Busy times for Intelsat in bankruptcy court

  •   
  •   
  •   

It’s always lively at Intelsat’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy court. On September 24th, for example, there were 17 separate filings laid before the court. However, a key problem could be partially resolved on September 29th, when Intelsat’s bankruptcy court will be asked to appoint an external examiner to investigate the potential claims against Intelsat and the separate “Intelsat” businesses.

Intelsat SA, for example, registered in Luxembourg, might be considered the ‘parent’ company in the bankruptcy but the problem is there are dozens of other Intelsat-related companies also involved in the bankruptcy. Some of these other businesses have considerable debts in their own regard.

However, a payment from the FCC (the so-called C-Band incentive payments) is likely to go to just one company and while many might think it should be Intelsat SA that is currently far from clear.

An examiner, if appointed by Judge Keith Philips, would investigate potential asset claims and the value of the Intelsat parent entity, and clarifying the company’s current reorganisation plan and how any settlements are made and how they should be allocated.

The Motion before the court asks: “That the Court direct that an examiner investigate and report to the Court on, at least, potential litigation, asset claims and value of Intelsat SA, the ultimate parent of the other Debtors, whose value or attributes have been ignored or devalued without explanation in the chapter 11 plan filed by the Debtors on August 24, 2021.”

The request continues: “Having an independent third party conduct an investigation as proposed in this Motion and provide a report, which would include the viability of any possible claims, would not only bring a greater sense of independence and credibility to the process, but also save estate funds in that the examiner could be ordered to share any documents or other materials disclosed in the examiner’s report, thus potentially reducing expenses of having various parties conducting the same discovery in these cases.”


  •   
  •   
  •   

You must be logged in to post a comment Login