Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04052/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04052-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reporter. 1

Case No. C 07-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFEX1)

**E-Filed 8/25/08**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FINISAR CORP.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 07-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 1

FINISAR’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

DENYING U.S. BANK’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[re: docket nos. 49 and 73]

Plaintiff Finisar Corporation (“Finisar”) and Defendant U.S. Bank Trust National

Association (“U.S. Bank”) have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons

discussed below, Finisar’s motion will be granted in part, and U.S. Bank’s motion will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Finisar is a Delaware corporation that conducts performance tests on fiber optic

subsystems and networks. U.S. Bank is a national banking association with its headquarters in

Delaware. U.S. Bank is the designated trustee pursuant to a series of three trust indentures

Case 5:07-cv-04052-JF Document 102 Filed 08/25/08 Page 1 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 These excerpts are taken from the most recent Indenture. The minor differences 2

between the Indentures are immaterial to this action. 

2

Case No. C 07-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFEX1)

(“Indentures”) under which Finisar issued three series of convertible notes (“Notes”). 

The disputed text of Sections 4.02, 6.02 and 6.03 of the Indentures read as follows: 2

SECTION 4.02 Commission and Other Reports.

The Company shall file with the Trustee, within 15 days after it files such annual

and quarterly reports, information, documents, and other reports with the SEC,

copies of its annual report and of the information, documents and other reports (or

copies of such portions of any of the foregoing as the SEC may be rules and

regulations prescribe) which the Company is required to file with the SEC

pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the [Securities] Exchange Act [of 1934]. If at

any time the Company is not subject to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act,

such reports shall be provided at the times the Company would have been required

to provide reports had it continued to have been subject to such reporting

requirements. The Company also shall comply with the other provisions of [Trust

Indenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”)] Section 314(a). 

SECTION 6.02 Acceleration.

If an Event of Default . . . occurs and is continuing, the Trustee by notice to the

Company, or the Holders of at least 25% in aggregate principal amount of the

Notes at the time outstanding by notice to the Company and the Trustee, may

declare the Notes due and payable at their principal amount together with accrued

interest. Upon a declaration of acceleration, such principal and accrued and

unpaid interest to the date of payment shall be immediately due and payable. . . .

The Holders of a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Notes at the time

outstanding, by notice to the Trustee (and without notice to any other Noteholder)

may rescind or annul an acceleration and its consequences if the rescission would

not conflict with any judgment or decree and if all existing Events of Default have

been cured or waived except nonpayment of the principal and any accrued cash

interest that have become due solely as a result of acceleration and if all amounts

due to the Trustee under Section 7.06 have been paid. No such rescission shall

affect any subsequent Default or impair any right consequent thereto.

SECTION 6.03 Other Remedies.

If an Event of Default occurs and is continuing, the Trustee may pursue any

available remedy to collect the payment of the principal and any accrued cash

interest on the Notes or to enforce the performance of any provision of the Notes

or this Indenture. The Trustee may maintain a proceeding even if the Trustee does

no process any of the Notes or produce any of the Notes in the proceeding. A

delay or omission by the Trustee or any Noteholder in exercising any right or

remedy accruing upon an Event of Default shall not impair the right or remedy or

constitute a waiver or, or acquiescence in, the Event of Default. No remedy is

exclusive of any other remedy. All available remedies are cumulative.

SECTION 7.06 Compensation and Indemnification of Trustee and Its Prior Claim.

The Company covenants and agrees to pay the Trustee from time to time, and the

Trustee shall be entitled to, such compensation (which shall not be limited by any

provision of law in regard to the compensation of a trustee in an express trust) to

be agreed to in writing by the Trustee and the Company, and the Company

covenants and agrees to pay or reimburse the Trustee and each predecessor

Case 5:07-cv-04052-JF Document 102 Filed 08/25/08 Page 2 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case No. C 07-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFEX1)

Trustee upon its request for all reasonable expenses, disbursements and advances

incurred or made by or on behalf of it in accordance with any of the provisions of

this Indenture (including (i) the reasonable compensation and the expenses and

disbursements of its counsel and of all agents and other persons not regularly in its

employ and (ii) interest at the prime rate on any disbursements and advances made

by the Trustee and not paid by the Company within 5 days after receipt of an

invoice for such disbursement or advance) except any such expense, disbursement

or advance as may arise from its negligence or bad faith. The Company also

covenants to indemnify the Trustee and each predecessor Trustee for, and to hold

it harmless against, any lost, liability or expense incurred without negligence or

bad faith on its part, arising out of or in connection with the acceptance or

administration of this Indenture or the trusts hereunder and its duties hereunder,

including the costs and expenses of defending itself against or investigation any

claim of liability in the premises.

In December 2006, Finisar filed the first of several documents entitled “Notification of

Late Filing” with the SEC, informing both the SEC and U.S. Bank that Finisar would be unable

to file or provide quarterly and annual reports until it completed an investigation of stock option

grants made following Finisar’s initial public offering on November 11, 1999. Based on its

initial findings, Finisar determined that it needed to restate its historical financial statements to

record charges for compensation expenses relating to past stock option grants and the tax impact

related to such adjustments. U.S. Bank contends that Finisar’s failure to file timely reports with

the SEC and to provide copies of those reports to the Trustee within fifteen days of the SEC

deadline constitutes a default under Section 4.02 of the Indentures. 

On January 4, 2007, U.S. Bank sent three “Notices of Default” to Finisar, one under each

Indenture, as a result of Finisar’s failure to file timely its second quarterly report. U.S. Bank

contends that such notice gave rise to an “Event of Default” under each Indenture as of March 5,

2007. Shortly after receiving the Notices of Default, Finisar sought declaratory relief in state

court, asserting that its failure to file quarterly and annual reports with the SEC did not constitute

a default under Section 4.02 of the Indentures, or, alternatively, that enforcement of remedies

under the Indentures as a result of Finisar’s failure to file reports with the SEC would be

inequitable. 

After Finisar filed its complaint for declaratory relief, U.S. Bank sent Finisar three

additional Notices of Default, each dated April 24, 2007, as a result of Finisar’s failure to file its

third quarterly report. These notices purportedly gave rise to an Event of Default under each

Case 5:07-cv-04052-JF Document 102 Filed 08/25/08 Page 3 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case No. C 07-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFEX1)

Indenture on June 23, 2007. Finisar thereafter commenced a second declaratory relief action in

state court. 

U.S. Bank removed the first declaratory relief action to this Court on April 13, 2007. On

May 14, 2007, Finisar moved to remand that action to state court. Without reaching the issue of

whether a federal question was presented, this Court granted the motion for remand because the

removal was untimely. On August 7, 2007, U.S. Bank filed its notice of removal with respect to

the second declaratory relief action, which was effectuated on August 8, 2007. On September

28, 2007, Finisar filed a motion to remand that action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Because the Court concluded that Finisar’s duty to provide documents to the Trustee arises under

federal statutes and that Section 4.02 of the Indentures is a mechanism to enforce the provisions

of those statues, the second motion to remand was denied. On December 4, 2007, Finisar filed

its delayed annual and quarterly reports with the SEC and provided the information contained in

such reports to U.S. Bank within fifteen days thereafter. 

U.S. Bank alleges that on two separate occasions in 2007, it sent invoices to Finisar for

fees and expenses relating to the disputed events of default and subsequent litigation. After

initially refusing to make these payments, Finisar paid U.S. Bank’s claimed expenses of

$317,817.58 on February 20, 2008. However, Finisar did so noting that the payment was made

“in protest” and subject to recovery and reimbursement. U.S. Bank alleges that through March

31, 2008, it has incurred a total of $588,130.50 in fees and expenses as a result of this action.

On March 19, 2008, Finisar amended its complaint. U.S. Bank answered the Amended

Complaint and then filed the instant motion for summary judgment on April 24, 2008. Finisar

countered with the instant cross-motion for summary judgment on June 6, 2008. The Court

heard oral argument on July 11, 2008.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion for summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine issue of

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party bears

the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for the motion and identifying the portions

Case 5:07-cv-04052-JF Document 102 Filed 08/25/08 Page 4 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Case No. C 07-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFEX1)

of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits that

demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 323 (1986). 

If the moving party meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to

present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e);

Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. A genuine issue for trial exists if the non-moving party presents

evidence from which a reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that

party, could resolve the material issue in his or her favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, 248-49. 

III. DISCUSSION

The parties agree that this case turns on an interpretation of the Indentures. They raise

three issues in their cross-motions: (1) whether Finisar defaulted under the Indentures by

providing U.S. Bank with copies of its Reports within fifteen days of the actual date of filing

with the SEC rather than within fifteen days of the filing deadline; (2) whether any such default

under the Indentures was cured by Finisar’s subsequent filing of its Reports with the SEC; and

(3) whether Finisar is obligated to reimburse U.S. Bank under the Indentures for fees and costs

relating to this matter.

A. The Threshold Issue of Default Under the Indentures 

Finisar argues that Section 4.02 of the Indentures “require[s] only that Finisar provide

copies of its Reports to U.S. Bank within 15 days after it actually filed them with the SEC, and

imposed no requirement regarding the timing of Finisar’s filing with the SEC.” Finisar Brief at

1, Finisar Corp. v. U.S. Bank Trust Nat’l Ass’n, No. 07-4052 JF (9th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in

original). U.S. Bank argues that “Finisar’s failure to timely file reports with the SEC,” and its

subsequent failure to file copies of those reports with U.S. Bank within fifteen days of the SEC

deadline, “constitutes a ‘default’ under Section 4.02 of the Indentures.” U.S. Bank Brief at 4,

Finisar Corp. v. U.S. Bank Trust Nat’l Ass’n, No. 07-4052 JF (9th Cir. 2005). The Indentures

are governed by New York law. See Indentures § 13.09. 

“Under New York law, a written contract is to be interpreted so as to give effect to the

intention of the parties as expressed in the unequivocal language they have employed.” 

Case 5:07-cv-04052-JF Document 102 Filed 08/25/08 Page 5 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Case No. C 07-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFEX1)

UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Wilmington Trust Co., 538 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1111 (D. Minn. 2008)

(citing Cruden v. Bank of N.Y., 957 F.2d 961, 976 (2d Cir. 1992)). Where “clear and

unambiguous language is used, a contract should be enforced according to its own terms.”

Cyberonics, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2007 WL 1729977, *3 (S.D. Tex. 2007)

(citing R/S Assocs. v. N.Y. Job Dev. Auth., 98 N.Y.2d 29 (2002)). Accordingly, “[p]arties to an

agreement are not obligated to perform duties beyond those mandated by the unambiguous terms

of the indenture.” UnitedHealth, 538 F. Supp. 2d at 1112; see also Red Ball Interior Demolition

Corp. v. Palmadessa, 173 F.3d 481, 484 (2d Cir. 1999). “Ambiguity is determined by looking

within the four corners of the document, not to outside sources. And in deciding whether an

agreement is ambiguous courts should examine the entire contract and consider the relation of

the parties and the circumstances under which it was executed.” Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc.

v. Wilmington Trust Co., 2008 WL 373162, * 3 (N.D. Tex. 2008) (citing Kass v. Kass, 91 N.Y.2d

554, 566 (1998)). Thus extrinsic evidence “cannot be used to create an ambiguity in a contract.” 

Id. (citing W.W.W. Assocs., Inc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 163 (1990)).

Three federal courts and a New York state trial court have interpreted language nearly

identical to that of Section 4.02 of the Indenture in the instant case. Finisar notes that the federal

courts consistently have held that similar agreements present “no obligation to file SEC reports

on any particular timetable.” UnitedHealth, 538 F. Supp. 2d at 1112; see also Affiliated

Computer, 2008 WL 373162, at * 1; Cyberonics, 2007 WL 1729977, at * 3-4. U.S. Bank points

out correctly that these previous decisions are not binding authority. U.S. Bank urges this Court

to follow Bank of New York v. BearingPoint, Inc., 2006 WL 2670143, in which a state court held

that the underlying purpose of the indenture was the issuer’s “obligation to provide the Trustee

with timely annual and quarterly reports.” 2006 WL 2670143, * 7 (N.Y. Sup. 2006). 

However, in BearingPoint, “the company disavowed any obligation to file information

with the SEC whatsoever.” Cyberonics, 2007 WL 1729977, at * 5. The three federal courts that

subsequently considered the BearingPoint decision were not persuaded to follow its holding. Id. 

Nor does this Court find BearingPoint persuasive. In respectfully disagreeing with the holding in

BearingPoint, this Court notes that it “is free to disregard a lower state court’s decision if ‘it is

Case 5:07-cv-04052-JF Document 102 Filed 08/25/08 Page 6 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 At oral argument, U.S. Bank pointed out that the Indentures in the UnitedHealth,

3

Cyberonics, and Affiliated Computer decisions did not contain the second sentence of the

Indenture in the instant case. Here the second sentence states: “If at any time the Company is not

subject to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, such reports shall be provided at the times

the Company would have been required to provide reports . . . ” Indentures § 4.02. However, on

the face of its terms, the second sentence does not apply to this situation. U.S. Bank concedes

this point in its motion, stating that Finisar is a publicly traded company and “is obligated to file

quarterly and annual reports with the SEC” per Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Exchange Act. U.S.

Bank Brief at 3. 

7

Case No. C 07-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFEX1)

convinced . . . that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise.’” UnitedHealth, 538 F.

Supp. 2d at 1112 (quoting Holden Farms, Inc. v. Hog Slat, Inc., 347 F.3d 1055, 1066 (8th Cir.

2003)). 

As discussed previously, the disputed language of Section 4.02 of the Indentures in the

instant case states:

The Company shall file with the Trustee, within 15 days after it files such annual

and quarterly reports, information, documents, and other reports with the SEC,

copies of its annual report and of the information, documents and other reports (or

copies of such portions of any of the foregoing as the SEC may be rules and

regulations prescribe) which the Company is required to file with the SEC

pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the [Securities] Exchange Act [of 1934]. If at

any time the Company is not subject to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act,

such reports shall be provided at the times the Company would have been required

to provide reports had it continued to have been subject to such reporting

requirements. The Company also shall comply with the other provisions of [Trust

Indenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”)] Section 314(a). 

Indentures § 4.02. The language of the Indenture is grammatically clear and unequivocal. As the

court observed in UnitedHealth:

[T]he phrase ‘which the Company is then required to file with the Commission

pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act’ modifies the Indenture’s

contractual obligation to send copies by specifying those financial reports the

Company is obligated to file. Section 13 and 15(d) of the Exchange Act are the

impetus by which certain financial reports will be provided. The modifying

phrase expressly incorporates sections 13 and 15(d) only to the extent that those

statutes mandate which financial reports must be produced. 

UnitedHealth, 538 F. Supp. 2d at 1113 (emphasis added). The incorporation of Sections 13 and 3

15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act do not impose upon Finisar an obligation to file copies of

such reports within fifteen days of the SEC deadline. Rather, the Indenture requires Finisar to

provide U.S. Bank with copies of the annual reports and information within 15 days after it files

them with the SEC. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Finisar did not default in filing copies

Case 5:07-cv-04052-JF Document 102 Filed 08/25/08 Page 7 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 In fact, U.S. Bank previously has negotiated Indentures that impose such requirements. 4

See, e.g., Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. v. Post Advisory Group, LLC, No. G-07-406, 2007 WL

3120312 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2007).

8

Case No. C 07-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFEX1)

of its reports with U.S. Bank within fifteen days of actually filing with the SEC. 

In addition, the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Indentures support

Finisar’s position. The multi-million transaction at issue resulted from informed negotiations

between sophisticated parties. Had U.S. Bank wished to require Finisar explicitly to submit

information within fifteen days of the SEC deadlines instead of within fifteen days of the date of

Finisar’s actual filing with the SEC, U.S. Bank easily could have incorporated language to that

effect into the Indenture. The Court reasonably may infer from the absence of such language 4

that the parties did not intend to include such terms in this Indenture. See id. at 1114 (“When the

language of a contract is unambiguous, as it is here, the Court may not impose obligations on a

party beyond those expressly stated.”) (citing Red Ball, 173 F.3d at 484).

U.S. Bank seems particularly concerned that the interpretation of the Indentures the Court

adopts with this Order will not effectuate the intent of Section 4.02, which U.S. Bank argues is

“to keep the investors informed of company developments.” U.S. Bank Brief at 10. However,

U.S. Bank’s effort to distinguish UnitedHealth from the instant case by pointing to the

availability of detailed financial information filed with the issuer’s notification of late filing

ultimately is unpersuasive because the quality of Finisar’s financial reporting is not contested

here. Thre is no evidence that Finisar ever has denied or sought to avoid its obligations to

investors, and in any event, it still is subject to the full weight of penalties imposed by the SEC

should it attempt to do so. 

B. Cure of Default Under the Indentures

Given that Finisar did not breach its obligations pursuant to the Indenture and thus was

not in default at any time, the Court need not address whether Finisar remains in default or

whether an event of default may be cured through a late filing with the SEC. Accordingly, the

Court need not interpret the acceleration clauses of Sections 6.02 and 6.03.

Case 5:07-cv-04052-JF Document 102 Filed 08/25/08 Page 8 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

Case No. C 07-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFEX1)

C. Counterclaim For Damages

The parties have stipulated to an agreement resolving U.S. Bank’s counterclaim for

damages. Therefore, the Court need not address this issue.

D. Recovery of Fees 

As previously noted, Finisar paid U.S. Bank $317,817.58 on February 20, 2008 to cover

expenses, but did so “in protest” and reserved the right to seek reimbursement of the payment. 

Even though the Court finds that Finisar did not default, it must decide whether Finisar is liable

for U.S. Bank’s attorney’s fees under Section 7.06 of the Indentures and whether reimbursement

is appropriate. Section 7.06 provides the following:

The Company covenants and agrees to pay the Trustee from time to time,

and the Trustee shall be entitled to, such compensation (which shall not be

limited by any provision of law in regard to the compensation of a trustee in an

express trust) to be agreed to in writing by the Trustee and the Company, and the

Company covenants and agrees to pay or reimburse the Trustee and each

predecessor Trustee upon its request for all reasonable expenses,

disbursements and advances incurred or made by or on behalf of it in

accordance with any of the provisions of this Indenture (including (i) the

reasonable compensation and the expenses and disbursements of its counsel and

of all agents and other persons not regularly in its employ and (ii) interest at the

prime rate on any disbursements and advances made by the Trustee and not paid

by the Company within 5 days after receipt of an invoice for such disbursement or

advance) except any such expense, disbursement or advance as may arise

from its negligence or bad faith. The Company also covenants to indemnify

the Trustee and each predecessor Trustee for, and to hold it harmless against, any

lost, liability or expense incurred without negligence or bad faith on its part,

arising out of or in connection with the acceptance or administration of this

Indenture or the trusts hereunder and its duties hereunder, including the

costs and expenses of defending itself against or investigation any claim of

liability in the premises.

Indenture § 7.06 (emphasis added). 

Finisar argues that it is not liable for “fees incurred trying to exact unwarranted

concessions.” Finisar Brief at 21. Finisar contends that because it never was in default, U.S.

Bank’s effort to recover fees relating to the issuance and litigation of notices of default “was not

in accordance with the Indentures.” Id. Finisar also argues that because “Finisar and U.S. Bank

have been litigating declaratory relief claims, not liability claims,” the fees at issue “were not

incurred defending against or investigating any claim of liability in the premises” and thus cannot

be recovered under the indemnity clause of Section 7.06. Id. at 23. Finally, Finisar argues in the

Case 5:07-cv-04052-JF Document 102 Filed 08/25/08 Page 9 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The Court notes that U.S. Bank made a passing reference to incurring additional fees

5

during this litigation since the February 20, 2008 payment. While the same contractual

interpretation of this Order seemingly would apply to additional expenses, the Court does not

10

Case No. C 07-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFEX1)

alternative that U.S. Bank incurred the fees at issue negligently and in bad faith thus preventing

recovery. Id. at 23-24. U.S. Bank contends that Finisar’s arguments are without merit and that

Finisar is contractually bound to its obligation to pay the indenture trustee. U.S. Bank Brief at

19. U.S. Bank further contends that Finisar, not U.S. Bank, has acted in bad faith. Id. 

“[W]here fees are sought pursuant to a contractual right to payment, compensation is to

be determined in accordance with the contractual provision.” U.S. Trust Co. of N.Y. v. Pardo (In

re W.T. Grant Co.), 119 B.R. 898 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990), aff’d, 935 F.2d 1277 (2d Cir. 1991). 

Here the plain language of the first sentence of § 7.06, the payments clause, clearly provides that

Finisar agrees to pay U.S. Bank for reasonable fees incurred in good faith “in accordance with

any of the provisions of this Indenture.” Indenture § 7.06. Because the Court does not find that

either party acted in bad faith in the instant action, the question is whether U.S. Bank’s expenses

were incurred in accordance with the Indentures. Finisar does not deny that U.S. Bank’s

expenses were incurred in issuing and litigating the alleged events of default pursuant to the

Indentures. That this Court now agrees with Finisar’s interpretation does not mean that the

litigation was not “in accordance” with the Indentures. Accordingly, the Court finds that Finisar

is obligated to pay U.S. Bank’s reasonable fees and costs under § 7.06.

The Court is unpersuaded by Finisar’s arguments regarding the second sentence of § 7.06,

the indemnity clause. The Court finds that because the purpose of this action was to interpret and

clarify the meaning of the Indentures, it lies within the scope of litigation “arising out of or in

connection with the acceptance or administration of this Indenture.” Finisar’s contention that

these fees were not “incurred defending itself against or investigating any claim of liability in the

premises” is misleading as this clause does not limit § 7.06 to third party litigation or liability

claims.

In sum, the Court finds that Finisar’s February 20, 2008 payment of $317,817.58 was

proper under § 7.06 of the Indentures. Accordingly, U.S. Bank is not obligated to reimburse 5

Case 5:07-cv-04052-JF Document 102 Filed 08/25/08 Page 10 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

address any additional fees here because the parties focused only on the February 20, 2008

payment in their briefing. Furthermore, this Order does not adjudicate the “reasonableness” of

any fees and expenses incurred, but only addresses Finisar’s contractual obligation under the

Indentures to cover U.S. Bank’s reasonable fees.

11

Case No. C 07-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFEX1)

Finisar.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, Finisar’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN

PART and U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 

DATED: August 25, 2008

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04052-JF Document 102 Filed 08/25/08 Page 11 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

Case No. C 07-4052 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART FINISAR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.

(JFEX1)

This Order was served on the following persons:

Caroline McIntyre

Email: cmcintyre@be-law.com

L. Rex Sears

Email: rsears@wnlaw.com

Sterling Arthur Brennan

Email: sbrennan@wnlaw.com

Abby E. Wilkinson

Email: awilkinson@faegre.com

Dana Anthony Rodriguez

Email: drodriguez@mofo.com

Eva Krisztina Schueller

Email: eschueller@mofo.com

Michael B. Fisco

Email: mfisco@faegre.com

Edward Thomas Wahl

Email: ewahl@faegre.com

Case 5:07-cv-04052-JF Document 102 Filed 08/25/08 Page 12 of 12