Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Subordination Agreements: Enforcement and Reorganization Participation
Section 510 of the Bankruptcy Code recognizes that agreements between creditors of a debtor that one creditor's claim will be subordinated in payment to another creditor's claim will be enforceable in a bankruptcy case. As is often the case, over the years bankruptcy and finance practitioners expanded the concept of payment subordination in these agreements to include many terms anticipating any and every action and right the subordinated creditor may take or have in the bankruptcy case. So what provisions in a subordination agreement can be enforced, and can the subordinated creditor participate in the reorganization process if there is no prospect it will receive any distribution as a result of being subordinated?
These issues were addressed by Chief Bankruptcy Judge Dale L. Somers of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas in In re Fencepost Productions, Case No. 19-41545 (Bankr. D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2021). The court held that provisions in the subordination agreements that provided for the transfer of subordinated creditors' bankruptcy voting rights were unenforceable, but also held that because they were out of the money, the subordinated creditors did not have standing to object to the plan.
Deeply Subordinated Junior Creditors Sought to Assert Claims and Participate In Plan Process
According to the opinion, Associated Bank, N.A. (Associated) was the debtors' principal creditor, having provided a secured loan of up to $14 million. Associated and creditors BMS Management Inc. and related individuals (collectively, BMS) entered into subordination agreements that provided, among other things, that the payment of all of the debtors' obligations to BMS was postponed and subordinated to the payment in full in cash of all of the debtors' obligations to Associated. Further, in the event of a bankruptcy filing, all payments on account of the BMS obligations would be paid to Associated, Associated was authorized to vote for the debtors' bankruptcy plan with respect to BMS claims against the debtors, and BMS was prohibited from filing any motion or other pleadings or otherwise taking any action contrary to the priorities and other rights of Associated provided in the subordination agreements.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?