Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 FEBRUARY 2013

Indenture "No-Action" Clauses Bar Independent Claims By Securityholders

Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP
Contributor
Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP

Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP

Carter Ledyard & Milburn is a general practice law firm headquartered in the Financial District....

View firm profile
Explore more from Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP

A discussion on two recent cases, from the Eleventh Circuit and New York, which illustrate the limitations that "no-action" clauses in indentures place on the ability of Security holders to enforce claims against third parties.

United StatesFinance and Banking

Two recent cases, from the Eleventh Circuit1 and New York,2 illustrate the limitations that "no-action" clauses in indentures place on the ability of Security holders3 to enforce claims against third parties. Indentures governing debt securities almost universally contain two clauses that address the rights of Security holders to enforce claims. The first is the "no-action" clause and the second is the "non-impairment" clause.

The Clauses

A typical formulation of a "no-action clause" is: Limitation on Suits. A Security holder may pursue a remedy with respect to this Indenture or the Securities only if:

(1) the Holder gives to the Trustee notice of a continuing Event of Default;

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from