RadioShack, on the other hand, has yielded more mixed results in terms of the court`s willingness to resolve AA-related disputes. Nevertheless, this is the first case we know of when a bankruptcy court, at least implicitly, deals with the enforceability of bankrupt AALs.12 Although an AAL is likely to be considered a subordination agreement within the meaning of Section 510 (a) of the Bankruptcy Act, debtors are not contracting parties to the AALs, which has led to arguments that the AAL outside the property of the debtor`s estate is considered to be an “agreement” that does not concern the debtor and has nothing to do with debtors` rebates”13 and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. In recent decades, the application of inter-10-language agreements (ICAs), which would have infringed voting rights, and the right to cash or other property payments for secured claims, have played an increasingly important role in bankruptcy cases. Although the Bankruptcy Act provides that “subordination agreements” are enforceable in the event of bankruptcy, to the extent that these agreements are enforceable under existing non-bankruptcy legislation, the handling of creditors` disputes in such agreements is inconsistent.1 These agreements often include, for example, the waiver of the right to challenge bankruptcy sales, voting restrictions on recovery plans and waiver of rights, debtor financing and the use of cash guarantees. In the case of secured transactions, guarantee ACCORDS generally belong to groups of creditors who hold different tranches or tranches of debt, secured by separate but identical mortgages, which are recognized and accepted by the borrowers or issuers concerned. On the other hand, AALs are generally exclusive agreements between lenders under a single secure credit facility and their agent. The borrower is not a party to the AAD and grants the lender a single pledge to enable lenders to meet all their obligations under the credit facility.