Yeah - could be Mikie. That's why I was hoping Rufus could pop in to clear this up. I did receive a PM from someone claiming have a good deal of experience with corporate bankruptcy....he explained that "reorganization" was in reference to BK, not what Rufus is planning. I still have not heard from Sylvrewynde on the subject.
Without revealing the alias, here's what I got back last night:
What the documents are saying is only that Chapter 11 or 7 does not automatically render the Secured Party's interest invalid. There are certain agreements which either expire or are accelerated with bankruptcy; this is not one of them. However, despite the wording of 10(e), final disposition of the claim is still subject to the bankruptcy court. Wages and taxes will still have a higher claim than that of the Secured Party.
The mention of reorganization does not apply to CSHD's current situation. The reorganization that is being referred to is the emergence of a company after Chapter 11.
Very small point: you referred to this as a "debenture" in post #57810. It is not a debenture.
(For whatever it's worth, I have not independently checked into the Security Agreement; I have just read your excellent research. But for all I know, the Agreement may have been subsequently amended or rendered irrelevant by a prior conversion or call [the Notes are callable]. The way to check up on this [not definitive, but indicative] is to check up on the current status of the UCC filing.)