Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
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.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.