Start Uv liquidating trust

Uv liquidating trust

Winthrop Realty Liquidating Trust K-1s are available as of March 15, 2019 at PM.

Under this indenture, The County of Itawamba, Mississippi borrowed approximately $13,000,000 by issuing Industrial Revenue Bonds due 1993. Following the July 26, 1979 meeting, representatives of U. Trust, Chase and Manufacturers met to exchange ideas on how best to approach what they considered to be a "very difficult" situation, Tr. Trust was for an advanced refunding or defeasance of the debt. By early August, 1979, both Chase and Manufacturers had rejected UV's proposal with respect to one of its indentures and Manufacturers was undecided about the response it would make. In a civil suit for damages, a plaintiff must establish that two or more parties have entered into a contract, combination or conspiracy that unreasonably restrains trade causing injury to his business or property.

Approximately $10,270,000 principal amount of the bonds is still outstanding. at 974, and to insure that the bondholders whom they represented were being treated equitably as compared to holders of bonds issued under the other indentures. From early August 1979 through the beginning of November 1979, there was intermittent contact among the trustees and between the trustees and UV concerning UV's proposals.

50(a), on the ground that plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case as to any of its eight causes of action and that all its claims can be decided as a matter of law. This is insufficient to render the sale to Sharon a sale of "all or substantially all" of UV's assets." Thus, Sharon has failed to sustain its claims with respect to the Supplemental Indentures and I find as a matter of law, that it is not entitled to be recognized as successor obligor under the Indentures or Lease Guaranties. Sharon contends that the conduct of the banks in attempting to block the April 30, 1979 liquidating distribution, signing the April Document, refusing to execute Supplemental Indentures, declaring defaults under the Indentures and refusing to permit withdrawals from the $155,000,000 Fund, individually and in combination constitute unlawful restraints of trade.

The first Chase Indenture was issued pursuant to an indenture dated as of September 1, 1965. On the morning of April 26th, representatives of Chase, Manufacturers and U. If some agreement could not be reached, Chase planned to obtain an injunction to block the distribution. UV responded with "vague assurances that there was sufficient money around to pay off the debt." During this stage of the meeting, Manufacturers proffered a separate proposal to UV. Sharon contends that the above-described conduct of the banks violated section 1 of the Sherman Act in that it constituted an attempt to fix the price of UV's and Sharon's credit and amounted to a group boycott. In order to establish a price-fixing violation, a plaintiff must show that the agreement of the defendants had the purpose or effect of fixing prices.

UV executed Lease Guaranty Agreements (the "Lease Guaranties"), in connection with these leases, guaranteeing unconditionally the payment of all amounts due under the leases. However, none of the banks executed Supplemental Indentures on that date or on December 6, 1979 when Sharon again tendered them.

Each indenture provides in essence that in the event that UV merges or consolidates with another corporation or sells "all or substantially all" of its assets to another corporation, the successor corporation is entitled to succeed to UV's rights and obligations under the indenture. On December 24, 1979, the banks issued default notices and subsequently commenced suits against Sharon. or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states .

The Warrants may be exercised on a "cashless" exercise basis.

The trustees have also agreed to release their claims against Gig Optix, its subsidiaries, directors and employees.

The municipalities that were parties to the second Chase Indenture and the Union Planters Indenture issued the bonds for the purpose of acquiring and constructing premises which were to be and were leased to Mueller Brass Company ("Mueller"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of UV. In November 1979, it became evident that Sharon had decided to purchase UV's assets and assume UV's liabilities.

Mueller's rent payments to each of the municipalities were to be used to pay the principal and interest on the bonds. Sharon requested that the Banks appear at the closing of the sale to UV for the purpose of executing Supplemental Indentures.

Under this indenture, UV borrowed approximately $23,000,000 by issuing 5 3/8% subordinated debentures due 1979-1995. Sharon's contention that UV's assets should be measured as of the date of sale, November 26, 1979, must be evaluated in light of the ramifications of the entire series of transactions and the underlying purpose of the successor corporation provisions as discussed above. UV representatives then left the meeting, caucused and returned with a proposal for the set aside of funds. In analyzing Sharon's claims, it is necessary to first determine whether Sharon has established a "mutual commitment to an anticompetitive course" among the banks.