Reuters reports that the arguments in federal appeals court in New York renewed a murky, years-old court battle with huge implications for the brokerage's creditors, including Lehman affiliates and hedge funds.
'It was made very clear' in the asset purchase agreement 'what was going to Barclays and what was staying behind', said the brokerage's lawyer, William Maguire. 'The deal didn't exclude just some cash, it excluded all cash'.
The dispute has its roots in the hectic sale of the brokerage's assets to Barclays in the days following the $639bn bankruptcy of parent company Lehman Brothers Holdings in September of 2008.
The brokerage contends the $250m deal did not include the brokerage's cash assets. But Barclays says otherwise, relying on a so-called clarification letter signed after the deal was approved.
Hit the link below to access the complete Reuters article:
image: © bloomsberries