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?
Conversion law of “Decreto Sofferenze” (D.L. 59/2016)
On 3 July, 2016, Law Decree no. 59 of 3 May 2016 was converted into Law no. 119 of 30 June 2016, through various amendments.
Legge di conversione del “decreto sofferenze” (D.L. 59/2016)
In data 3 luglio 2016 è entrata in vigore la legge 30 giugno 2016 n. 119, di conversione del decreto legge n. 59 del 3 maggio 2016, al quale sono state apportate alcune rilevanti modifiche.
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.
Law Decree no. 59 of 3 May 2016, which is already in force although it will require formal conversion into Law within 60 days in order not to lose its validity.
Among the provisions of the Law Decree, of particular relevance is the introduction of a new type of floating charge, namely “non-possessory pledge”, provided for by art. 1 of the Law Decree.
- Novità nel processo esecutivo introdotte con il DL 59/2016
E’ entrato in vigore il 4 maggio 2016 il DL 59/2016 “Disposizioni urgenti in materia di procedure esecutive e concorsuali, nonché a favore degli investitori in banche in liquidazione”. Tale decreto ha introdotto una serie di modifiche volte a facilitare e velocizzare il recupero dei crediti.
On May 4th, 2016, Law Decree no. 59/2016 entered into force with the name “Urgent provisions regarding enforcement and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as measures in favor of the investors of banks in liquidation”. Such decree introduced a variety of modifications aimed at facilitating and speeding up the debt recovery.
The two aspects with the higher impact concern the provisions regarding the seizure and the ones about the immediate enforceability of the orders of payment.