Canada: Moderating Bondholder Activism With No-action Clauses: It's All A Matter Of Interpretation

Last Updated: September 16 2013
Article by Sheryl Seigel

The ability of individual bondholders to pursue legal remedies when they disagree with actions being taken by an issuer can be a powerful tool. In some instances bondholder activism has been tempered by a provision (a "no-action clause") embedded in most trust indentures that restricts individual bondholders from taking legal action in relation to claims that are considered to be common to other bondholders. Recently, in The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v Data & Audio-Visual Enterprises Wireless Inc. et al ("Wireless"),1 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that a no-action clause did not bar a noteholder from pursuing an oppression application under Canadian corporate law.2 Fortunately for the litigating bondholder in Wireless, the Court dismissed a motion by the issuer to stay the noteholder's litigation based on the no-action clause.

The features of no-action clauses typically require bondholders to comply with stipulated preconditions, which include notice to the indenture trustee of an event of default under the indenture, a request by the holders of a prescribed percentage of bondholders for the indenture trustee to pursue an action, the offer of satisfactory security and/or or indemnity to the indenture trustee in relation to losses, liabilities or expenses for taking the requested action, a certain period of days for the indenture trustee to comply with the request and the indenture trustee not receiving, during such waiting period, instructions from a majority of bondholders that are inconsistent with the request.

Courts in the U.S. have explained the rationale for no-action clauses on the basis that by "purchasing bonds, plaintiffs waive their rights to bring claims that are common to all bondholders", including actions against issuers and non-issuer defendants.3 The proposition that a no-action clause should be broadly interpreted is supported by the policy consideration that suits which seek to enforce rights or interests shared ratably by all bondholders should be prosecuted by the indenture trustee on behalf of all noteholders.4 Such clauses also have been said to protect against the exercise of poor judgment by a single or minority group of bondholders who might wish to pursue actions that other bondholders might not consider in their best economic interests5 and to "prevent rash, precipitate, or harassing suits by bondholders who disrupt corporate affairs."6 U.S. courts also point out that no-action clauses often are drafted such that their scope depends on the nature of the claim sought rather than the identity of the defendant.7

Relatively few Canadian courts have been called on to determine the applicability of a no-action clause to legal actions independently pursued by bondholders. The Wireless decision provides some welcome guidance regarding the effectiveness of a no-action clause in relation to a claim that does not directly arise from a default in payment of principal or interest or other provision of the indenture, but rather involves an injury or claim arising from the plaintiff's status as a holder of notes or bonds.

Catalyst Capital Group Inc. ("Catalyst") was a significant creditor of Wireless that held over 25% of the principal amount of the notes issued pursuant to an indenture (the "Indenture"). Wireless required additional financing, which it arranged pursuant to secondary financing with subordinated notes issued to certain of the existing noteholders under the Indenture other than Catalyst (the "Unknown Purchasers").

When Wireless began to source additional secondary financing, Catalyst offered to provide a refinancing package that included consolidating existing debt with additional debt in favour of Catalyst. Instead, Wireless chose to proceed with the secondary financing through a second debenture in favour of the Unknown Purchasers. In response, Catalyst launched an oppression remedy application, alleging that the secondary financing had unusual and prejudicial features, including in relation to financial terms, maturity date, interest rate, fees and insufficient subordination of the notes. It formulated its claim as arising from the conduct of Wireless in entering into the new financing, and the oppressive result of such new financing.8 Catalyst further alleged that the trustee under the Indenture, who was also the collateral agent for security granted for Wireless' obligations under the Indenture (the "Trustee"), had placed itself in a position of conflict by acting as the collateral agent under the second financing.

Wireless took the position that Catalyst's application was barred because Catalyst had not complied with the notice to the Trustee and other provisions of the no-action clause under the Indenture. Section 6.06 of the Indenture stipulated that (except to enforce the right to receive specified payments under the Indenture), no noteholder could pursue a remedy "with respect to the Indenture or the Notes unless" it satisfied five contractual steps.9 Wireless encouraged the Court to give a broad application to the phrase "with respect to" used in section 6.06, relying on the reasoning of other Ontario decisions that had broadly construed the application of similar no-action clauses.10

Catalyst maintained it was entitled to proceed with its application on the basis that (a) the no-action clause did not apply to oppression claims, (b) there had not been an "Event of Default", as defined under the Indenture, and therefore the claim was not one the Trustee could bring; and (c) even if the clause were held to apply, there existed exceptions that would allow its action to proceed. As Catalyst was not complaining about any default under the Indenture, it maintained that its application for relief from oppression was outside the scope of the no-action clause and that the clause did not apply. In support of its position, Catalyst relied on the narrow construction of a no-action clause by the Court in Millgate Financial Corp. v BF Realty Holdings Ltd. ("Millgate").11 In Millgate, the Court held that the no-action clause in the trust indenture did not prevent holders of debentures from bringing legal proceedings for claims other than a default of contractual obligations by reason of the payment of principal and interest on the debentures being in default.

After reviewing the no-action clause and other terms of the Indenture, the Court in Wireless refused to stay Catalyst's application. In coming to its decision, the Court referred to the few Canadian authorities that had considered no-action clauses under trust indentures, observing that "what emerges from these cases is that the result in any case will depend entirely on the actual wording of the indenture in question."12

In this context, the Court reviewed the indenture as a whole and determined:

(a)    reading the Indenture, the Trustee's powers, duties and obligations were limited to enforcing payment defaults;

(b)    the no-action clause in Wireless was not nearly as broad as the clauses in Casurina or Amaranth; and

(c)    the Trustee was not authorized to initiate a suit for oppression under the Indenture.

The Court reviewed the parties' positions in the context of the overarching rationale set out in Feldbaum, and stated that it must consider not only whether the application sought a remedy common to all bondholders, but also whether the Indenture gave the Trustee the power to pursue the suit in question.13 Examining provisions dealing with the duties of the Trustee under the Indenture, the Court determined that the Trustee's powers were limited to acting against Events of Default as defined in the Indenture, being payment defaults which had not occurred. In analyzing whether the no-action clause applied, the Court stressed the need to look beyond the broad preamble of a no-action clause (which, if read in isolation, might appear to apply), to other language within the Indenture.14 Specifically, the Court next considered whether the Indenture gave the Trustee the power to pursue the kind of suit that Catalyst had initiated. It concluded that the wording of the no-action clause in the Indenture was not broad enough to encompass Catalyst's claim.

The Court emphasized that a no-action clause must be interpreted in conjunction with the wording of the indenture, when read as a whole. In Wireless, the Indenture limited the powers of the Trustee to acting in relation to specific "Events of Default", which were narrow in scope. Moreover, because the powers of the Trustee under the Indenture to take action were limited, the Court did not consider the Trustee as being authorized under the Indenture to initiate a suit for oppression. These factors persuaded the Court to conclude that Catalyst was not prohibited from pursuing its application for relief. This reasoning is not inconsistent with earlier decisions that restricted a bondholder's rights to bring suit where such actions were within the powers of the indenture trustee.

In coming to its decision, the Court explicitly recognized that other cases had determined that "default is not necessary to invoke the no action clause, and that no action clauses can be broad enough to encompass oppression applications."15 Nonetheless, the no-action clause was found to be sufficiently restrictive, when read in conjunction with the rest of the Indenture, and, in particular, the powers given to the Trustee, to lead the Court to conclude that it did not prohibit Catalyst from proceeding with its action.

Key to the analysis in Wireless is the holding of the Court that contractual waivers of rights under a no-action clause in an indenture should be considered in the context of the wording of a trust indenture when read as a whole. This decision does not undermine the enforceability of no-action clauses, conceptually, but rather underscores the need to review the applicability of such a provision in conjunction with the entire indenture, including the powers it gives to the indenture trustee to take the type of legal action that a noteholder may seek to pursue. Significantly for the noteholder in Wireless, the finding that the no-action clause did not apply was made against a backdrop of other cases that have broadly interpreted no-action clauses to confine noteholder litigation.

1 2013 ONSC 2710, 228 ACWS (3d) 442 [Wireless].

2 In Canada, federal and most provincial legislation include a corporate oppression remedy to address conduct construed to be oppressive to or unfairly prejudicial to or that unfairly disregards the interests of a complainant. Oppression claims can be asserted by practically any "stakeholder", including a shareholder and even a creditor, for corporate actions that infringe on the stakeholder's legitimate expectations. The legislation allows the court discretion regarding the remedies it may impose in relation to the conduct complained of, permitting expansive orders to be made as the court sees fit in relation to the oppressive conduct against or in relation to the corporation and others. A finding of oppression is dependent on the facts of an individual case and a court will consider, among other things, the reasonable expectations of the complainant. In Wireless, Catalyst made broad allegations of oppression against Wireless, alleging that its reasonable expectations were violated by the secondary financing that Wireless had arranged which preferred the interests of the "Unknown Purchasers" and thwarted its reasonable expectations. Wireless maintained that Catalyst's application for oppression fell within the scope of actions contemplated by the no-action clause in the trust indenture, as a result of which it was barred until such time as Catalyst complied with the notice and other provisions of such clause.

3 Feldbaum v McCrory Corp, 1992 WL 119095 (Del Ch) at 7 [Feldbaum]; see also Akanthos Capital Mgmt, LLC et al v CompuCredit Holdings Corp et al, 677 F 3d 1286 (11th Cir 2012) at 1293 [Akanthos].

4 Feldbaum, supra note 3 at 6.

5 Ibid at 5-6.

6 Athankos, supra note 3 at 1296, citing Watts v Missouri-Kansas-Texas R Co, 383 F2d 571 (5th Cir 1967) at 574.

7 Akanthos, supra note 3 at 1294; see also Feldbaum, supra note 3 at 7.

8 In support of its oppression claim, Catalyst argued that its reasonable expectations were violated by the secondary financing, giving rise to its oppression claim; see Wireless, supra note 1 at para 15.

9 In Wireless, section 6.06 of the Indenture provided as follows (see para 8):

Except to enforce the right to receive payment of principal, premium, if any, or interest when due, no Holder of a Note may pursue any remedy with respect to the Indenture or the Notes unless:

1)    Such Holder gives to the Trustee prior written notice than [sic] an Event of Default is continuing;

2)    Holders of at least 25% in aggregate principal amount of the then outstanding Notes make a written request to the Trustee to pursue the remedy;

3)    Such Holders have offered to the Trustee security or indemnity reasonably satisfactory to the Trustee against any loss, liability or expense;

4)    The Trustee has not complied with the request within 60 days after receipt of the request and the offer of security or indemnity; and

5)    During such 60-day period, Holders of a majority in aggregate principal amount of the then outstanding Notes have not given the Trustee a direction inconsistent with such request.

A Holder of a Note may not use this Indenture to prejudice the rights of another Holder of a Note or to obtain a preference or priority over another Holder of a Note.

10 Casurina Limited Partnership v Rio Algom Ltd, [2004] OJ No 177, 181 OAC 19, aff'g [2002] OJ No 3229 (SCJ), leave to appeal to SCC refused, 335 NR 199 (September 30, 2004) [Casurina]. See also Amaranth LLC v Counsel Corp, [2003] OJ No 4674, 40 BLR (3d) 212 (SCJ) [Amaranth].

11 [1994] OJ No 1968, 15 BLR (2d) 212 (Gen Div).

12 Wireless, supra note 1 at para 22.

13 Ibid at para 25.

14 Ibid at para 33.

15 Ibid at para 42.

The foregoing provides only an overview. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, a qualified lawyer should be consulted.

© Copyright 2013 McMillan LLP

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions