Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark One
Out of curiosity, Z, how does this play into things?
I would assume "someone is willing to pay off the loan but he's refusing" could be pretty damning, unless that doesn't supersede the insolvency trigger in the pledge, although I would also assume someone willing to pay for it/buy them might prevent it too?
|
It could be very damning. It depends on the specifics in the agreement. If the agreement says TNA must be insolvent, then potentially TNA being able and willing to repay Corgan may be deemed irrelevant under a pledge. It seems both sider were making a big deal out of whether TNA was insolvent as that term is applied legally. I'd be willing to say that the agreement definitely states TNA must be insolvent for Corgan to be able to take Dixie's TNA shares.
Corgan should also be concerned though. If his deal with Dixie simply names her the guarantor of his loans to TNA, the court would most likely find that this makes Corgan and Dixie's agreement a creditor/lender agreement. If the court finds that Corgan and Dixie's relationship was equivalent to creditor/lender, then TNA's insolvency is irrelevant. Corgan would not be entitled to take her shares even if TNA was insolvent, as long as TNA/Dixie were willing and able to repay his loans. Under TN law, failure to pay contractual debts, the only remedy allowed is repayment of the debt plus interest, even if the agreement allows for more than repayment + interest.