当前位置: X-MOL 学术Capital Markets Law Journal › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The scope of section 316(b) after Marblegate
Capital Markets Law Journal ( IF 0.9 ) Pub Date : 2018-03-19 , DOI: 10.1093/cmlj/kmy001
Marcel Kahan

Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act provides that right of any to receive payment of the principal and interest may not be impaired or affected without the holder’s consent. This article analyzes the recent case law on whether corporate restructurings that impair the practical ability of bondholders to obtain payment on their bonds violate Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act. After concluding that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was correct in confining the scope of Section 316(b) to formal amendments to core payment terms, the article turns to an issue left open by Marblegate: whether formal amendments that release a guarantor or that expand the conditions in which a guarantor is automatically released are within the scope of Section 316(b) and thus require the consent of each affected holder. Based both on the literal wording of Section 316(b) and, as far as parent-guarantors are concerned, on its economic function, Section 316(b) should be held to require the consent of each affected holder for an amendment releasing a guarantor from its obligations under the guarantee. By contrast, applying Section 316(b) to subsidiary guarantors does neither much harm nor much good since indentures leave companies with significant scope to eviscerate the economic benefit of subsidiary guarantees. * George T. Lowy Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. I would like to thank Mitu Gulati and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. Portions of the arguments presented in this article are based on an Oxford Business Law Blog.

中文翻译:

Marblegate 之后第 316(b) 条的范围

《信托契约法》第 316(b) 条规定,未经持有人同意,不得损害或影响任何人收取本金和利息的权利。本文分析了近期关于损害债券持有人获得债券付款的实际能力的公司重组是否违反《信托契约法》第 316(b) 条的判例法。在得出结论认为第二巡回上诉法院将第 316(b) 条的范围限制在对核心付款条款的正式修订是正确的之后,文章转向了 Marblegate 留下的一个问题:正式修订是释放担保人还是扩大担保人自动解除条件的条款属于第 316(b) 条的范围,因此需要每个受影响的持有人的同意。根据第 316(b) 条的字面措辞,以及就母担保人而言,就其经济功能而言,第 316(b) 条应要求每个受影响的持有人同意才能进行修订以释放担保人免除其在担保下的义务。相比之下,将第 316(b) 条适用于附属担保人既无害也无益,因为契约使公司有很大的空间来削弱附属担保的经济利益。* 纽约大学法学院 George T. Lowy 法学教授。我要感谢 Mitu Gulati 和一位匿名审稿人的有益评论。本文中提出的部分论点基于牛津商业法博客。第 316(b) 条应要求每个受影响的持有人同意修改,以解除担保人在担保下的义务。相比之下,将第 316(b) 条适用于附属担保人既无害也无益,因为契约使公司有很大的空间来削弱附属担保的经济利益。* 纽约大学法学院 George T. Lowy 法学教授。我要感谢 Mitu Gulati 和一位匿名审稿人的有益评论。本文中提出的部分论点基于牛津商业法博客。第 316(b) 条应要求每个受影响的持有人同意修改,以解除担保人在担保下的义务。相比之下,将第 316(b) 条适用于附属担保人既无害也无益,因为契约使公司有很大的空间来削弱附属担保的经济利益。* 纽约大学法学院 George T. Lowy 法学教授。我要感谢 Mitu Gulati 和一位匿名审稿人的有益评论。本文中提出的部分论点基于牛津商业法博客。将第 316(b) 条适用于附属担保人既无害也无益,因为契约使公司有很大的空间来削弱附属担保的经济利益。* 纽约大学法学院 George T. Lowy 法学教授。我要感谢 Mitu Gulati 和一位匿名审稿人的有益评论。本文中提出的部分论点基于牛津商业法博客。将第 316(b) 条适用于附属担保人既无害也无益,因为契约使公司有很大的空间来削弱附属担保的经济利益。* 纽约大学法学院 George T. Lowy 法学教授。我要感谢 Mitu Gulati 和一位匿名审稿人的有益评论。本文中提出的部分论点基于牛津商业法博客。
更新日期:2018-03-19
down
wechat
bug