Print Page     Close Window     

SEC Filings

AZURE MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, LP filed this Form 8-K on 03/21/2017
Entire Document


actually be realized in a chapter 7 liquidation nor can there be any assurance that the Bankruptcy Court will accept the Debtors’ conclusions or concur with such assumptions in making its determinations under section 1129(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code.


c.                                       Feasibility Analysis


The Bankruptcy Code requires that the Debtors demonstrate that confirmation of the Plan is not likely to be followed by liquidation or the need for further financial reorganization unless contemplated by the Plan.  Under the Plan, which provides for the liquidation of the Debtors and their Estates, the Debtors will be able to satisfy the conditions precedent to the Effective Date and otherwise have sufficient funds to meet their post-Confirmation Date obligations to pay for the costs of administering and fully consummating the Plan.  Accordingly, the Debtors believe the Plan satisfies the feasibility requirement.


2.                                      Requirements of Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code


The Bankruptcy Court may confirm the Plan over the rejection or deemed rejection of the Plan by a Class of Claims or Interests if the Plan “does not discriminate unfairly” and is “fair and equitable” with respect to such Class.


a.                                      No Unfair Discrimination


The “no unfair discrimination” test applies to classes of claims or equity interests that are of equal priority and are receiving different treatment under a plan.  A plan does not discriminate unfairly, within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code, if the legal rights of a dissenting class are treated in a manner consistent with the treatment of other classes whose legal rights are substantially similar to those of the dissenting class and if no class of claims or equity interests receives more than it legally is entitled to receive for its claims or equity interests.  This test does not require that the treatment be the same or equivalent, but that such treatment is “fair.”


The Debtors believe that, under the Plan, all Impaired classes of Claims and Interests are treated in a manner that is fair and consistent with the treatment of other Classes of Claims and Interests having the same priority.  Accordingly, the Debtors believe the Plan does not discriminate unfairly as to any Impaired Class of Claims or Interests.


b.                                      Fair and Equitable Test


The “fair and equitable” test applies to classes of different priority and status (e.g., secured versus unsecured) and includes the general requirement that no class of claims receive more than 100% of the allowed amount of the claims in such class.  The test sets forth different standards for what is fair and equitable, depending on the type of claims or interests in such class.  In order to demonstrate that a plan is “fair and equitable,” the plan proponent must demonstrate the following:


(i)                                     Secured Creditors.  With respect to a class of impaired secured claims, a proposed plan must provide the following: (a) that the holders of secured claims retain their liens securing such claims, whether the property subject to such liens is retained by the debtor or transferred to another entity, to the extent of the allowed amount of such claims, and receive on account of such claim deferred cash payments totaling at least the allowed amount of such claim, of a value, as of the effective date of the Plan, of at least the value of such holder’s interest in the estates’ interest in such property, or (b) for the sale, subject to section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, of any property that is subject to the liens securing such claims, free and clear of such liens, with such liens to attach to the proceeds of such sale, and the



© Copyright Azure Midstream Energy LLC. All Rights Reserved.