For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a "bet the company" litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.
For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a “bet the company” litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Beijing Kerry Centre South Tower, Ste. 823 No. 1 Guang Hua Rd., Chaoyang District Beijing 100020, China T: +86.10.5876.3500 F: +86.10.5876.3501 Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC 10 Collyer Quay #27-00 Ocean Financial Centre Singapore 049315 T: +65 6389 3000 F: +65 6389 3099 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Roppongi Hills Mori Tower 24th Fl.
On January 17, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a much anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Corp., No. 15-2124-cv(L), 15-2141-cv(CON), reversing the Southern District of New York's holding that only a non-consensual amendment to an indenture's core payment terms violates Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA).
On November 17, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC, No. 16-1351 (3d Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) clarified the often-muddy interplay between indenture acceleration provisions and "make-whole" redemption provisions, holding that Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (collectively, "EFIH") were unable to avoid paying lenders approximately $800 million in expected interest by voluntarily filing for bankruptcy.
Court holds that TIA § 316(b) prohibits only non‐consensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms.
A unanimous panel held that Asarco’s settlement in bankruptcy for its “share of response costs” did not preclude it from later bringing a CERCLA contribution claim.
Key developments in the Indian legal landscape in 2016
From the Startup India campaign launched in January 2016 to the coming into force of substantial provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in December 2016, the legal landscape in India has witnessed some crucial developments this past year. In this LawFlash, we describe briefly what we consider to be some of the key legal and regulatory developments in India in 2016.
Arbitration Act
India’s Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) issued a notification on December 7 (Notification) announcing that certain provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (Act), which are currently not in effect, will come into force on December 15, 2016.
The key provisions that will be brought into force include the following:
Compromise, Arrangements, and Amalgamation
Certain provisions contained in Chapter XV of the Act will be brought into effect that deal with
FINANCIAL SERVICES
New Regulations Facilitate Retail Investor Participation in Singapore Bond Market