nanog mailing list archives
Re: C&W Peering
From: "Vincent J. Bono" <vbono () vinny org>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:50:54 -0400
Any post filing expenses incurred (i.e. new contracts or payments due current service providers for services provided after filing) must be approved by the court and then they are given the highest priority for payment, even above secured interests in the bankrupt entity. -vb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell () ufp org> To: <nanog () merit edu> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 8:51 PM Subject: Re: C&W Peering
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:55:14PM -0400, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:I think PSI is going to have to get itself some transit, and quickly.I know almost nothing about bankruptcy, so I would love for someone who does to comment. Put simply, if a company can't pay its creditors and suppliers do they have any chance of entering into a new purchase agreement? I know that I personally wouldn't offer them Net-30 payment terms right now. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request () tmbg org, www.tmbg.org
Current thread:
- Re: C&W Peering, (continued)
- Re: C&W Peering Jared Mauch (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Mike Hughes (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering Vivien M. (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering John Starta (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Christopher A. Woodfield (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Jared Mauch (Jun 04)
- Message not available
- Re: C&W Peering Eric Gauthier (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering Vivien M. (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Leo Bicknell (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Richard Welty (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Vincent J. Bono (Jun 05)
- Re: C&W Peering Rafi Sadowsky (Jun 06)
- RE: C&W Peering Scott Patterson (Jun 04)
- RE: C&W Peering Matt Levine (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering Christopher A. Woodfield (Jun 04)
- Re: C&W Peering (and nTH Percentile Unite!) James Thomason (Jun 04)