the same time as the instant Class Period. See Citigroup, 662 F.3d at 141; In re Bank of Am., 756 F.Supp.2d at 354-55; In re Bear Stearns, 763 F.Supp.2d 423, 572-74 (S.D.N.Y.2011); In re Lehman Bros., 2011 WL 4632885, at *5; In re Wachovia Corp. ERISA Litig., No. 09 Civ. 262, 2010 WL 3081359, at *14 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2010). Simply because Lehman failed and suffered a run did not place Morgan Stan ley at or near the brink of collapse. In re Lehman Bros., 2011 WL 4632885, at *5 (explaining the failure of Bear Stearns and its suffered run did not render Lehman in a dire situation). And, although Morgan Stanley borrowed money from the Federal Reserve in order to avoid defaulting when it suffered a run, that did not threaten its viability. See In re Bear Stearns, 763 F.Supp.2d at 573 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, “[although proof of the
holding that a school was not a state actor even though it had to comply with many state regulations to be eligible for state funding and almost all of its students had been referred to it by the state holding that the tax was not direct even though the government imposed it on the estate rather than the recipient holding that the statutes 30 day provision is mandatory and may not be extended and dicta that it may not be extended by release from incarceration holding that bankruptcy court had equitable discretion to allow exemption even though homestead deed was recorded one day late holding bear stearns was not facing collapse even though it necessitated government funding and saw its stock price drop 30 in one day