Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 782, 2017 WL 164318, 846 F.3d 1 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 prohibits only non-consensual amendments to an indenture's core payment terms (amount of principal and interest, and maturity date) and does not prevent out-of-court restructurings that impair a noteholder's practical ability to collect payment, so long as the noteholder's legal right to sue for payment under the indenture's original terms remains intact.
Facts:
- Education Management Corporation (EDMC), a for-profit education company, faced severe financial distress but could not file for bankruptcy without losing its essential federal Title IV funding.
- EDMC had approximately $1.3 billion in secured debt and $217 million in unsecured notes, the latter of which were held by parties including Marblegate Asset Management.
- The unsecured notes were governed by an indenture qualified under the Trust Indenture Act and were guaranteed by EDMC as the parent company (the 'Notes Parent Guarantee').
- EDMC and a majority of its creditors devised a restructuring plan with two options: consenting creditors would exchange their debt for equity in a new company, while non-consenting creditors would face an alternative.
- The alternative for non-consenting creditors was an 'Intercompany Sale,' where secured creditors would foreclose on all of EDMC's assets and transfer them to a newly created subsidiary.
- This sale would leave the original note issuer as an asset-less shell company, and the Notes Parent Guarantee would be released, effectively eliminating any source of recovery for non-consenting noteholders.
- Marblegate, holding notes with a face value of $14 million, was the sole creditor to refuse consent to the restructuring plan.
Procedural Posture:
- Marblegate sued EDMC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking an injunction to block the Intercompany Sale, alleging it violated Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act.
- The District Court denied Marblegate's motion for a preliminary injunction but stated that Marblegate was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim.
- The Intercompany Sale proceeded, but EDMC refrained from releasing the Notes Parent Guarantee and filed a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the release would not violate the TIA.
- After a bench trial, the District Court found in favor of Marblegate, holding that the restructuring plan violated Section 316(b) and permanently enjoining EDMC from releasing the Notes Parent Guarantee.
- EDMC and its subsidiaries (appellants) appealed the District Court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with Marblegate as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an out-of-court debt restructuring that does not formally amend an indenture's payment terms, but is designed to strip the issuer of its assets and leave a non-consenting noteholder with no practical ability to be repaid, violate Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939?
Opinions:
Majority - Lohier, J.
No, the out-of-court debt restructuring does not violate Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act. The court holds that Section 316(b)'s protection of the 'right ... to receive payment' prohibits only non-consensual formal amendments to an indenture's core payment terms, such as the principal amount or interest due dates. Although the statutory text is ambiguous, the legislative history shows Congress was primarily concerned with specific contractual provisions like 'collective-action clauses' and 'no-action clauses' that formally stripped individual bondholders of their legal right to sue under the contract's original terms. The drafters of the Act were aware of foreclosure-based reorganizations and did not intend for Section 316(b) to prohibit them, even if they left junior creditors with no practical means of recovery. Adopting a broader interpretation would require unworkable inquiries into the issuer's subjective intent. Marblegate retains its formal legal right to sue the now asset-less issuer and can still pursue other available state and federal law remedies, such as fraudulent conveyance claims.
Dissenting - Straub, J.
Yes, the out-of-court debt restructuring violates Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act. The plain text of the statute, which broadly prohibits a bondholder's right to receive payment from being 'impaired or affected,' is not limited to formal indenture amendments. A right to receive payment is clearly 'impaired' when a company deliberately engineers a transaction to make it impossible for a non-consenting bondholder to ever collect that payment. Leaving a bondholder with only a theoretical right to sue an empty shell company is not a meaningful remedy and effectively 'annihilates' the right to receive payment. The majority's narrow reading allows a company to accomplish by indirect means a result that the statute prohibits being accomplished by direct means, thereby undermining the statute's plain intent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act, establishing a clear, formalistic interpretation over a more substantive one. It provides issuers and majority creditors with greater certainty when structuring out-of-court restructurings, permitting the use of mechanisms like foreclosure sales to bind holdout creditors without formally amending an indenture. This ruling weakens protections for minority bondholders under the TIA, shifting the burden on them to rely on more complex and uncertain state-law remedies, like fraudulent conveyance or successor liability claims, to challenge such transactions. The case prioritizes transactional efficiency and uniformity in indenture interpretation over protecting a bondholder's practical ability to get paid.
