Print Page  Close Window

SEC Filings

424B3
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L P filed this Form 424B3 on 11/02/2016
Entire Document
 


Table of Contents

result of having been delivered after the issue date (even if any liens granted on the issue date of the notes were not subject to any such challenge). To the extent that such challenge succeeded, the holders of the notes would lose the benefit of the security that the collateral was intended to provide.

Rights of the holders of the notes in the collateral securing the notes may be adversely affected by bankruptcy proceedings and the holders of the notes may not be entitled to post-petition interest in any bankruptcy proceeding.

The right of the Collateral Agent for the notes to foreclose upon, repossess and dispose of the collateral securing the notes and the Note Guarantees of the Subsidiary Guarantors upon acceleration is likely to be significantly impaired by federal bankruptcy law if bankruptcy proceedings are commenced by or against us prior to or possibly even after the Collateral Agent has repossessed and disposed of the collateral. Under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, pursuant to the automatic stay imposed upon a bankruptcy filing, a secured creditor, such as the Collateral Agent for the notes, is prohibited from foreclosing upon or repossessing its security from a debtor in a bankruptcy case, or from disposing of security repossessed from a debtor, without prior bankruptcy court approval (which may not be given under the circumstances). Moreover, bankruptcy law permits the debtor to continue to retain and to use collateral, and the proceeds, products, rents or profits of the collateral, even though the debtor is in default under the applicable debt instruments, provided that the secured creditor is given “adequate protection.” The meaning of the term “adequate protection” may vary according to circumstances, but it is intended in general to protect the value of the secured creditor’s interest in the collateral and may include cash payments or the granting of additional or replacement security, if and at such time as the court in its discretion determines, for any diminution in the value of the collateral as a result of the stay of repossession or disposition or any use of the collateral by the debtor during the pendency of the bankruptcy case. A bankruptcy court may determine that a secured creditor may not require compensation for a diminution in the value of its collateral if the value of the collateral exceeds the debt it secures. In view of the lack of a precise definition of the term “adequate protection” and the broad discretionary powers of a bankruptcy court, it is impossible to predict whether any payments under the notes could be made following commencement of or during a bankruptcy case or the length of any potential delay in making any such payments post-petition, whether or when the Collateral Agent could foreclose upon, repossess or dispose of the collateral, or whether or to what extent the holders of the notes would be compensated for any delay in payment or loss of value of the collateral through the requirements of “adequate protection.”

Furthermore, in the event the bankruptcy court determines that the value of the collateral is not sufficient to repay all amounts due on the notes, the holders of the notes would have “undersecured claims” as to the difference. Federal bankruptcy laws do not permit the payment or accrual of post-petition interest, costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees for “undersecured claims” during the debtor’s bankruptcy case. Other consequences of a finding of under-collateralization would be, among other things, a lack of entitlement to receive other “adequate protection” under federal bankruptcy laws with respect to the unsecured portion of the notes. In addition, if any payments of post-petition interest had been made at the time of such a finding of under-collateralization, those payments could be recharacterized by the bankruptcy court as a reduction of the principal amount of the notes.

The Intercreditor Agreement also contains provisions restricting the holders of the notes from filing certain objections in any future bankruptcy to, among other things, a proposed debtor-in-possession financing that satisfied various terms and conditions.

Charter Operating and CCO Holdings are holding companies and will depend on subsidiaries, including non-guarantor subsidiaries, to satisfy their respective obligations under the notes and CCO Holdings’ Note Guarantee.

As holding companies, CCO Holdings and Charter Operating conduct substantially all of their operations through their direct and indirect subsidiaries, which own substantially all of our consolidated assets.

 

22