09/2010 22 MEMORANDUM & ORDER: For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum & Order, the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of Counts One and Two against LBSF is affirmed, and its denial of leave to replead those claims derivatively against LBSF is reversed. The Bankruptcy Court’s denial of leave to replead Counts One and Two
against the Trustee is reversed. The Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of Count Three is vacated. This action is remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum and Order. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on
8/9/2010) (tro) (Entered: 08/09/2010)