Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:20-bk-12043 Doc 665 Filed 03/31/21 Entered 03/31/21 19:37:22 Desc Main <br /> Document Page 2 of 9 <br /> Postpetition Financing and (B) Use Cash Collateral, (II) Granting Liens and Providing <br /> Superpriority Administrative Expense Status, (III) Granting Adequate Protection to the <br /> Prepetition Secured Parties, (IV) Modifying the Automatic Stay, and(V) Granting Related Relief <br /> [Docket No. 643] (the "Application") and, in further support of the Application, states as follows. <br /> Reply <br /> 1. In its Objection, the Liquidating Trustee asserts that "the Committee entered into <br /> two settlements with the Lenders that were the lynchpin for the Debtors' chapter 11 plan and <br /> ultimate distribution to unsecured creditors"and that"[t]he terms of the first settlement(the"First <br /> Settlement") were incorporated into Paragraph 61 of this Court's Order approving the sale of the <br /> Debtors' assets [Dkt. No. 410] (the "Sale Order"). (Obj. ¶ 5.) The Objection acknowledges the <br /> First Settlement provided that "all cash in the Debtors' estates could remain available to fund <br /> administrative or priority claims rather than the Lenders' secured claims" (id.), including the <br /> claims asserted by Cortland/AD here. Yet, the Objection fails to list or discuss the terms of the <br /> First Settlement that are the most salient to the Application. <br /> 2. As discussed in the Application,while the Prepetition Lenders and the DIP Lenders <br /> agreed to limit their professional fee claims to the Approved Cash Flow Forecasts (as defined in <br /> the Sale Order) as part of the First Settlement, Cortland/AD was not involved in the negotiations <br /> between the lenders and the Committee, and the First Settlement, accordingly, did not alter the <br /> rights of Cortland/AD to receive the DIP agency fee to have their fees and expenses of their <br /> professionals incurred in connection with these chapter 11 cases reimbursed by the Debtors estates. <br /> (See App. ¶¶ 18-24 and 41-42. ) The Objection does not contest this point. <br /> 3. Further, while the Objection attempts to portray the Settlement Agreement as a <br /> "global settlement," in fact the Objection concedes that as a result of the Sale Order, other than <br /> 2 <br />