The Second Circuit issued its much anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v. Education Management Corp., holding that “Section 316(b) prohibits only non-consensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms.” At issue is whether the phrase “right . . . to receive payment” forecloses “more than formal amendments to payment terms that eliminate the right to sue for payment.” The Second Circuit held that it does not.

Since Marblegate was decided in 2014, the only court to address claims under §316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (“TIA”) in the context of a corporate restructuring transaction is

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v. Education Management Corp. on May 12, 2016. One might have thought from the courtroom’s overflow crowd that it was the opening argument in a mob trial, but this is a case about a bond indenture. At issue is whether an out-of-court debt restructuring that did not amend the indenture’s principal and interest terms, but that effectively precluded the noteholders’ ability to be repaid, violated § 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA).

Everyone loves a bargain – accordingly, there is a lot of interest when liquidators and other insolvency practitioners put a business up for sale. Purchasers jostle like shoppers in the Myer stocktake sale, trying to position themselves as the perfect purchaser. At the same time they try to convey their concern about the value of the business or assets – everyone expects a discount for a distressed business.

If Departmental activity, debate in Parliament and media articles are an indication, the Federal Government’s much awaited response to the Ripoll Report is imminent.