Jarqui
Registered User
From the previous thread:
I got confused in my posts between the agreements as to where that date popped up. When I revisited the post a day or so ago, I thought the date being discussed was in the 2010-11 agreement.
From the 2010-11 agreement
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00660/Glendaledocs_pdf_660002a.pdf
5.3 In order to enable the Owners to fulfill their obligations under this agreement .... the Owners will seek approval by the Debtors and the Court for an extension of the Partial Assignment Agreement ..
As I said, they needed to get the approval of the court & the debtors to extend the Partial Assignment Agreement. And if they didn't get their approval, then the things in that linked agreement, like the date, could not dictate much upon the court or the Debtors & the other parties because they did not agree.
From the APA, this date sure ain't a typo:
http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyotes/docs/azb_2-09-bk-9488_1062_3.pdf
(a) Schedule 2.14(a) sets forth all of the Contracts relating to the
AMULA and the operation of the Arena, including the Team's use of the Arena, to which one or
both of the Sellers is a party (the "Glendale Contracts"). The Sellers agree not to reject the
Glendale Contracts prior to the earliest of (i) June 30, 2010, and (ii) the date of a Final Order
confirming a plan of reorganization of Sellers under the Bankruptcy Code (in which case the
Sellers shall take all actions required to ensure that such rejection does not become effective until
June 30, 2010).
(b) At any time prior to the rejection of any Glendale Contract (but not
later than June 30, 2010), the Buyers may elect to assume such Glendale Contract. In the event
the Buyers have elected to assume a Glendale Contract, such Glendale Contract shall be treated
as an Added Contract in accordance with Section 2.9(b) and thereafter shall be deemed an
Assumed Contract.
From the original APA above, if they didn't get those date goal posts moved, then abiding by their APA, if they didn't assume contracts by June 30, 2010, they could not assume them. And the Seller could reject them as of June 30, 2010. As such, without moving those date goal posts, if they didn't act, the deal for Glendale could fall apart. (which I now better understand was your concern).
And I agree that is a significant concern. In glancing through the docket, I have not seen how that was resolved.
Sorry for the confusion.
I do not mean to disrespect your opinion on how events may transpire, but I will clarify that there is absolutely no legal merit to anything you have just posted.
I got confused in my posts between the agreements as to where that date popped up. When I revisited the post a day or so ago, I thought the date being discussed was in the 2010-11 agreement.
From the 2010-11 agreement
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00660/Glendaledocs_pdf_660002a.pdf
5.3 In order to enable the Owners to fulfill their obligations under this agreement .... the Owners will seek approval by the Debtors and the Court for an extension of the Partial Assignment Agreement ..
As I said, they needed to get the approval of the court & the debtors to extend the Partial Assignment Agreement. And if they didn't get their approval, then the things in that linked agreement, like the date, could not dictate much upon the court or the Debtors & the other parties because they did not agree.
From the APA, this date sure ain't a typo:
http://docs.bmcgroup.com/phoenixcoyotes/docs/azb_2-09-bk-9488_1062_3.pdf
(a) Schedule 2.14(a) sets forth all of the Contracts relating to the
AMULA and the operation of the Arena, including the Team's use of the Arena, to which one or
both of the Sellers is a party (the "Glendale Contracts"). The Sellers agree not to reject the
Glendale Contracts prior to the earliest of (i) June 30, 2010, and (ii) the date of a Final Order
confirming a plan of reorganization of Sellers under the Bankruptcy Code (in which case the
Sellers shall take all actions required to ensure that such rejection does not become effective until
June 30, 2010).
(b) At any time prior to the rejection of any Glendale Contract (but not
later than June 30, 2010), the Buyers may elect to assume such Glendale Contract. In the event
the Buyers have elected to assume a Glendale Contract, such Glendale Contract shall be treated
as an Added Contract in accordance with Section 2.9(b) and thereafter shall be deemed an
Assumed Contract.
From the original APA above, if they didn't get those date goal posts moved, then abiding by their APA, if they didn't assume contracts by June 30, 2010, they could not assume them. And the Seller could reject them as of June 30, 2010. As such, without moving those date goal posts, if they didn't act, the deal for Glendale could fall apart. (which I now better understand was your concern).
And I agree that is a significant concern. In glancing through the docket, I have not seen how that was resolved.
Sorry for the confusion.