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).

On 9 October 2009, a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court issued a judgment (file no. IV CSK 145/09), in which it ruled that the Polish legal system provides for the possibility to secure claims under a parallel debt (created under foreign law).

Facts of the case

In November 2008, the European Commission (EC) found state aid granted by the Polish government to two Polish state-controlled shipyards (Stocznia Szczecinska Nowa and Stocznia Gdynia), illegal under EU single market rules and requested its return to the government with accrued interest. The EC decided however to postpone the enforcement of the return of state aid for seven months until 6 June 2009 to allow for the prior public sale of the shipyards’ assets at market price.