§Why CasetextPricing

BOKF, N.A. v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 30 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . . Document

14 Cited authorities

  1. W.W.W. Assocs v. Giancontieri

    77 N.Y.2d 157 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 2,212 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that extrinsic evidence was immaterial, in part because the contract plainly manifested intent that all prior understandings were merged into the contract, which expressed the parties' full agreement

  2. JKC Holding Co. v. Washington Sports Ventures, Inc.

    264 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2001)   Cited 993 times
    Providing that during the summary judgment stage inferences cannot amount to speculation and that mere speculation "cannot create a genuine issue of material fact

  3. Law Debenture Trust v. Maverick Tube

    595 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 501 times
    Holding that proof of industry custom and usage is not extrinsic evidence

  4. Brady v. UBS Financial Services, Inc.

    538 F.3d 1319 (10th Cir. 2008)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that breach of contract claims asserted in second suit were not barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the trial court could go back and revisit its denial of a motion for leave to amend the complaint in the first suit before the entry of final judgment in that suit

  5. MeehanCombs Global Credit Opportunities Funds, LP v. Caesars Entertainment Corp.

    80 F. Supp. 3d 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)   Cited 21 times   6 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 14–cv–7091 SAS 14–cv–7973 SAS. 01-15-2015 MEEHANCOMBS GLOBAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES FUNDS, LP, Relative Value–Long/Short Debt, a Series of Underlying Funds Trust, SB 4 CF LLC, CFIP Ultra Master Fund, Ltd., and Trilogy Portfolio Company, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT CORP. and Caesars Entertainment Operating Co., Inc., Defendants. Frederick Barton Danner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Caesars Entertainment Corp. and Caesars Entertainment

  6. Marblegate Asset Mgmt. v. Educ. Mgmt. Corp.

    75 F. Supp. 3d 592 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)   Cited 12 times   12 Legal Analyses
    In Marblegate Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Educ. Mgmt. Corp., 75 F.Supp.3d 592 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) [" Marblegate I "], the defendant devised an exchange offer in which exchanging holders of unsecured but guaranteed notes would receive a package of debt and equity in a new company.

  7. UPIC Co. v. Kinder-Care Learning Ctrs., Inc.

    793 F. Supp. 448 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)   Cited 36 times
    Finding no action clause does not affect plaintiff's right "to receive payment of principal of . . . the Security, on or after the due date expressed in the Security"

  8. Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Corp.

    111 F. Supp. 3d 542 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)   Cited 3 times   13 Legal Analyses

    No. 14 Civ. 8584(KPF). 06-23-2015 MARBLEGATE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDUCATION MANAGEMENT CORP., et al., Defendants. Sean E. O'Donnell, Jessica Greenwood, Joseph Lee Sorkin, Lucy Caitlin Malcolm, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New York, NY, Ariel Lavinbuk, Donald Burke, Lawrence Saul Robbins, Robbins Russell Englert Orseck Untereiner & Sauber, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. Emil A. Kleinhaus, John F. Lynch, Alexander Lees, Jasand Patric Mock, Lauren Marie Kofke, Mohit

  9. Scheffer v. Civil Serv. Employees Assn

    610 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 4 times

    Docket No. 07-3683-cv. Argued: December 3, 2008. Decided: June 28, 2010. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Michael A. Telesca, J. John R. Martin, Milton L. Chappell, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc., Springfield, VA; Laurence B. Oppenheimer, Hiscock Barclay, LLP, Buffalo, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. John M. West, Matthew Clash-Drexler, Bredhoff Kaiser, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C.; Jules L. Smith, Blitman King LLP, Rochester,

  10. Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. First Nat. Petroleum Trust

    67 F. Supp. 859 (D.R.I. 1946)   Cited 4 times

    Civil Action No. 359. March 2, 1946. Daniel H. Morrissey, Robert J. Conley, and James H. Hagan, all of Providence, R.I., for plaintiff. Edwin J. Tetlow, of Providence, R.I., for defendant. Ira Lloyd Letts, Andrew P. Quinn, and Frank Licht, all of Providence, R.I., for interveners. Roger S. Foster, Sol., Robert S. Rubin, Asst. Sol., and Alexander Cohen, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for Securities and Exchange Commission, amicus curiae. HARTIGAN, District Judge. This is a civil action brought by The Continental

  11. Section 1129 - Confirmation of plan

    11 U.S.C. § 1129   Cited 4,345 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Requiring payment of property whose "value, as of the effective date of the plan" equals or exceeds the value of the creditor's claim

  12. Section 1126 - Acceptance of plan

    11 U.S.C. § 1126   Cited 928 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Providing that impaired claim and interest holders are entitled to vote on plan approval

  13. Section 77ppp - Directions and waivers by bondholders; prohibition of impairment of holder's right to payment; record date

    15 U.S.C. § 77ppp   Cited 55 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting modification of right to receive payment without noteholder's consent "except ... as provided in paragraph of subsection of this section."

  14. Section 210.3-10 - Financial statements of guarantors and issuers of guaranteed securities registered or being registered

    17 C.F.R. § 210.3-10   Cited 2 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) If an issuer or guarantor of a guaranteed security that is registered or being registered is required to file financial statements required by Regulation S-X with respect to the guarantee or guaranteed security, such financial statements may be omitted if the issuer or guarantor is a consolidated subsidiary of the parent company, the parent company's consolidated financial statements have been filed, and the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section have been met: (1) The guaranteed