In a case of first impression, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that antidiscrimination laws may be violated when a white employee is fired for having a black spouse. In Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit vacated and remanded a federal district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Iona College (the “College”), finding that triable issues existed as to whether the College’s decision to terminate its employee, Craig Holcomb, was based at least in part upon a racially discriminatory motive.

A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Cumulus Media Holdings Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (SDNY Feb. 24, 2017) found that a proposed refinancing that was consented to by the company’s revolving credit lenders nevertheless violated the negative covenants in the company’s Credit Agreement.

The Proceedings

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”) requires an employer to give 60 days’ advance written notice prior to a plant closing or mass layoff. Frequently, as a company encounters financial distress—a situation that often leads to a plant closing or mass layoff— creditors exercise greater control over the entity in an attempt to recover debts owed to them. When the faltering company fails to provide the requisite WARN notice, terminated employees often assert that WARN liability should attach to such creditors. In Coppola v. Bear, Stearns & Co.

In a decision last month, DCF Capital, LLC v. US Shale Solutions, LLC (Sup. Ct. NY Co. Jan. 24, 2017), a New York State Supreme Court justice held that a noteholder that had properly accelerated indenture debt may sue to collect that debt notwithstanding the operation of a standard no-action clause. This holding, while appealing from a noteholder perspective, may not be compelled by Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act on which it rests and is contrary to some prior case law.

Background

While many amendments to bond indentures can be made without consent from all bondholders, “non-impairment” clauses provide that the indenture may not be amended or restructured in any way that will affect or impair a bondholder’s right to receive principal and interest when due without unanimous consent.

In January 2017, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its widely reported opinion in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC vs. Education Management Corp., in which the majority held that the “right ... to receive payment” set forth in Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA) prohibits only nonconsensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms and does not protect the practical ability of bondholders to recover payment.

Background

On Jan. 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v.

In a recent decision in the Southern District of New York, the court addressed a challenge to a secured-for-unsecured debt exchange offer that raised and answered a host of questions on the potential vulnerability of offers of this type. In Waxman v. Cliffs Natural Resources (SDNY December 6, 2016), the court dealt with standing to pursue a challenge; TIA §316(b) after Marblegate and MeehanCombs/Caesars; the no-action clause and allegations of conflict of interest of the trustee; the remedies clause; and discrimination against non-QIBs.

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.

The Bottom Line: