-35-
no basis for finding that petitioners did not have assets equal
to (or in excess of) their liabilities (i.e., that petitioners
were insolvent).
2. Petitioners’ Guarantees
The measurement date (the date on which petitioners must
prove their insolvency) is August 31, 1991. By that date, SLC
had defaulted on the SLC note, which petitioners had guaranteed,
and petitioners and the bank had entered into the agreement.
Under the agreement, among other things, if SLC and petitioners
(and certain others) avoided bankruptcy for 400 days after the
settlement date (August 2, 1991), petitioners would be released
from their guarantees without having to make any payment to the
bank. The 400-day period ended September 5, 1992.
By the terms of petitioners’ guarantees, petitioners’
obligations to pay the SLC note were unconditional. Moreover, we
assume those obligations became fixed on April 16, 1991, when SLC
was in default on the SLC note. Nevertheless, on the measurement
date, those fixed obligations had been replaced by obligations
that were dependent on certain conditions and, thus, were
contingent obligations.
To address the likelihood of certain of those conditions,
petitioners propose the following finding of fact (to which
respondent objects):
42. During the continuing efforts by SLC and the
Petitioners to work with creditors, there was a
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011