COMM 2013- definition

COMM 2013-. CCRE13 The depositor has filed a registration statement (including the prospectus) with the SEC (SEC File No. 333-184376) for the offering to which this communication relates. Before you invest, you should read the prospectus in the registration statement and other documents the depositor has filed with the SEC for more complete information about the depositor, the issuing trust and this offering. You may get these documents for free by visiting XXXXX on the SEC website at xxx.xxx.xxx. Alternatively, the depositor or Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., any other underwriter, or any dealer participating in this offering will arrange to send you the prospectus if you request it by calling toll-free 1-800-503-4611 or by email to the following address: xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx@xx.xxx. The offered certificates referred to in these materials, and the asset pool backing them, are subject to modification or revision (including the possibility that one or more classes of certificates may be split, combined or eliminated at any time prior to issuance or availability of a final prospectus) and are offered on a “when, as and if issued” basis. You understand that, when you are considering the purchase of these certificates, a contract of sale will come into being no sooner than the date on which the relevant class has been priced and we have verified the allocation of certificates to be made to you; any “indications of interest” expressed by you, and any “soft circles” generated by us, will not create binding contractual obligations for you or us. This free writing prospectus does not contain all information that is required to be included in the prospectus and the prospectus supplement.

Examples of COMM 2013- in a sentence

• The district court noted that it was “aware of COMM 2013’s efforts to seek additional clarification from the Bankruptcy Court on its interpretation of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, but it appear[ed] that COMM 2013 ha[d] not requested formal relief from the Bankruptcy Court that would toll any appeal deadlines.” Appeal ECF 20.

• A fundamental study of laser-initiated discharges has been undertaken with the ultimate goal of applicabil- ity to pulsed plasma thrusters.

• COMM 2013 primarily takes issue with one salient feature of the parties’ agreements.

• COMM 2013 argues that the Bankruptcy Court erroneously assumed that Tara Retail 1) could have declined to object to the claims, 2) concluded that creditors were not prejudiced by the stipulations, and 3) concluded that 5 At the time of voting, it will be incumbent upon the Bankruptcy Court to determine the extent to which, if at all, the creditors’ “right to payment,” and thus voting power, has been reduced by credits against rent.COMM 2013 V.

• In essence, COMM 2013 contends that the compromises should be presumed impermissible because there is no valid reason to agree that a claim be allowed in its entirety but satisfied by a lower figure.

• According to COMM 2013, the compromises directly violate the plain language of the statute because they amount to an impermissible “solicitation” of “votes in favor of a plan prior to approval of a disclosure statement” (Dkt.

• COMM 2013 is Tara Retail’s principal creditor due to a $13,650,000 commercial loan, which is secured by a lien on the Crossings Mall, as well as an assignment of its rents.In June 2016, catastrophic flooding destroyed the bridge and culvert that provided the only public access to the Crossings Mall, which remained inaccessible and inoperable for over a year.

• COMM 2013 has not challenged this analysis on appeal, and its brief does not cite Rule 9019.Rather, before the Bankruptcy Court and now on appeal, COMM 2013 has argued that the compromises should not be approved because the claim is allowed in a different amount than the creditors agreed to accept in satisfaction.

• To the extent that Tara Retail intends to advocate in favor of a plan that would adversely affect COMM 2013, an agreement to vote in favor of the plan plainly affects the lender’s pecuniary interest.COMM 2013 V.

• COMM 2013 contends that such arrangements should not be countenanced by the Court because they 1) divorce voting rights from payment rights under the Bankruptcy Code, 2) permit fully paid claims to be voted during plan confirmation, and 3) allow the debtor to manipulate plan voting to the prejudice of other creditors (Dkt.