In Re Boston Generating, LLC

OPINION GRANTING DEBTORS’ MOTION SEEKING AUTHORITY TO SELL, PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 363, SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE DEBTORS’ ASSETS

Before the Court is the Debtors’ motion seeking authority to sell substantially all of the Debtors’ assets, free and clear of liens, claims, and encumbrances to Constellation Holdings, Inc. (“Constellation”) and to authorize the assumption and assignment of certain executory contracts and unexpired leases in connection with the sale, as well as certain other related relief (the “Sale Motion”). By the Sale Motion, the Debtors submit that they have a good business reason for selling their assets prior to confirmation of a plan and that they meet the standard articulated by the Second Circuit in Comm. of Equity Sec. Holders v. Lionel Corp. (In re Lionel Corp.), 722 F.2d 1063 (2d Cir.1983), and in subsequent decisions of courts in this District.

Objections to the sale were filed by: (i) MatlinPatterson Global Advisers LLC (“Matlin”), one of the Second Lien Lenders (as defined below), (ii) Wilmington Trust FSB, as Second Lien Administrative Agent and Second Lien Collateral Agent under the Second Lien Credit Agreement (the “Second Lien Agent”), (iii) the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “UCC”), (iv) Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (“Algonquin”), and (v) other objectors whose objections were largely resolved prior to or during the hearing. CarVal Investors, LLC (“CarVal”) and Fortress Investment Group, LLC (“Fortress”), whose affiliated funds own both First Lien Debt and Second Lien Debt (each as defined below), joined in the objections of the Second Lien Agent and Matlin. Additionally, numerous objections to assumption and assignment of executory contracts were filed, and these objections were either resolved or adjourned until December 7, 2010. The Court has been advised that the objection filed by Algonquin has also been resolved.

Specifically, Matlin and the Second Lien Agent have argued, inter alia, that the Debtors did not properly exercise their fiduciary duties in moving forward with the Sale Motion; the Second Circuit stan *307 dard for approving sales of substantially all assets outside of a plan has not been met; section 363(f) of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) has not been satisfied; and the Sale Transaction should be evaluated under an entire fairness standard.

The Debtors and the Special Committee (as defined below) responded to the objections. Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch (the “First Lien Agent”), as First Lien Collateral Agent under the First Lien Credit and Guaranty Agreement (the “First Lien Credit Agreement”) filed a statement in support of the Sale Motion. U.S. Power Generating (“USPG”), the Debtors’ non-debtor ultimate parent, also filed a response to the objectors’ submissions.

The Court requested additional briefing on Algonquin’s objection and the Debtors, CarVal, Fortress, Constellation, and Algonquin filed additional submissions.

In addition to those declarations submitted and introduced in connection with the Bid Procedures Hearing (as defined below), the Debtors submitted the declarations of: (i) Jeff Hunter, Manager, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Debtors; (ii) Carsten Wo-ehrn,- Executive Director of J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (“JPM”); and (in) Adrienne K Eason Wheatley, member of La-tham & Watkins LLP. The Second Lien Agent introduced the declaration of Judah Rose, Managing Director of ICF International, Inc. (“ICF”). Algonquin introduced the declarations of: (i) Greg McBride, the Vice President of Rates and Certificates of Spectra Energy Corp., Algonquin’s parent, and (ii) Richard Paglia, Algonquin’s Vice President of Marketing. Messrs. McBride and Paglia’s declarations and testimony were the subject of a motion in limine filed by the Debtors which was subsequently withdrawn. Kevin M. Cof-sky, Managing Director of Perella Weinberg Partners, LP (“Perella”), also submitted a declaration which was subsequently withdrawn.

Additional declarations were filed by (i) William Howard Wolf, member of the board of managers (the “Board”) of the parent Debtor EBG Holdings LLC (“EBG”) and the sole member of a special committee of the Board (the “Special Committee”) and (ii) Islam (Sam) Zughayer, Managing Director and the head of the restructuring group at Berenson & Company, LLC (“Berenson”). Constellation filed the declaration of Dayan Abeyaratne, Constellation’s Vice President of Corporate Strategy & Development, on the issue of its ability to provide adequate assurance of future performance with respect to the assumed contracts and in support of a finding that it meets the standard for a good faith purchaser.

Live testimony was given by Messrs. Abeyaratne, Cofsky, Hunter, McBride, Paglia, Rose, Woehrn, Wolf, and Zughayer.

The parties submitted deposition designations and counter-designations for: (i) Dayan Abeyaratne; (ii) Kevin Cofsky; (iii) Leslie Dedrickson, managing director for portfolio management at Constellation; (iv) Jeff Hunter; (v) Wesley Kern, Senior Vice President, Finance, of USPG; (vi) Scott Moresco, a tax partner at KPMG; 2 (vii) Greg McBride; (viii) Richard Paglia; (ix) Ryan Roberts, a director of Madison Dearborn Partners (a USPG equity owner); (x) Carsten Woehrn; (xi) William Howard Wolf; and (xii) Sam Zughayer. Approximately six volumes of exhibits were introduced, containing many dozens of trial exhibits.

*308 In addition, by agreement of the parties, the record of the hearing held on October 4-7 and on October 9, 2010 (the “Bid Procedures Hearing”) and the Court’s October 9, 2010 bench ruling with respect thereto (the “Bid Procedures Decision”) have also been made part of the record of the evi-dentiary hearing held by this Court on November 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 23, 2010 to consider the sale of substantially all of the Debtors’ assets (the “Sale Hearing”).

FINDINGS OF FACT

After an evidentiary hearing, the Court makes the following findings of fact. 3

I. Background

On August 18, 2010 (the “Petition Date”), each of the Debtors filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtors’ cases are being jointly administered pursuant to an order dated August 20, 2010, and the Debtors continue to operate their respective businesses as debtors-in-possession pursuant to sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtors employ some 148 persons of whom 107 are members of the Utility Workers Union of America. Maintenance of the Debtors’ facilities is primarily conducted by third-party vendors.

The Debtors operate power plants that provide wholesale electricity to the Boston area, and they own the third largest generation fleet in New England. The Debtors generate revenue by selling electricity, receiving capacity payments, and providing ancillary services. In order to manage the various risks and market price fluctuations inherent in the conversion of fossil fuels (primarily natural gas) into electricity, the Debtors utilize a variety of derivative instruments and other long-term contracts.

The Debtors’ non-debtor ultimate parent, USPG, provides energy management and general asset management services to the Debtors. In addition to owning, indirectly, 100% of the Debtors’ equity, USPG owns Astoria Generating (“Astoria”). Astoria owns power generation assets that provide wholesale electricity to the New York area. Astoria is not a Debtor.

As noted in the Declaration of Jeff Hunter in Support of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Pleadings, over the last several years, low fuel prices, eroding demand, and a significant surplus of supply have put downward pressure on margins in the energy, capacity, and ancillary service markets in New England. Additionally, a significant amount of new uneconomic supply is expected to come online over the next three to five years. The Debtors define “uneconomic supply” as supply that may be subsidized or is otherwise below a hypothetical market price. This new uneconomic supply, combined with eroding demand, has created a significant surplus of future capacity which is depressing market prices and reducing revenue.

The Debtors have approximately $2 billion in prepetition debt. The Debtors’ operations are financed by two tranches of secured debt: (i) a $1.45 billion first lien term credit facility pursuant to the First Lien Credit Agreement, of which approximately $1.13 billion is currently outstanding (the “First Lien Debt,” held by the “First Lien Lenders”), secured by first-priority liens on substantially all of the *309 Debtors’ assets (the “Collateral”) and (ii) a $350 million second-lien term loan facility (the “Second Lien Debt,” held by the “Second Lien Lenders”), secured by second-priority liens on the same Collateral. The Second Lien Lenders together with the First Lien Lenders may be referred to herein as the “Secured Parties.” The Debtors also have approximately $422 million of unsecured debt at the parent-Debt- or level, pursuant to a term-loan facility advanced to EBG (the “Mezzanine Facility”). Neither USPG nor Astoria is a guarantor of any of these facilities.

Although the Debtors’ First Lien Credit Agreement, Second Lien Credit Agreement, and Mezzanine Facility were not in default prior to the Petition Date, given the Debtors’ liquidity position and projected ongoing liquidity needs, the Debtors believed they had insufficient liquidity to continue to service their debt and fund ongoing operations.

The Debtors are participants in the electric energy markets administered by ISO-New England (“ISO-NE”). ISO-NE is the regional transmission organization designated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). ISO-NE administers the day-ahead and real-time energy markets as well as capacity and ancillary service markets in accordance with FERC’s market rules. Pursuant to ISO-NE’s rules, utilities that provide electricity to end-use customers must demonstrate that they have capacity equal to the peak load forecast plus a margin for any relevant period. These companies can fulfill their capacity obligation by buying forward contracts in the forward capacity market from the Debtors or their competitors. The objective of the forward capacity market is to purchase sufficient capacity for reliable system operation for a future year at competitive prices where all resources, both new and existing, can participate. Forward capacity prices are the most important component of the Debtors’ asset value and are known several years in advance.

Current pricing in the forward capacity market points to flat or declining capacity revenue through 2014. The February 2008 auction for the 2010/2011 capacity year cleared at the regulatory floor price of $4.50 per kW-month. Prices in the second auction (for the 2011/2012 capacity year), the third auction (for the 2012/2013 capacity year), and the fourth auction (for the 2013/2014 capacity year) cleared at the regulatory administered floor of $3.60 per kW-month, $2.95 per kW-month, and $2.95 per kW-month, respectively. Certain of the parties who have objected to the Sale Transaction (as defined below) believe that pricing is not competitive and FERC will issue regulations at the end of the first quarter of 2011 that will increase prices. As Mr. Rose testified, regulatory changes may increase revenue after 2014 and revenues might increase substantially in 2018. However, removing the price floor could cause material future declines in revenue after 2014. There was substantial testimony regarding the pending FERC docket during the Bid Procedures Hearing; the Court’s preliminary findings in the Bid Procedures Decision regarding the FERC docket insofar as it relates to the Debtors are specifically incorporated by reference herein and require no modification in light of evidence adduced during the Sale Hearing.

As a means to reduce their exposure to energy commodity price risk, the Debtors entered into accretive energy hedges. These hedges, which will expire on December 31, 2010, accounted for about 50% of the Debtors’ earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBIT-DA”) over the last eight quarters.

*310 II. The Debtors’ Restructuring Efforts

The Debtors engaged in an eighteen-month long restructuring process which began over a year prior to the Debtors’ August 18, 2010 petition date and eventually led to a heavily marketed sale for substantially all of the Debtors’ assets. The process has involved a multitude of steps, a bevy of professionals, and enormous amounts of information exchange and diligence, not to mention extensive litigation.

In September 2008, in an effort to address issues with its consolidated balance sheet, USPG retained Perella as its financial advisor. USPG and the Debtors first attempted a balance sheet restructuring, including attempted issuance of new equity securities. In the middle of 2010, it became clear that a balance sheet restructuring was unlikely to be successful, and Perella signed a new engagement letter with the Debtors (and terminated its engagement with USPG) in June 2010. The Debtors determined that a sale of substantially all assets would be the best way to maximize the value of their assets. They retained JPM to run a sale process while Perella continued working on the Debtors’ balance sheet restructuring and assisting on due diligence.

In late April 2010, JPM began an extensive marketing and sale process. It contacted 199 potential buyers (81 strategic and 118 financial) and distributed a confidential information memorandum to 36 of those parties (the “CIM Recipients”), requesting preliminary letters of interest by May 18, 2010. The Second Lien Lenders’ financial advisor, Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin; their energy industry expert, Mr. Rose’s firm ICF; and their legal ad-visors were fully engaged in this restructuring and sale process. The Debtors paid certain of the fees of the Second Lien Lenders’ advisors in an attempt to foster a process in which a consensual transaction could be achieved. Ten CIM Recipients (the “Potential Purchasers”) responded with preliminary letters of interest. The Debtors opted to pursue further discussion with six of the Potential Purchasers. These six Potential Purchasers received access to the Debtors’ management, went on site visits, and received access to an extensive electronic data room. Two of the six Potential Purchasers submitted “final” bids, which were accompanied by marked purchase agreements. The Debtors negotiated extensively with the two bidders. Through this negotiation, the Debtors were able to secure improved terms and conditions and achieve an approximately $100 million increase in the purchase price from the “final” bid.

On August 7, 2010, the Debtors and Constellation signed a pre-petition asset purchase agreement (the “Asset Purchase Agreement”) for the sale of substantially all of the assets of the Debtors for $1.1 billion cash (the “Sale Transaction”). The $1.1 billion cash purchase price is subject to working capital adjustments. The Asset Purchase Agreement requires the Debtors to seek approval of a sale pursuant to section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code and to obtain the entry of a sale order by this Court no later than 90 days after the Debtors’ Petition Date (which date has been subsequently extended by Constellation to November 24, 2010). Based on the Debtors’ estimate, the net proceeds of the Sale Transaction combined with the Debtors’ cash on hand will be sufficient to pay approximately 98.5% of the First Lien Debt but will leave no recovery for the Second Lien Debt or unsecured creditors.

On August 17, 2010, a group of First Lien Lenders who hold in excess of 50% of the outstanding first lien obligations under the First Lien Credit Agreement executed a sale support agreement with the Debt *311 ors. The First Lien Credit Agreement permits a sale of Collateral with the consent of over 50% of the First Lien Lenders (who are defined in the agreement as “Required Lenders”). Thus, the sale support agreement assured the Debtors that the First Lien Lenders would consent to the proposed sale even if they were not paid in full. By its terms, the sale support agreement permits the Debtors to pursue alternative transactions that the Debtors believe would result in a higher and better offer.

III. The Debtors’ Chapter 11 Cases, the FERC Proceedings, and the Post-Petition Sale Process

On August 19, 2010, one day after the Petition Date, the Debtors filed the Sale Motion, seeking entry of (i) an order approving and authorizing (a) bid procedures in connection with the proposed sale of substantially all of their assets, (b) stalking horse bid protections, (c) procedures for the assumption and assignment of ex-ecutory contracts and unexpired leases in connection with the sale, (d) the form and manner of notice of the sale hearing and (e) certain related relief; and (ii) an order approving and authorizing (a) the sale of substantially all of the Debtors’ assets free and clear of claims, liens, liabilities, rights, interests and encumbrances, (b) the Debtors to enter into and perform their obligations under the Asset Purchase Agreement, (c) the Debtors to assume and assign certain executory contracts and unexpired leases, (d) the Transition Services Agreement and (e) related relief.

Concurrently with the filing of the Sale Motion, the Debtors and Constellation sought FERC approval of the proposed sale of the Debtors’ power plants, including a power plant in Massachusetts owed by one of the Debtors, Fore River Development, LLC (the “Fore River Plant”), to Constellation pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824b (the “FPA”). Thus, on August 18, 2010, the Debtors and Constellation filed with FERC their Joint Application for Authorization of Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities, Request for Waivers of Certain Filing Requirements, and Request for Shortened Comment Period and Expedited Consideration (the “203 Application”).

On August 27, 2010, the Debtors filed the First Omnibus Motion of Debtors for Entry of Order Authorizing the Debtors to Reject Certain Executory Contracts Nunc Pro Tunc to Their Respective Notice Dates (the “Rejection Motion”) seeking authorization to reject, among other executo-ry contracts, the 2001 HubLine Service Agreement, dated as of January 31, 2001, between the Debtors and Algonquin (the “HSA”). The Debtors seek to reject the HSA because they believe, in their business judgment, that the HSA does not provide a substantial benefit to the estate and, moreover, imposes a burden on the estate.

On September 1, 2010, Algonquin filed its Motion for Withdrawal of Reference With Respect to the Rejection Motion (the “Motion for Withdrawal of Reference of Rejection Motion”), requesting that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) withdraw the reference of the Rejection Motion only with respect to the HSA to resolve an alleged conflict between federal bankruptcy law authorizing the rejection of executory contracts and federal energy law under the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717 et seq. (“NGA”) requiring FERC approval of the termination or amendment of natural gas transportation agreements.

On September 8, 2010, Algonquin filed with FERC its Motion to Intervene and Protest of Algonquin Gas Transmission, *312 LLC (the “FERC Protest”) with respect to the 203 Application. In the FERC Protest, Algonquin argued, inter alia, that if FERC were to approve the 203 Application, which contemplates the sale of the Fore River Plant without the HSA, FERC would be using the exclusive delegation of authority granted by Congress under the FPA to preempt an equal but separate exclusive delegation of authority under the NGA in violation of the filed rate doctrine and the public interest. Algonquin also argued that any change or alteration by FERC of the HSA must be done only after notice and due process under the NGA, which has yet to be initiated with FERC.

On September 17, 2010, Algonquin filed its Motion to Withdraw the Reference with Respect to the Sale Motion (the “Motion for Withdrawal of Reference of Sale Motion”) on grounds similar to the Motion for Withdrawal of Reference of Rejection Motion. The Motion for Withdrawal of Reference of Rejection Motion and Motion for Withdrawal of Reference of Sale Motion were assigned to the Honorable Denise L. Cote, United States District Judge.

On October 4-7 and on October 9, 2010, the Court held the Bid Procedures Hearing to consider approval of the bid procedures, approval of the stalking horse bid protections to Constellation, and other requested relief (the “Bid Procedures”). After substantial testimony and argument, on October 9, 2010, the Court issued the Bid Procedures Decision approving the relief requested. The Court found that the Debtors properly exercised their business judgment in moving forward with the sale process and seeking approval of the bid procedures because they believed that the sale process was the best way to maximize the value of their estates. On October 12, 2010, the Court entered an order approving the Bid Procedures and granting related relief.

After approval of the Bid Procedures, JPM contacted (i) the approximately 200 potential bidders it had contacted prepetition and (ii) over 40 additional potential bidders who had not been previously contacted. JPM aggressively sought out interested buyers and encouraged them to participate in the process. JPM oversaw an electronic due diligence data site with tens of thousands of pages of information. CarVal, Fortress, and Matlin, including their advisors, accessed some 36,306 documents in the data site. JPM facilitated the flow of information to and the answers to questions from Matlin and other Second Lien Lenders. JPM updated the data site during the post-petition auction process and responded to dozens of written questions posed by potential bidders. JPM set up bidder-specific data sites to post-bidder specific information that might compromise an individual bidder’s competitive position if placed on the broader data site. Potential bidders received, at their election, daily emails announcing the availability of the new information as it was added to the data site.

On November 1, 2010, Judge Cote issued an Opinion and Order (the “November 1 Opinion”) granting the Motion for Withdrawal of Reference of Rejection Motion and denying the Motion for Withdrawal of Reference of Sale Motion. The District Court withdrew the reference of the Rejection Motion because “[i]n order to decide the Rejection Motion, a court will have to decide whether Congress has, through the Bankruptcy Code, given the district court power to authorize the Debtors to reject the HSA, or if instead, doing so would run afoul of FERC’s exclusive jurisdiction over filed rate contracts under the NGA.” 4

*313 In conjunction with the November 1 Opinion, Judge Cote issued an order to show cause (the “OSC”) ordering Algonquin and the Debtors to show cause by noon on November 5, 2010 “why the Court should not transfer the Rejection Motion back to the Bankruptcy Court for it to decide the Rejection Motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365, on the condition that the Debtors must also obtain approval from FERC pursuant to the NGA to reject the HSA.” 5

On November 4, 2010, the Board voted to establish the Special Committee 6 and appointed William Howard Wolf as its sole member. As discussed more fully in the Bid Procedures Decision, Mr. Wolf was the sole independent board member of EBG, and his vote was required by the Debtors’ organizational documents before filing for bankruptcy to launch the 363 sale process. Mr. Wolf has several decades of experience with corporate governance with large companies, and he was fully engaged with the Debtors and the process.

The Special Committee was delegated the full power of the Board to evaluate all possible options available to EBG to maximize the value of the Debtors’ estates. Specifically, the Board resolution establishing the Special Committee delegates to the Special Committee the authority of the full Board to (i) review and evaluate a possible sale pursuant to section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code or other strategic alternative; (ii) discuss and negotiate possible restructuring alternatives with any party the Special Committee deemed or deems appropriate; (iii) approve a possible restructuring alternative, if appropriate; and (iv) assist with any other matter which could present an actual or potential conflict between the interests of EBG and its parent. As the sole member of the Special Committee, Mr. Wolf considered whether to proceed with the Sale Transaction.

The Board vested the Special Committee with authority to retain its own independent legal and financial advisors. Mr. Wolf selected Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP as the Special Committee’s independent legal counsel and Berenson as the Special Committee’s independent financial advisor. In addition to taking advantage of the broad knowledge base of the Debtors’ advisors, the Special Committee also received advice from its own independent advisors.

On November 9, 2010, the Debtors submitted an amendment (“Amendment No. 1”) to the Asset Purchase Agreement, which contained certain revisions related to collective bargaining agreements and other employee matters. It also extended the parties’ termination deadline in the Asset Purchase Agreement to January 14, 2011, in the event that the only outstanding unsatisfied closing condition is FERC approval. Lastly, it clarified language related to payment of the break-up fee upon consummation of an Alternative Transaction (as defined in the Asset Purchase Agreement) to eliminate certain potential drafting ambiguities that were discussed on the record at the Bid Procedures Hearing. In a supplemental objection filed on November 14, 2010, Matlin objected to the changes to the break-up fee provision in the Asset Purchase Agreement implemented by Amendment No. 1. It argued that the changes were overbroad and rendered the break-up fee payable in circumstances *314 beyond those agreed to on the record at the Bid Procedures Hearing. The Debtors and Constellation agreed that Amendment No. 1 would not be enforceable to the extent that it exceeded the scope of the changes set forth on the record. Matlin concurred with this approach as resolving its concerns with respect to Amendment No. 1.

Per the Bid Procedures, “Qualified Bids” (which, as defined in the Bid Procedures, must, inter alia, (a) exceed the value of the Sale Transaction plus the breakup fee plus the $10 million bid increment, (b) not be conditioned on obtaining financing, and (c) include a $50 million good faith deposit) were due on or before November 13, 2010 at 12 p.m. (the “Bid Deadline”) from parties desiring to participate in an auction for the sale of substantially all of the Debtors’ assets. However, the Bid Procedures stated that, “Nothing herein shall preclude a bidder from submitting a competing bid in the form of a plan of reorganization and it being understood that such bid may be determined by the Debtors not to be a Qualified Bid.” An auction, if needed, was scheduled for November 15, 2010 at 10 a.m.

On November 12, 2010, Judge Cote issued another order with respect to the Motion for Withdrawal of Reference of Rejection Motion (the “November 12 Opinion,” and, together with the November 1 Opinion, the “District Court Opinions”). In this opinion, Judge Cote said, “In order to reject the [HSA], the Debtors must also obtain a ruling from FERC that abrogation of the contract does not contravene the public interest.” 7 Judge Cote ordered that Fore River obtain a determination from FERC pursuant to the NGA whether it may reject the HSA. 8 Judge Cote also noted that, “[w]hether the bankruptcy court and FERC review the proposed rejection concurrently or serially is of no consequence.” 9

On Saturday, November 13, 2010 at 3 p.m., the Special Committee reviewed the sole bid received, which was a proposal that had been submitted by Matlin. The Special Committee, with the assistance of its advisors and the Debtors’ advisors, analyzed the value differences and qualitative differences between the Sale Transaction and the Matlin proposal. After the receipt of the bid, the Special Committee (through his professionals and the Debtors’ professionals) continued to provide diligence and feedback to Matlin on its plan proposal. The Debtors extended the Bid Deadline through November 15, 2010 in order to give Matlin feedback and to permit Matlin to improve on the clearly articulated shortcomings in the Matlin proposal. Mr. Wolfs lengthy and extremely detailed declaration filed in support of the Sale Transaction reflects an almost minute-by-minute account of what transpired in the critical days leading up to the scheduled auction on November 15. Mr. Wolfs account was largely unchallenged, and the Court adopts his declaration as an accurate record of the events that transpired and who participated. Mr. Wolfs declaration also identified with specificity numerous reasons why the Matlin “proposal” could not be considered a “Qualified Bid,” let alone a confirmable plan, and he explained these points in more detail in his live testimony. I find his testimony and declaration credible; it plays an important role in my decision.

Matlin’s objection questions the Debtors’ decision to move forward with the Sale *315 Transaction rather than with Matlin’s proposal. After Matlin made its initial submission to the Debtors on November 13, Mat-lin continued to amend its proposal until the Debtors determined not to hold a formal auction on November 15. Based on representations and evidence introduced at the Sale Hearing, Matlin’s bid appears to have continued to evolve even after November 15. Matlin’s proposal, as reflected in Exhibits 518 and 520 and as supplemented at the Sale Hearing, in summary, involves recapitalizing the Debtors with $700 million of debt (which amount was eventually increased to $750 million), $200 million of accreting preferred stock invested by Matlin, and several hundred million shares of common equity (par value $1.00 per share) as well as certain warrants that would be distributed to holders of First Lien Debt and Second Lien Debt. Matlin represents that the enterprise value of the Debtors, as reflected in its proposal, is some $1.35 billion. Matlin’s proposal includes a so-called “cash out option” for the stock distributed to the holders of the First Lien Debt at up to 75 cents on the dollar. As a result, Matlin’s proposal lacks a fully backstopped offering that would pay 100 cents on the dollar in cash to First Lien Lenders who did not wish to accept a portion of their recovery in stock.

The Debtors’ liquidity position was a hotly contested issue during the Bid Procedures Hearing as well as during the Sale Hearing. Mr. Hunter testified at the Bid Procedures Hearing and likewise at the Sale Hearing that the Debtors’ liquidity was an issue of concern to him. His judgment was and remains that the Debtors will run out of cash in April 2011. The Debtors’ liquidity analysis annexed as Exhibit A to the Supplemental Declaration of Jeff Hunter in Support of the Sale Motion and the Debtors’ latest variance report, all introduced into evidence, bear out this conclusion. The objecting parties did not cross-examine Mr. Hunter with respect to his projection that the Debtors will run out of cash in April 2011. They did, however, elicit testimony from Mr. Hunter confirming the already-established fact that, although he took certain steps to extend the Debtors’ liquidity runway, he did not take steps to obtain DIP financing for the Debtors. 'Based on the entirety of the record on the issue of the Debtors’ liquidity, the Court finds that the Debtors would have a negative cash balance as of April 2011 if they were to continue to operate and did not receive an additional infusion of cash, through DIP financing or otherwise.

The Court conducted the evidentiary portion of the Sale Hearing on November 17, 18, 19, 21, and 22, and heard six hours of closing arguments on November 23, 2010.

IV. Ultimate Facts

Based on all of the foregoing, the Court makes the following findings of ultimate facts:

1. There is a good business reason for proceeding with the Sale Transaction as opposed to pursuing the formulation and confirmation of a chapter 11 plan.

2. There is an articulated business justification for proceeding with the Sale Transaction now.

3. The Sale Transaction reflects an appropriate exercise of business judgment and fulfillment of the Debtors’ fiduciary duties.

4. There is no viable higher and better existing alternative to the Sale Transaction.

DISCUSSION

The various objections filed by the objecting parties break down into a number *316 of more or less discrete categories. The Court considers them in turn.

I. Standing

The First Lien Agent has argued that neither the Second Lien Agent nor any Second Lien Lender has standing to object to the Sale Motion. The Second Lien Agent asserts that it and various objecting Second Lien Lenders have standing to argue, inter alia, that the Debtors are selling their assets at an inopportune time; that pending FERC regulatory reforms are likely to increase the value of the Debtors’ assets in the first quarter of 2011; and that the timing of this 363 sale process was motivated by an improper purpose of securing tax benefits for the non-Debtor parent, USPG. The Second Lien Agent argues the Debtors cannot satisfy the Second Circuit’s test for selling substantially all of their assets outside of a plan. As a threshold matter, the Court must make a determination on the question of standing.

As detailed above, prior to the commencement of these chapter 11 cases, the operations of the Debtors were financed by two tranches of secured debt: (i) a $1.45 billion credit facility secured by first-priority liens on the Collateral, and (ii) a $350 million second-lien term loan facility secured by subordinated second-priority liens on the same Collateral, as well as (iii) unsecured mezzanine debt, in the amount of $422 million, pursuant to a term-loan facility advanced to EBG.

In connection with the issuance of the First Lien Debt and the Second Lien Debt, (i) the Debtors, (ii) the First Lien Agent on behalf of itself and the First Lien Lenders, and (iii) the Second Lien Agent on behalf of itself and the Second Lien Lenders entered into a December 21, 2006 Collateral Agency and Intercreditor Agreement (the “Intercreditor Agreement”), a dense, sixty-five page document governing the relationship between and among the Secured Parties.

Broadly speaking, the Intercreditor Agreement establishes the priority of the liens on the Collateral and the Secured Parties’ rights and duties relative to each other. Other than the lien subordination provisions of the Intercreditor Agreement, section 3 of the Intercreditor Agreement is perhaps the most critical substantive provision of the Intercreditor Agreement and is at the heart of the dispute between the First Lien Lenders and the Second Lien Lenders with respect to the issue of standing.

Section 3.1(b)(i) of the Intercreditor Agreement provides, inter alia, that:

Until the Discharge of First Lien Obligations has occurred, whether or not any Insolvency or Liquidation Proceeding has been commenced .... the First Lien Collateral Agent, at the written direction of [First Lien Lenders holding a majority of the First Lien Debt], shall have the exclusive right to enforce rights, exercise remedies ... and make determinations regarding the release, sale, disposition or restrictions with respect to the Collateral without any consultation with or the consent of the Second Lien Collateral Agent or any Second Lien Secured Party .... provided that the Lien securing the Second Lien Obligations shall remain on the proceeds of such Collateral released or disposed of subject to the relative priorities described in Section 2.1[ ].

Section 3.1(c) of the Intercreditor Agreement states:

... Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, unless and until the Discharge of First Lien Obligations has occurred, except as expressly provided in Sections 3.1(a)(i), 3.1(g) and 6.3(b) and *317 this Section 3.1(c), the sole right of the Second Lien Collateral Agent, the Second Lien Administrative Agent, and any other Second Lien Secured Party with respect to the Collateral is to hold a Lien on the Collateral pursuant to the Second Lien Collateral Documents for the period and to the extent granted therein and to receive a share of the proceeds thereof, if any, after the Discharge of First Lien Obligations has occurred. (emphasis added).

Section 3.1(c) is subject to certain exceptions, including section 3.1(g), which sets forth rights retained by the Second Lien Lenders, including the right to vote on a plan of reorganization (section 3.1(g)(v)) and the right to assert any “right and interest available to unsecured creditors” in a manner not inconsistent with the terms of the Interereditor Agreement (section 3.1(g)(iv)).

In connection with the Bid Procedures Hearing, the First Lien Agent asserted that the Second Lien Agent and the Second Lien Lenders lacked standing to object to the portion of the Sale Motion seeking approval of the Bid Procedures. On October 4, 2010, the Court ruled that the Second Lien Agent had standing to object to the Bid Procedures, noting that “[t]he plain language of the Intercreditor Agreement says the seconds are silent in certain circumstances, but I do not read any express prohibition against objection to bidding procedures anywhere in the in-tercreditor agreement.” The Court distinguished In re Ion Media Networks, Inc., 419 B.R. 585 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2009) and In re Erickson Retirement Communities, 425 B.R. 309 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2010). The Court’s ruling on October 4, 2010, as specifically stated at the hearing, was limited only to the issue of standing to object to the Bid Procedures. The Court noted that, if necessary, it would address the issue of standing to object the Sale Transaction at a later date.

The Sale Hearing began on November 17, 2010 with lengthy and thoughtful oral arguments by counsel for the First Lien Agent and counsel for the Second Lien Agent on the issue of whether the provisions of the Intercreditor Agreement precluded the Second Lien Lenders from objecting to the Sale Transaction. Additional briefing on the issue was filed by the First Lien Agent and the Second Lien Agent.

During oral argument, counsel for the First Lien Agent and the Second Lien Agent “stipulated” to the conclusion that the actions taken (or to be taken) by the First Lien Agent in connection with the proposed sale are not an “exercise of remedies” for the purposes of the Intercreditor Agreement; the specific action in question is the consent of the First Lien Agent pursuant to section 363(f)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. A colloquy ensued as to the whether the Court was required to accept such a “stipulation” or whether the Court was free to make its own determination as to whether a consent pursuant to section 363(f)(2) was an “exercise of remedies” under the Intercreditor Agreement, which appeared to the Court to be a mixed question of fact and law. The Second Lien Agent urged the Court to defer to the view of the counterparties to the Intercreditor Agreement on the meaning of the term. The Second Lien Agent also argued that both parties had waived any argument that there was an exercise of remedies. The reason for the Second Lien Agent’s position, while not anywhere explained, seems clear: to avoid the express prohibition in section 3.1(d)® of the Intercreditor Agreement, which states that “each Second Lien Secured Party ... agrees not to take any action that would hinder any exercise of remedies under the First Lien Documents *318 or is otherwise prohibited hereunder including any sale, lease, exchange, transfer or other disposition of the Collateral, whether by foreclosure or otherwise.” The reason for the First Lien Agent’s position is less clear and the Court will refrain from speculation on this point. Moreover, during closing argument, counsel for the First Lien Agent informed the Court that it was the position of the First Lien Agent that the consent of the First Lien Lenders, though given, was not required pursuant to section 363(f)(2) and that the Sale Transaction could be approved without such consent pursuant to section 363(f)(5).

While the term “exercise of remedies” is used in numerous provisions of the Inter-creditor Agreement, it is not defined anywhere in the Intercreditor Agreement. For the purposes of this decision, I accept the Secured Parties’ stipulation that there has been no exercise of remedies by the First Lien Agent. However, absent this stipulation, I may have concluded that consent under section 363(f)(2) is an exercise of the rights afforded to a secured creditor and is thus an exercise of remedies. See, e.g., In re Chrysler LLC, 405 B.R. 84, 101-02 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2009). This may have altered my conclusion herein regarding standing and whether or not the objections asserted by the Second Lien Agent and the Second Lien Lenders were a violation of the Intercreditor Agreement.

The stipulation that there is no “exercise of remedies” renders sections 3.1(a) and 3.1(d)(i) inapplicable to the standing issues before the Court. The crux of the issue thus becomes the meaning of sections 3.1(b) and 3.1(g) of the Intercreditor Agreement.

There is little dispute that the Inter-creditor Agreement is not a model of clarity with respect to the narrow issues before the Court. The parties all but acknowledged that, were they starting from scratch, the Intercreditor Agreement would be drafted differently. No arguments were made or evidence adduced as to the intent of the Secured Parties and, accordingly, my analysis is limited to interpreting the text of the specific provisions of the Intercreditor Agreement.

Interpreting text requires some discussion and understanding of context. If one were to explain, in lay terms, the purpose and function of an intercreditor agreement between first lien parties and second lien parties, the explanation would include the notion, as the First Lien Agent stated, that first lien lenders would be “in the driver’s seat” when it came to decisions regarding collateral. 10 In other words, or to use a different metaphor, the second lien lenders agree not to use their subordinated lien as an offensive weapon against first lien lenders with respect to collateral. Notwithstanding their agreement to be subordinated, second lien lenders do retain certain rights under a typical intercreditor agreement, including the right to appear and be heard in a bankruptcy case as unsecured creditors. This right includes making arguments that an unsecured creditor would have the standing (and the economic interest) to assert and those arguments that are not otherwise expressly waived by the intercreditor agreement. See Ion Media, 419 B.R. at 595.

The Intercreditor Agreement is an enforceable agreement under section 510(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to the extent that it is a subordination agreement. The Court should not and will not interpret it in a way that re-drafts or re-negotiates the Secured Parties’ bargained-for *319 rights. If a secured lender seeks to waive its rights to object to a 363 sale, it must be clear beyond peradventure that it has done so. Under New York law, the First Lien Lenders must point me to some provision that reflects an express or intentional waiver of rights. See Golfo v. Kycia Associates, Inc., 45 A.D.3d 531, 845 N.Y.S.2d 122, 124 (N.Y.App.Div.2007) (compiling cases); Intercreditor Agreement section 9.11 (stating New York law applies). For example, in the May 2010 issue of the Business Lawyer, the American Bar Association published the Report of the Model First Lien/Second Lien Intercreditor Agreement Task Force which contained a Model Intercreditor Agreement, including commentary (the “ABA Model Intercreditor”). 11 In section 6.2, the ABA