Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pine River Master Fund Ltd. v. Amur Finance Co., Inc.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

October 10, 2017

Pine River Master Fund Ltd.
Amur Finance Company, Inc.

          Date Submitted: September 27, 2017

          C. Barr Flinn, Esquire Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP.

          Garrett B. Moritz, Esquire Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP.

         Dear Counsel:

         I have your correspondence regarding confusion over the scope of the September 13, 2017, Memorandum Opinion and Order ("the Opinion") in which the Court addressed, inter alia, the breach of Section 6.04 of the Credit Agreement relating to the payment of indemnities. The confusion arises out of the Court's less than precise definition of the parties, especially its use of "Amur" to refer collectively to Defendants, Amur Finance Company, Inc. ("AFC"), Amur Finance IV LLC ("Amur IV"), Amur Aviation LLC, PMC Aviation 2012-1 LLC, and Mostafiz ShahMohammed. This has created uncertainty as to which of the Defendants the Court found to have breached the Credit Agreement. Plaintiffs, Pine River Master Fund Ltd. and Pine River Fixed Income Master Fund Ltd. (collectively, "Pine River"), argue that the Court must have intended to find both Amur IV and AFC in breach; Defendants argue that the finding of breach should extend only to AFC.[1]

         Count II of the original Complaint (upon which Pine River sought partial summary judgment) refers only to the conduct of AFC.[2] Nevertheless, Pine River argued in its motion for summary judgment as to Counts II and VI that both AFC and Amur IV breached Section 6.04.[3] In the Introduction of their Corrected Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Opening Brief in Support of Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants appear to acquiesce in the notion that the Court could find Amur IV in breach of Section 6.04. Specifically, they state "there was no breach of section 6.04 of the Credit Agreement (or any other section) when Amur IV satisfied AFC's indemnities for legal expenses."[4] They reiterate this point later in that brief when they argue "[t]he contract was not breached when Amur IV satisfied AFC's indemnities related to legal fees incurred in connection with the lawsuits."[5]

         Despite the confusion in the briefing and Opinion, it is clear to me that the claim in Count II, as to which Pine River sought summary judgment, was a claim of breach directed against AFC, not AFC and Amur IV.[6] Pine River's Amended Complaint added allegations against Amur IV with respect to Section 6.04, [7] but the Court was advised in clear terms by the parties, in response to the Court's inquiry, that the Amended Complaint did not affect the claims or arguments to be addressed in the pending motion for summary judgment.[8] Based on the foregoing, I can clarify that the Court's finding of breach of Section 6.04, and its grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Pine River, was directed at AFC only.

         In any event, even if the Court were to determine that Count II did or should have included a claim of breach of Section 6.04 against Amur IV, [9] the Court's determination that no Event of Default occurred, at least as argued in the motion for summary judgment, would not be affected. Regardless of which of the Amur parties were (or could be) found to have breached Section 6.04, the fact would remain, at least in the Court's view, that the improper payment of expenses or indemnities did not constitute a diversion of Borrower funds from paying Interest in violation of Sections 7.01(a) or (b).

         Based on the foregoing, the Court will enter the proposed implementing order submitted by Amur.[10]

         Very truly yours,

          Joseph R. Slights III.



[1] I confess that the Court did not focus in the Opinion on the distinction between AFC and Amur IV, as it did not appear in the briefs that the parties were focusing on that distinction, at least as to Section 6.04. See, e.g., Pls.' Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. at 4 ("[D]efendants still breached Section 6.04 by taking distributions from the Collections Account in February 2017."); Defs.' Br. in Opp'n of Mot. for Summ. J. at 29 ("Amur was left with no choice but to calculate the monthly distributions itself, using the calculation methodologies negotiated with Pine River and used by Amur consistently over the prior three-plus years."); id. at 29 ("Amur determined the monthly distribution itself, and Amur IV made the necessary February 2017 payments . . ."); id. at 34 ("Indemnification of Amur's legal expenses related to the Operative Agreements and the Loans is clear on the face of the Credit Agreement."); id. at 44 (Pine River also argues that the February 2017 payment made by Amur IV to satisfy AFC's indemnities was in breach of the Credit Agreement because it was made pursuant to an alleged 'Administrator Report' that Amur prepared when it was no longer serving as Administrative Agent."); id. at 47 ("Amur's failure to pay Pine River PIK Accrual would only constitute a breach . . . if PIK was 'due and payable, ' which it was not . . ."); ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.