Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Second Circuit Reverses District Court in <i>Marblegate</i>, Making It Easier to Restructure Bonds Outside of a Chapter 11 Case
On Jan. 17, 2017, in a closely watched dispute surrounding Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., No. 15-2124-CV(L), 2017 WL 164318 (2d Cir. Jan. 17, 2017) (the “Decision”). In a 2-1 ruling reversing the district court, the court of appeals construed Section 316(b) narrowly, holding that it only prohibits “non-consensual amendments to an indenture's core payment terms” and does not protect noteholders' practical ability to receive payment. Decision at *1.
In so ruling, the Second Circuit considered the issue arising in the recent Southern District of New York District Court decisions in Marblegate (Marblegate Asset Management v. Education Management Corp., 75 F.Supp.3d 592 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (Marblegate I); Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Corp., 111 F.Supp.3d 542 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (Marblegate II)), and two cases relating to Caesars Entertainment (BOKF, N.A. v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., 144 F.Supp.3d 459 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); MeehanCombs Glob. Credit Opportunities Funds, LP v. Caesars Entm't Corp., 80 F.Supp.3d 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (collectively, BOKF/MeenhanCombs)), as to when an out-of-court debt restructuring may violate Section 316(b) of the TIA.
Some, but not all, of the cases before and after them that have dealt with the issue have treated Section 316(b) as providing a narrow and specific protection for noteholders: requiring noteholder unanimity to alter the legal right to repayment under the terms of an indenture and the right to sue to enforce that right, but not protecting the practical right to receive payment.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.