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.

Another company being investigated by the FMA and the SFO for allegedly operating a Ponzi scheme, Hansa Limited, was placed into liquidation by the High Court in late November 2016.  Those investors who lost money may be interested to learn that one of the liquidators appointed to Hansa, Mr Damien Grant, is a convicted fraudster, who had also given evidence to a High Court judge and jury that was subsequently 'discredited', that an accessory to the frauds was the originator and brains behind the frauds.  Proposed licensing of insolvency practitioners may well exclude those with di

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).