Canada: BCE Bondholders Claims Rejected By Quebec Court

Copyright 2008, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Originally published in Blakes Bulletin on Mergers & Acquisitions, April 2008

On March 7, 2008, the Quebec Superior Court rendered five judgments rejecting claims of oppression and lack of fairness made by certain bondholders of Bell Canada, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BCE Inc. (BCE). Subject to their pending appeal, these judgments cleared one of the final remaining hurdles to completion of the acquisition of BCE by Ontario Teachers Pension Plan (Teachers), Providence Equity Partners and Madison Dearborn Partners. This bulletin reviews a number of interesting holdings of the Court expected to be of general application to M&A transactions.

BACKGROUND

Following BCEs rejection of approaches made by the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR) as well as Teachers (BCEs largest shareholder), on April 3, 2008, Teachers filed a Schedule 13D with the SEC reflecting a change in investment intent from passive to active, and indicating that it would encourage BCE to explore extraordinary transactions. Following this filing, there was heavy trading in BCE shares and heightened speculation that BCE would be taken private. These circumstances, combined with significant private equity activity and strong debt markets, led the BCE board to conclude that there was a real prospect of an unsolicited offer for BCE, and that the corporation was in play. As a result, it established a sale process resulting in bids by the Teachers consortium as well as bids by a CPP/KKR consortium and Cerberus. A proposal by Telus was abandoned following BCEs assessment that it carried a significantly higher degree of completion risk than the other bids.

On June 30, 2007, BCE announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement with the Teachers consortium to be acquired pursuant to a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) for all-cash consideration valued at C$51.7-billion (including C$16.9-billion of debt, preferred equity and minority interests). This represented an approximate 40% premium over the average trading price of BCE common shares in the first quarter of 2007, prior to the possibility of a privatization transaction surfacing publicly.

The arrangement was approved in September 2007 at a special meeting of BCE common and preferred shareholders by more than 97% of the votes cast.

BONDHOLDERS COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS

As a result of the acquisition, BCE would have C$38.5-billion in debt, some of which Bell Canada would be obliged to guarantee on a basis ranking equally with certain Bell Canada bonds. As a result of a significant downgrade in the rating and price of Bell Canadas bonds, certain bondholders commenced proceedings to:

  1. seek a declaration that the proposed transaction was oppressive to bondholders and require Bell Canada to redeem the bonds;

  2. oppose BCEs motion to obtain the Courts final order required to complete the arrangement on the basis of lack of fairness; and

  3. seek a declaration that the arrangement not be completed without approval of each trustee on the basis that the arrangement constituted a "reorganization" and was therefore subject to such an approval requirement under the relevant trust indenture.

The Courts holdings on each of these claims is discussed in turn below.

1. OPPRESSION ACTIONS

In order for the bondholders to succeed in an oppression claim under the CBCA, it was necessary for them to establish whether:

  • any act or omission of BCE or any of its affiliates effects a result,

  • the business or affairs of BCE or any of its affiliates are or have been carried on or conducted in a manner, or

  • the powers of the directors of BCE or any of its affiliates are or have been exercised in a manner,

that was oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly disregards the interests of, the bondholders. The bondholders asserted four principal grounds to support their oppression claims:

I. Bell Canada Guarantee The bondholders asserted that the guarantee of debt by Bell Canada as part of the arrangement served no valid business purpose, relying on the conclusion of the Court in Palmer v. Carling OKeefe. In that case, the Court found that a proposed leveraged buy-out that would force holders of preferred shares into preferred shares of a corporation with substantially greater debt served no valid business purpose, and was therefore oppressive. Rejecting the bondholders position that there was no "principled reason" that preferred shareholders and bondholders should be treated differently, the Court held that there is fundamental difference between shares and bonds in that bondholders have the opportunity to negotiate clear rights and remedies, while shareholders have no remedy other than an oppression action against the issuer. Based on this, the Court held that the Palmer case was not relevant.

The Court further deferred to the BCE boards judgment that the privatization could benefit Bell Canada as well as BCE, including the opportunity of receiving investment in new technology and a potential restructuring. In deferring to the board, the Court cited with approval the Supreme Court of Canadas decision in Kerr v. Danier in which it held: "[i]n order to maximize return for shareholders, managers should be free to take reasonable risks without having to worry that their business choices will be second-guessed by judges."

II. Reasonable Expectations of Bondholders Citing various public statements by BCE and Bell Canada including those indicating BCEs commitment to maintain investment grade ratings, the bondholders contended that by approving the plan of arrangement, BCE and Bell Canada had breached their reasonable expectations, including the expectation that Bell Canada would maintain investment grade ratings for the bonds, and that this conduct resulted in unfairness that was oppressive. The Court again distinguished between bondholders and shareholders, stressing that the formers relationship with the corporation is entirely contractual while the latters is generally governed by statute. Following U.S. caselaw, the Court concluded that, absent compelling reasons, the bondholders reasonable expectations must be assessed from the terms of their respective trust indentures and the related prospectuses. The absence of change of control or credit ratings covenants in those indentures such as that contained in other trust indentures meant that bondholders willingly assumed or were complacent with respect to the risk of a change of control transaction. On this basis, the Court declined to imply any such covenants based on public statements of management of BCE and Bell Canada.

While the above conclusion was sufficient to dismiss the bondholders claim, the Court focused on the public statements, commenting that while representations made by BCE and Bell Canada may be of assistance in determining fairness, they "cannot be assessed in a vacuum and in assessing fairness, it is necessary to examine the context in which these representations were made and any caveats attaching thereto." The Court found that virtually all of these statements were accompanied with "safe harbour" notices or other warnings expressly precluding investors from relying on these statements in the manner sought by the bondholders. In some cases, the safe harbours specifically qualified the public statements by indicating that they did not reflect the impact of acquisition or mergers. Bell prospectuses also included express risk factors indicating that the credit ratings of the debentures might fall below investment grade or even be withdrawn entirely. In a strongly worded dismissal of the bondholders claim of reliance on BCE and Bell Canadas public statements, the Court stated:

The Contesting bondholders are among the most sophisticated investors in Canada. They knew or should have known that BCE and Bell Canada were at all times subject to this form of event risk. It is untenable for them to now assert that these prior statements by representatives of BCE and Bell Canada created the reasonable expectations to which they refer.

III. Arrangement Exposes Bondholders to Oppressive Degree of Risk The bondholders argued that the plan of arrangement exposed them to a material increased risk of payment default, as reflected by the significant rating downgrade on the bonds, which was oppressive. While the Court agreed that there was some increased risk of default, it determined that the risk of non-recovery of principal was still minimal. Given this, and the fact that the bondholders were aware of the risk of a leveraged buy-out and had the opportunity to negotiate protective covenants at the time of issue of the bonds, the Court found that the prejudice suffered by virtue of the plan of arrangement was not oppressive.

IV. Bondholders Interests Unfairly Disregarded The bondholders contended that the BCE directors entirely and unfairly disregarded their interests in approving the privatization. The bondholders cited the holding of the Supreme Court of Canada in Peoples Department Stores v. Wise, which established that the directors fiduciary duties were owed to the corporation and its various stakeholders, including its creditors (such as bondholders). The bondholders argued that the directors Revlon duty to maximize shareholder value could not override their obligation not to act in a manner that was oppressive to the bondholders.

The Court upheld the applicability of the Revlon duty in Canada when a corporation is in play, stating that it was not necessarily incompatible with the directors fiduciary duties. Having regard to all of the circumstances, the Court concluded the arrangement was in the best interests of BCE and Bell Canada, stating that:

The sole fact that the shareholders stand to benefit from the transaction while the debentureholders are prejudiced, in and of itself, does not give rise to a conclusion that the directors have not performed their fiduciary duties to the corporation in an appropriate manner.

The Court determined that BCE had complied with the terms of the trust indentures, and that notwithstanding the prejudice resulting to the bondholders from the arrangement, the bondholders interests had not been disregarded by the BCE board.

In dismissing the bondholders oppression claims, the Court gave significant weight to the need for commercial certainty. The Court concurred with the view of a fund manager that, if accepted, the bondholders position "could undermine commercial certainty which is one of the bedrock principles that underlies the efficient operation of the capital markets in Canada", and that investment decisions are made "on a daily basis on the firm expectation that public companies are free to operate their businesses as they see fit provided that their contractual obligations to their debtholders and other contracting parties are complied with".

2. FAIRNESS OF ARRANGEMENT

A plan of arrangement must be approved by the Court pursuant to what is known as a fairness hearing. At this hearing, the Court must be satisfied that the arrangement is both procedurally and substantially fair to the corporation and its stakeholders. Accordingly, in addition to their oppression claims, the bondholders argued that the Court should not approve the plan of arrangement on the basis that it was unfair to the bondholders. Accepting that the test for establishing lack of fairness of an arrangement was not as high as proving oppression, the Court concluded that, given the arrangement complied with the terms of the trust indentures, it was not unfair to the bondholders.

In seeking a vote on the arrangement, the bondholders cited the policy of the Director under the CBCA concerning plans of arrangement. While the Court recognized that the policy did not have the force of law, it did indicate that it was instructive. The policy indicates that economic factors, such as a credit rating, should be considered in addition to legal rights in determining if a class of securityholders should be entitled to a class vote. The policy also indicates that the entitlement of debtholders to voting and approval rights should ordinarily be determined by reference to the provisions of the trust indenture. Noting that the Director had determined not to intervene, the Court declined to provide bondholders a vote on the arrangement following its review of the policy.

The bondholders also sought a class vote on the arrangement, which the Court recognized would give them a veto that would be exercised to defeat the transaction. Citing past caselaw, the Court held that legal rights that are not compromised or altered by a plan of arrangement are not relevant to a determination of fairness. In the absence of oppression or contractual limitations under the trust indentures, the Court held that the adverse effect of the arrangement on the bondholders economic interests did not justify a class vote for the bondholders.

3. PLAN OF ARRANGEMENT CONSTITUTED A "REORGANIZATION"

The bondholders argued that the plan of arrangement constituted a "reorganization" and accordingly, was subject to a requirement to obtain the approval of the trustee under the applicable trust indentures. In the bondholders view, through a series of transactions, the arrangement resulted in a "profound metamorphosis" of Bell Canada with a dramatic change in its debt structure accompanied by a significant downgrade in its credit ratings. In the absence of a definition of the term "reorganization" in the trust indenture, and a resulting ambiguity as to whether it encompassed the transactions contemplated by the arrangement, the Court held that the indenture should be interpreted so as to give effect to the parties intentions and promote a sensible commercial result. Based on this, the Court concluded that had the parties intended to preclude Bell Canada from undertaking a transaction such as the plan of arrangement that impacted the financial risk of the bondholders, they would have done so directly by the use of financial or ratings covenants, and not relied on a broad and ambiguous interpretation of the term "reorganization" that resulted in uncertainty. The Court held that a reorganization should be confined so as to refer to the transfer of all or part of a corporations undertaking to a new entity that is intended to carry on substantially the same business and is owned by substantially the same shareholders, and that the plan of arrangement involved no such transfer of Bell Canadas assets.

The full text of the Quebec Superior Court decisions, together with a copy of this bulletin, is available on Blakes Web site at www.blakes.com in our "Publications - Mergers & Acquisitions" section.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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
Events from this Firm
12 Sep 2017, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Please join us as we take an in-depth look at the legislation and the impact on the industry.

14 Sep 2017, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Change, stress and uncertainty are ever]present factors in todayfs legal environment, and specific aspects about the practice of law make it difficult to thrive in the profession long term. Luckily, there are specific research]based strategies that have been shown to help lawyers thrive and lead to more effective ways to manage stress and pressure.

5 Oct 2017, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Blakes is proud to host our New to In-House Series, designed to bring together junior and mid-level in-house counsel for a candid exchange of insights to highlight and address some of the challenges and opportunities facing in-house lawyers in their roles today.

 
In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.