Thank you so much for your incredibly valuable feedback, @daskeel ! It's very kind of you. It seems, though, that my four arguments for the temporary abolition of the adequate protection requirement haven't managed to entirely convince you! :-) Let me try with a fifth one (below) https://twitter.com/daskeel/status/1248040807497596932

For the development of that argument, I am indirectly having in mind Singapore and the US, since both jurisdictions allow the possibility of priming an existing lien (something not allowed in other jurisdictions), and both countries have similar DIP financing provisions. So..

As the judiciary in Singapore is highly sophisticated, and the same applies to some bankruptcy courts in the US, the judges should be able to distinguish value-creating DIP financing vs value-destroying DIP financing. Therefore, by authorizing just value-creating DIP financing...

The affected sec creditor shouldn't be necessarily harmed. So my answer to relaxing vs prohibiting the AP requirement ultimately depends on the sophistication of the courts. Perhaps I should emphasize this aspect :-) Thanks so much for taking the time to read & comment my paper!

cc @daskeel (3/3)