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).
The liquidity crisis has increased the need for creative procedures to avoid sudden death bankruptcy in order to salvage existing value.
A Jersey company or a company incorporated elsewhere but administered in Jersey may become involved in insolvency procedures under Jersey law or the law of a jurisdiction outside Jersey.
The role of Jersey as a financial centre means that on occasions there will be a requirement for a foreign liquidator or an office-holder under bankruptcy legislation to obtain information or documentation from persons or companies located in the Island. There have been a series of recent court decisions establishing the appropriate levels of co-operation with other jurisdictions.
The Royal Court of Jersey can receive requests from outside Jersey by courts prescribed under the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990 or based on principles of comity. This will commonly involve a Jersey company or any other company with assets or information situated in Jersey. Insolvency practitioners appointed under a law or by a court outside Jersey will have no authority, as a matter of Jersey law to act in Jersey. It is normal therefore for an application to be made for recognition of the appointment and authority to exercise powers in Jersey.
Introduction
There are two principal regimes for corporate insolvency in Jersey: désastre and winding-up. This Briefing seeks to highlight the major features of each and some of the differences between the two.
Désastre
The law of désastre arose out of the common law of Jersey, although since 1991 the common law has only applied to the extent that express provision is not made in the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990 (the "Désastre Law").
Who may commence the process?
A Jersey company or one of its creditors may wish the company to be placed into administration in England under Schedule B1 of the UK's Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act").
The liquidity crisis has increased the need for creative procedures to avoid sudden death bankruptcy in order to salvage existing value.
A Jersey company or a company incorporated elsewhere but administered in Jersey may become involved in insolvency procedures under Jersey law or the law of a jurisdiction outside Jersey.
The Royal Court of Jersey can receive requests from outside Jersey by courts prescribed under the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990 or based on principles of comity. Such requests may involve a Jersey company or any other company with assets or information situated in Jersey. Insolvency practitioners appointed under a law or by a court outside Jersey will have no authority, as a matter of Jersey law, to act in Jersey. It is normal, therefore, for an application to be made for recognition of the appointment of such practitioners and to authorise them to exercise powers in Jersey.