New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Issuer Owes No Contractual Duty to Noteholders to File Timely Reports with SEC — Fifth Circuit Agrees with Eighth

Download PDF

From Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc. v. Wilmington Trust Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8011 (5th Cir. April 16, 2009):

Section 314(a) of the TIA [Turst Indenture Act] requires an issuer of bonds to file with the trustee copies of the annual reports which it is "required to file" with the SEC. See 15 U.S.C. § 77nnn(a). The Indenture also requires compliance with § 314(a), and ACS does not dispute that it was required to comply with the provision of the section. The dispute turns on the interpretation of § 314(a), which is a matter of first impression for this court. Wilmington Trust contends that § 314(a) requires ACS to provide copies of the reports it is required to file with the SEC regardless of whether ACS actually filed the reports. ACS argues that § 314(a) requires that it only file with the trustee the reports that it has in fact filed with the SEC. The district court held that § 314 obligates ACS to file with Wilmington Trust "copies of the reports and documents that ACS files with the SEC, but § 314(a) does not require that ACS file anything with the SEC."

***

We find UnitedHealth's [UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Wilmington Trust Co., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24301 (8th Cir. Dec. 1, 2008)] reasoning persuasive. In this case, § 4.03 of the Indenture provides in part that "[ACS] shall file with the Trustee, within 15 days after it files the same with the SEC, copies of the annual reports . . . that [ACS] is required to file with the SEC pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act." The unambiguous language of § 4.03 does not impose an independent obligation actually timely to file reports with the SEC. Rather, the phrase "that [ACS] is required to file" indicates those reports copies of which ACS is required to file with the Trustee. "[W]ithin 15 days after it files the same with the SEC" designates the time in which to file the reports with the Trustee. At best, the provision anticipates that ACS "is required to file" reports with the SEC pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d), but the provision neither incorporates the SEC's timing requirements nor imposes a deadline by which ACS must actually file the reports. We therefore hold that § 4.03 of the Indenture does not impose an obligation timely to file reports with the SEC.

See also our post of December 12, 2008, discussing the Eighth Circuit’s decision in UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Wilmington Trust Co., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24301 (8th Cir. Dec. 1, 2008).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice