IP-Rechte unterliegen teilweise anderen Spielregeln als die übrigen Vermögenswerte eines Unternehmens. Gerade in wirtschaftlich schwierigen Zeiten ist wichtig, hier den Überblick zu behalten. Dies gilt in besonderem Maß, wenn IP-Rechte Gegenstand von Lizenzen sind und einer der beiden Vertragspartner insolvent wird.

Our lives have changed completely in a few days due to COVID-19 and the world’s response to it. Governments react with a multitude of regulations, which have a considerable influence on the economy especially for the Retail & Consumer sector. This affects very different areas of law. Our sector approach consists, among other things, of showing you the legal consequences in the most diverse legal areas and our contact persons for this.

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).