Finbar99,
The holding Co can not be responsable for the CS decisions. it is the Marshalling jurisprudence:
Strictly speaking, a creditor who has a lien or a charge (such as a mortgage) and thus, a priority on an asset (or fund), and also has access on another asset, can collect off one or the other or both, to the satisfaction of his debt. This frustrates other creditors who do not have access to the charged asset or fund. They see their only source of payment depleted by a creditor who could of obtained satisfaction from the charged asset.
In stepped equity to the rescue, to construct a principle of fairness and which has become known as the doctrine of marshalling, requiring the creditor with the enforcement choices to act first upon the asset upon which he alone has rights or access.
unsecured 'deficiency claims' is the same for the interco claim of 197M$. It can be apply against the Southgold asset if CS accept the 15M + 15% NPI and CS has no claim against Southgold asset.
If CS refused, GBG Holding will get the 15M$ + 15% NPI (105M$) and can claim a 'deficiency claims' of 92M$ from Southgold assets
In both CS is toast
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
