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 States of Jersey published a White Paper on a proposed statutory insolvency payments scheme (the "Scheme") on 3 December 2009, with a closing date for consultation responses of Friday 5 February 2010.

The White Paper states:

The Banking Business (Depositors Compensation) (Jersey) Regulations 2009 came into force on 6 November 2009, establishing a compensation scheme providing individual depositors with protection of up to £50,000 per person, per Jersey banking group, in the event of the bankruptcy of a Jersey bank.