Many businesses continue to experience unprecedented pressure on their cash flow given, among other things, the continued fall-out from the global pandemic, the war in Ukraine, the cost of living crisis, rising interest rates, the end of cheap debt and the expected global downturn.
To mitigate their exposure to personal liability, it's important that directors of insolvent companies or companies in the zone of insolvency comply with their duties to act in the best interests of the company as a whole. This includes the interests of creditors as a whole.
Background
The Cayman Government has restricted entry to the Island since mid-March and is currently operating a curfew system day and night for residents other than essential workers, with the exception of exercise or essential trips such as to the supermarket or for medical reasons.
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).