Debt Restructuring and Indenture Amendments: Curing Ambiguities, Navigating Competing Intercreditor Agreements

Lessons From GSO Coastline Credit Partners v. Global A&T Electronics

Recording of a 90-minute CLE webinar with Q&A

Conducted on Thursday, September 22, 2016

Recorded event now available

or call 1-800-926-7926

This CLE course will discuss the ability of issuers of debt to amend the governing indentures and intercreditor agreements without debtholder consent. The program will focus on the distinction between substantive and technical amendments, interpretation of relevant provisions of the intercreditor agreement, and a recent New York appellate ruling in this area.


While indentures generally allow issuers to cure ambiguities in the document or make technical amendments without the consent of the debtholders, the line between an ambiguity and a substantive amendment is not always clear.

Indenture amendments raise numerous other issues that counsel must carefully consider, including competing provisions in intercreditor agreements and whether terms of the intercreditor agreement trump the indenture provisions.

The recent New York appellate court ruling in GSO Coastline Credit Partners v. Global A&T Electronics found that an issuer’s attempt to unilaterally amend the indenture and the intercreditor agreement to facilitate a debt exchange was improper under the governing documents. There are several takeaways for counsel and their clients from this decision.

Listen as our authoritative panel of finance attorneys discusses amendments to indentures and intercreditor agreements and the ability of issuers to cure ambiguities without debtholder consent. The panel will analyze the distinction between substantive and technical amendments, and the impact of relevant intercreditor agreements present in the transaction.



  1. Ambiguity vs. substantive amendments
  2. Impact of intercreditor agreements on ability to unilaterally amend indentures
  3. Recent case law on indenture amendments


The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • Determining whether an indenture amendment is a technical ambiguity or an amendment with substantive consequences
  • Interpreting competing intercreditor agreement provisions
  • Determining whether terms of a relevant intercreditor agreement trump the indenture provisions
  • Takeaways from GSO Coastline Credit Partners v. Global A&T Electronics for counsel to issuers and debtholders involved in debt restructuring


Michael J. Hampson
Michael J. Hampson

Lowenstein Sandler

Mr. Hampson is a securities and complex commercial litigator who represents institutional investors, directors and...  |  Read More

Sheila A. Sadighi
Sheila A. Sadighi

Lowenstein Sandler

Ms. Sadighi practices in her firm's Securities Litigation and Enforcement Group. Her practice focuses on the...  |  Read More

Access Anytime, Anywhere

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include course handouts.

To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video