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).

ECOtality, an electric vehicle charging station manufacturer and a recipient of 2009 stimulus package Department of Energy grants, filed for bankruptcy on September 17. The company received $100.2 million in grants, but the Department froze the remaining $2.5 million in grants on August 8.

On March 20, Suntech, a Chinese solar manufacturing company, declared bankruptcy. Questions have arisen on how the country’s solar industry will now cope with overcapacity issues which stem from a decline in demand from Europe. The declaration comes a week after the company announced it had defaulted on $541 million of bonds.