Check out the court orders, provides background too. Here's a snippet about the CHEL facility agreement.
26Third, there was a concern that when Alita emerged from the DOCA,it would be insolvent.It certainly would be in default under the facility agreement.Whether it would be insolvent depended on whether or not CHEL insisted on repayment for the facility.If it did, there is no doubt Alita would be insolvent.But, if it did not, or if the facility was renegotiated before 30November2020,then it would not be insolvent.
27This was,in the context of the application,a point of some importance.Based upon the evidence as it stood,I could not conclude Alita would inevitably be insolvent when it emerged from the DOCA.It might not even be in default if CHEL was prepared to either forebear of renegotiate the facility.But, it must be acknowledged that the uncertain position of Alita was a relevant factor in determining whether the orders ought be made.
28Liatam submitted there was not substancein any of the objectionsraised by SMS.So far as the ClassC Creditors' Side Agreement was concerned there was no evidence to suggest the terms of that agreement would not be met by Alita.As I have indicated, there was notemporal aspect to cl8 of the ClassC Creditors' Side Agreement.There was also nothing to suggest it would not bind the company no matter who were the directors and who held the shares.Counsel also pointed out Alitapresently has no directors and new directors would have to be appointed before the DOCA completed.If that was not done,there would be no one to hand control back to.Insofar as the conditions precedent are concerned they can be waived by agreement between Liatam and the deed administrators.Such an agreement had been reached subject to court approval of the variations to the DOCA.As to the facility agreement,counsel noted that while the deed administrators and CHEL had been unable to reach agreement,CHEL had indicated that it was prepared to negotiate with a view to reaching agreement with new directors to provide a new facility and a forbearance arrangement.In any event, the position of CHEL had not changed‑that is to say, the proposed amendments did not affect the security position.
ref:
https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/ViewDecision?returnUrl=%2feCourtsPortal%2fDecisions%2fFilter%2fSC%2fRecentDecisions&id=4dccc888-b011-4249-a2ed-c47fa720a67d
SMS opposition to the above orders dismissed
https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/ViewDecision?returnUrl=%2feCourtsPortal%2fDecisions%2fFilter%2fSC%2fRecentDecisions&id=06a3f70f-52dc-49df-a37f-891a882838a9
