Upic & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc. (1992)
green
· 51 citation events
across 13 courts.
Showing the 21 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199420102026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Brady v. UBS Financial Services, Inc. (2008)
L.Rev. 1040, 1049 (2002); see also UPIC, 793 F.Supp. at 455 (“[T]he legislative history of Section 316(b) ... tends to evince Congress’ intent to have Section 316(b) interpreted so as to give effect to the absolute and unconditional nature of the right to payment it affords a Securityholder.”).
“[T]he legislative history of Section 316(b) ... tends to evince Congress’ intent to have Section 316(b) interpreted so as to give effect to the absolute and unconditional nature of the right to payment it affords a Securityholder.”
Plaintiffs argue initially that the “right” created by Section 316(b) is “absolute and unconditional,” citing for this proposition UPIC & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F.Supp. 448, 455 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
"A 'trust indenture’ is a contract entered into between a corporation issuing bonds or debentures and a trustee for the holders of the bonds or debentures, which, in general, delineates the rights of the holders and the issuer.” Upic & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F.Supp. 448, 450 (S.D.N.Y.1992). .
green
AG Oncon, LLC v. Ligand Pharmaceuticals Inc. (2019)
Corp., 846 F.3d 1, 7 (2d Cir. 2017) (explaining that Section 316(b) “prohibits non-consensual amendments of core payment terms (that is, the amount of principal and interest owed, and the date of maturity)”); id. at 12 (explaining that testimony at the congressional hearings over what would become the Trust Indenture Act “made it clear that [Section 316(b)] prohibited only formal changes to an indenture’s core payment terms”); id. at 16 (“Limiting Section 316(b) to formal in…
“Section 316(b
green
BOKF, N.A. v. Caesars Entertainment Corp. (2015)
“A 'trust indenture' is a contract entered into between a corporation issuing bonds or debentures and a trustee for the holders of the bonds or debentures, which, in general, delineates the rights of the holders and the issuer.” Upic & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F.Supp. 448, 450 (S.D.N.Y.1992). .
green
In Re Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2007)
Section 316(b) was passed out of a “concern about the motivation of insiders and quasi-insiders to destroy a bond issue through insider control.... ” UPIC & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F.Supp. 448, 452 (S.D.N.Y.1992).
green
Tribune Media Company (2021)
Funds., LP v. Caesars Entm’t Corp., 80 F.Supp.3d 507 , 512 n. 27 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Upic & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F.Supp. 448, 450 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)). “reimburse the Trustee … for all reasonable expenses, disbursements and advances incurred or made by the Trustee in accordance with any provision of this Indenture (including reasonable compensation and the expenses and disbursements of its agents and counsel).”20 The Reorganized Debtors assert that “…
green
Waxman v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. (2016)
Cf. UPIC & Co. v. KinderCare Learning Centers, Inc., 793 F.Supp. 448, 460 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (construing a subordination provision as consistent with Section 316(b) and an indenture clause with “absolute and unconditional” language).
construing a subordination provision as consistent with Section 316(b) and an indenture clause with “absolute and unconditional” language
"A 'trust indenture' is a contract entered into between a corporation issuing bonds or debentures and a trustee for the holders of the bonds or debentures, which, in general, delineates the rights of the holders and the issuer.” Upic & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F.Supp. 448, 450 (S.D.N.Y.1992). .
"A ‘trust indenture’, is a contract entered into between a corporation issuing bonds or debentures and a trustee for the holders of the bonds or debentures, which, in general, delineates the rights of the holders and the issuer.” Upic & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F.Supp. 448, 450 (S.D.N.Y.1992). .
green
RBC Capital Markets, LLC v. Education Loan Trust IV (2014)
See McMahan & Co. v. Wherehouse Entm’t, Inc., 65 F.3d 1044 , 1050 n. 4 (2d Cir.1995); Upic & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F.Supp. 448, 452 (S.D.N.Y.1992). .
green
Quadrant Structured Products Co. v. Vertin (2013)
June 25, 2004); UPIC & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F.Supp. 448, 454 (S.D.N.Y.1992); see also Revised Model Simplified Indenture, 55 Bus.
green
In re Residential Capital, LLC (2013)
Id. at 550 (quoting UPIC & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., 793 F.Supp. 448, 453 (S.D.N.Y.1992)) (emphasis added).
green
Emmet & Co. v. Catholic Health East (2012)
Co., 1998 WL 513054 , *4, 1998 US Dist LEXIS 12784 , *12-16, referring to Upic & Co. v Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F Supp 448, 454-455 [SD NY 1992]).
green
Bank of New York Ex Rel. NextCard Credit Card Master Note Trust v. First Millennium, Inc. (2009)
In this case, the Commentaries on Indentures explains that “[t]he provisions of Section 508 are mandatory in a qualified indenture by reason of TIA [Trust Indenture Act] § 316(b).” 23 The FDIC then emphasizes that the purpose of Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act was to “prohibit!] use of an indenture that permits modification by majority securityholder vote of any core term of the indenture, i.e., one affecting a securityholder’s right to receive payment of the princ…
Upic & Co. v Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F Supp 448, 454-455 [SD NY 1992]).
green
In Re Board of Directors of Multicanal S.A. (2004)
As the court described § 316(b) in UPIC & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F.Supp. 448, 452 (S.D.N.Y.1992), “Section 316(b) ... proscribes certain ... ‘majority action clauses’ ... [and] expressly prohibits use of an indenture that permits modification by majority security holder vote of any core term of the indenture, ie., one affecting a security holder’s right to receive payment of the principal of or interest on the indenture security.... ” ARC correctly argu…
green
Mcmahan & Company v. Wherehouse Entertainment, Inc. (1995)
See UPIC & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F.Supp. 448, 454 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (citing American Bar Foundation, Commentaries on Model Debenture Indenture Provisions, 232-34 (1971)).
green
McMahan & Co. v. Wherehouse Entertainment, Inc. (1995)
See UPIC & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F.Supp. 448, 454 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (citing American Bar Foundation, Commentaries on Model Debenture Indenture Provisions, 232-34 (1971)).
green
McMahan & Co. v. Wherehouse Entertainment, Inc. (1994)
See UPIC & Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F.Supp. 448, 454 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (citing the American Bar Foundation, Commentaries on Model Debenture Indenture Provisions, 232-34 (1971)).
As an initial matter, the phrase “changes to the core payment terms” in Marblegate was used to describe the right to payment of principal and interest protected in section 316 (b) of the TIA; it was not relevant to the right to bring suit (see id. at 7 ; see also Upic & Co. v Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc., 793 F. Supp. 448, 454-455 [SDNY 1992]).