Several recent cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York have created ambiguity about when distressed exchange offers violate Section 316(b) of the 1939 Trust Indenture Act (the “TIA”). It appears that plaintiffs’ lawyers are using this ambiguity to challenge distressed exchange offers. The threat of litigation may give minority bondholders a powerful tool to hinder less than fully consensual out-of-court restructurings and provide them with increased leverage in negotiations.

We are currently still in a lot of unknown territory; so how will our exit from the EU affect Debts here in the UK, in Europe and in other countries?

Once the UK finalises the exit from the EU, any debts someone may have in the EU will fall into the category of similar non-EU debts in other countries, such as the United States. Whilst you can include those debts in a UK bankruptcy you are only afforded the protection from them in the UK. 

What can happen to you if your pre-payment is lost is demonstrated by the recent administration of budget tour operator Lowcostholidays. The company’s administration left customers already abroad at risk of being asked by hotel owners to settle their bills before leaving and meant that other customers lost deposits paid for holidays which will now, sadly, not take place.

Virtually all public indentures contain provisions allowing the issuer to cure ambiguities and make other technical changes to the debt documentation without debtholder consent. When the purported ambiguities have substantive consequences, however, issuers may not be able to get away with an amendment that lacks debtholder approval. InGSO Coastline Credit Partners L.P. v. Global A&T Electronics Ltd. (NY App. Div. 1st Dept. May 3, 2016), a New York lower court bought into a “cure of ambiguity” argument and on that basis granted a motion to dismiss.

Market participants involved in distressed exchange offers have become accustomed to grappling with the implications of Trust Indenture Act Section 316(b) in the context of potential exit consents, i.e., are the contemplated amendments to the indenture governing the securities subject to the exchange significant enough to impair or affect the right of a holder to receive payment of principal and interest on or after the due dates of the relevant note?

Prior to 1930 if an insured person/company (insured) incurred a liability to a third party (TP) but then became bankrupt/passed into liquidation any monies paid out under the insurance policy was paid to the Trustee/Liquidator for the benefit of ALL creditors.

The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (1930 Act) transferred the insured’s rights against the insurer under certain circumstances to the TP who could pursue the insurer against the policy proceeds once the insured’s liability was established. So the policy proceeds may benefit the TP and not all creditors.

A typical bond indenture provides that prior to the incurrence of an event of default, a trustee’s obligations are limited to those specifically set forth in the indenture. It is only following the occurrence of an event of default that the trustee’s duties of prudent conduct seem to ripen. This often leaves trustees and bondholders in a state of uncertainty over what actions, if any, a trustee may be obligated to take as the financial condition of an issuer worsens but has not yet crossed the default line. A recent case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Becker v.

A recent case out of the Southern District of New York, Citibank, NA, London Branch v. Norske Skogindustrier ASA(S.D.N.Y. March 8, 2016), once again illustrates the difficulty of obtaining injunctive relief against prospective indenture violations of a financially troubled issuer.

The Facts

With the current interest being focused on Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act, this may be a good time to examine the differing rights of noteholders under an indenture governed by the TIA and the rights of lenders under credit agreements governed by New York law.

Welcome to the third article in this amazing series which looks at what you can do to try to extract money from a stubborn business debtor.