1
EXHIBIT 5.2
[FASKEN CAMPBELL GODFREY LETTERHEAD]
June 25, 1998
Oxford Automotive
2000 N. Woodward Avenue
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
U.S.A. 48304
Attention: The President
Dear Sirs:
U.S. $35,000,000 10 1/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2007, Series B,
to be issued and sold by Oxford Automotive, Inc., and guaranteed by
B.M.G. North America Limited and others
We have acted as Ontario counsel for BMG North America Limited ("BMG") in
connection with the execution and delivery by it of certain documents relating
to the issue and sale by Oxford Automotive, Inc. ("OXFORD AUTOMOTIVE") of U.S.
$35,000,000 10 1/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2007, Series B (the "OLD
NOTES") and in connection with the offer by Oxford Automotive (the "EXCHANGE
OFFER") to exchange its 10 1/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2007, Series B
(the "EXCHANGE NOTES", and together with the Old Notes, the "NOTES") for any
and all of the outstanding Old Notes.
The Old Notes have been, and the Exchange Notes will be, issued pursuant to (i)
an Indenture (the "INDENTURE") dated as of June 15, 1997 between Oxford
Automotive, certain of its subsidiaries as guarantors and U.S. Bank Trust
National Association (formerly known as First National Trust Association) as
trustee for the holders of the Notes (the "TRUSTEE"), (ii) a Purchase Agreement
(the "PURCHASE AGREEMENT") dated March 24, 1998 among Oxford Automotive,
certain of its subsidiaries as guarantors, Salomon Brothers Inc. as the
purchaser of the Old Notes (the "Initial Purchaser"), and (iii) a Registration
Rights Agreement (the "REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT") dated April 1, 1998,
among Oxford Automotive, each of the guarantors and the Purchaser.
We have also acted as Ontario counsel for each of BMG and BMG Holdings Inc.
("HOLDINGS") in connection with the giving of certain guarantees (each, a
"GUARANTEE") contained in, and relating to Oxford Automotive's obligations
2
[FASKEN CAMPBELL GODFREY LETTERHEAD]
-ii-
under the Indenture, the Registration Rights Agreement and the Exchange Notes
(collectively, the "DOCUMENTS"). (BMG and Holdings are herein collectively
called the "GUARANTORS", and individually called a "GUARANTOR".)
The opinions given in this letter are limited to the law applicable in the
Province of Ontario, and the statutes and regulations of the Province of
Ontario and of Canada applicable in Ontario (collectively, "Ontario Law").
Accordingly, we do not express any opinion with respect to the laws of any
jurisdiction other than Ontario Law in force as at the date of this opinion
letter.
We have made the following assumptions specific to this transaction:
(A) under New York Law, the chosen governing law of each of the Documents,
(i) none of the documents imposes any obligation, liability or
indebtedness, whether actual or contingent, present or future,
primary or secondary (collectively, "LIABILITIES") on any of
the Guarantors in relation to any Liabilities of any other
person, other than Liabilities of Oxford Automotive in respect
of the Notes, and
(ii) none of the Documents creates any mortgage, charge, lien,
encumbrance, security interest or other right in the way of
security in or on any real or personal property of either
Guarantor, except in relation to its Guarantee;
(B) Each party to the Documents is a body corporate duly organized and
incorporated and validly existing under the laws of its jurisdiction of
incorporation, has all requisite capacity, power and authority to
execute, deliver and perform each of the Documents to which it is a
party, has taken all necessary corporate, statutory, regulatory and
other action to authorize the execution, delivery and performance by
it of each such Document and duly authorized signing officers of each
such party have executed and delivered each such document (other than
the Exchange Notes) on each such party's behalf in accordance with all
applicable laws;
(C) the Trustee and each of the Purchasers is resident in a jurisdiction
outside of Canada and does not have a permanent establishment or
tangible assets in Canada, a representative office in Canada, or
employees ordinarily resident in Canada, and, while the Trustee and
some of the Purchasers or their representatives may have discussed
financing proposals in Canada or may have discussed the financing
3
[FASKEN CAMPBELL GODFREY LETTERHEAD]
-iii-
contemplated by the documents in general terms in Canada with Oxford
Automotive and the Guarantors (or any of them), none of the Trustee
and the Purchasers conducted negotiations in Canada with Oxford
Automotive and the Guarantors (or any of them) with respect to the
Documents or the transactions contemplated thereby and the decision of
the Trustee and each of the Purchasers to participate in such
transactions was not made in Canada;
(D) the foregoing assumptions in this letter, are true accurate and
complete with respect to the matters addressed in them as of the time
and date of execution of the Exchange Notes by the issuers thereof, and
there has been no change in Ontario Law or any other applicable law, or
the facts assumed by or known to us at the date thereof; and
(E) the Exchange Notes will be duly executed and delivered by Oxford
Automotive in accordance with all applicable laws and in the form or
substantially in the form of the Note set out in a Schedule or Exhibit
to the Indenture, and on each date of execution and delivery of an
Exchange Note, each Guarantor will be a wholly-owned subsidiary (for
the purposes of section 20 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act) of
Oxford Automotive.
Based upon and relying on the foregoing and subject to the assumptions and
qualifications set out herein, we are of the opinion that:
1. An action to enforce each Guarantee could be commenced by the Trustee
in a court of competent jurisdiction in the Province of Ontario (an
"ONTARIO COURT"), in which event an Ontario Court would recognize the
choice of the laws of the State of New York ("NEW YORK LAW") as a valid
choice of law to govern the Guarantee and would apply New York Law to
all issues that an Ontario Court characterized as substantive under the
conflict of laws' rules of Ontario Law, assuming that:
(a) such choice of law is legal under New York Law;
(b) such choice of law was made bona fide, and, without limiting
the foregoing, such choice of law was not made for the purpose
of avoiding the mandatory laws of any other jurisdiction;
4
[FASKEN CAMPBELL GODFREY LETTERHEAD]
-iv-
(c) there is no reason for avoiding such choice of law on the
grounds of public policy in the Province of Ontario as
determined by an Ontario Court;
(d) New York Law is not an assertion of sovereign power of a
political nature by the State of New York or the United States
of America; and
(e) New York Law was specifically pleaded and proved as a question
of fact before the Ontario Court.
An Ontario Court will, however, apply Ontario Law to those issues that
the Ontario Court characterizes as procedural or administrative under
the conflict of laws' rules of Ontario Law. In addition, no opinion is
expressed as to whether remedies available under New York Law would be
available from an Ontario Court.
2. Any judgment (a "NEW YORK JUDGMENT"), obtained by the Trustee against
any of the Guarantors in any action taken in the courts of the State
of New York (the "NEW YORK COURT") to enforce a payment obligation of
that Guarantor under its Guarantee would be recognized and enforced by
an Ontario Court in a separate Ontario action without re-examination of
the merits of the New York action, if each of the following criteria is
satisfied:
(a) the New York Judgment is for a debt or fixed sum of money other
than a judgment in proceedings of a revenue, expropriatory,
penal, criminal or similar nature;
(b) the New York Judgment is final, conclusive and enforceable
where rendered;
(c) the New York Court that renders the New York Judgment has
jurisdiction over the Guarantor and the subject matter of its
Guarantee;
(d) the New York Judgment does not conflict with another final and
conclusive judgment in the same cause of action;
(e) the New York Judgment is not obtained by fraud or trick;
(f) the claim for relief on which the New York Judgment is based
and enforcement of the New York Judgment in
5
[FASKEN CAMPBELL GODFREY LETTERHEAD]
-v-
Ontario are not repugnant to public under Ontario Law;
(g) the New York Court rendering the New York Judgment is impartial
and provides procedures compatible with the due process
standards of an Ontario Court, and without limiting the
foregoing:
(i) the proceedings leading to the New York Judgment are
not contrary to the rules of natural justice, and
(ii) the relevant Guarantor received sufficient notice of
the proceedings in the New York Court to enable it to
defend the action in which the New York Judgment is
rendered;
(h) if the New York Judgment is obtained by default, there has been
no manifest error in the granting of such judgment;
(i) the proceedings in the New York Court are not contrary to an
agreement between the parties under which the dispute in
question is to be settled otherwise than by proceedings in
the New York Court;
(j) if the jurisdiction in the New York Court is based on personal
service alone, the New York Court is not a seriously
inconvenient forum for the trial of the action;
(k) the procedural rules for commencement and maintenance of the
enforcement proceedings in Ontario are observed;
(l) no new, admissible evidence relevant to the New York Judgment
is discovered before the Ontario Court renders judgment;
(m) no order restricting enforcement of the New York Judgment has
been made by the Attorney General of Canada under the Foreign
Extraterritorial Measures Act (Canada);
(n) no order has been made by the Competition Tribunal established
under the Competition Act (Canada) restricting implementation
of the New York Judgment as
6
[FASKEN CAMPBELL GODFREY LETTERHEAD]
-vi-
adversely affecting competition in Canada or domestic or
foreign trade and commerce in Canada; and
(o) the action to enforce the New York Judgment in an Ontario court
is commenced within six years of the date of such judgment.
3. The express submission by each Guarantor to the non-exclusive
jurisdiction of a New York Court in respect of its Guarantee would be
regarded by an Ontario Court as sufficient under Ontario Law to grant
personal jurisdiction over the Guarantor to a New York Court. Under
Ontario Law, an Ontario Court would recognize that a New York Court
has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the relevant Guarantee.
4. None of the Guarantors is entitled to any sovereign immunity under
Ontario Law.
The opinions expressed above are subject to the following qualifications:
(a) the enforceability of each Guarantee or any judgment (including,
without limitation, any New York Judgment) arising out of or in
connection with each Guarantee may be limited by applicable bankruptcy,
insolvency, winding-up, reorganization, arrangement, moratorium or
other laws affecting creditors' rights generally. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing,
(i) the ability to recover or claim for certain costs or expenses
may be subject to judicial discretion,
(ii) section 347 of the Criminal Code (Canada) prohibits the payment
of "interest" at a "criminal rate" (as such terms are defined
therein),
(iii) any action on any Guarantee may be proscribed by the
Limitations Act (Ontario) after the applicable limitation
period has expired, and
(iv) a money judgment by an Ontario Court may be awarded only in
Canadian currency and may be based on a rate of exchange in
existence on a date other than the date of payment;
(b) the enforceability of each Guarantee may be limited by general
principles of equity, and no opinion is given as to any specific
remedy that may be granted, imposed or rendered (including equitable
remedies such as specific performance and injunction);
7
[FASKEN CAMPBELL GODFREY LETTERHEAD]
-vii-
(c) an Ontario Court reserves the right to decline jurisdiction in
any action relating to a Guarantee on the basis that Ontario is
an inconvenient forum or if concurrent proceedings are being
brought elsewhere, notwithstanding any waiver of the right to
raise such objection or defence in the Documents;
(d) provisions in any Document permitting service of legal process
by posting or transmission of copies thereof in accordance with
the notice clause of such document may not be recognized as
good service by an Ontario court;
(e) section 4 of the Interest Act (Canada) may restrict the amount
of interest payable by the Guarantors to the rate or percentage
of five per cent per annum; and
(f) no opinion is expressed in this letter on the effect of the
securities laws of the Province of Ontario on any of the
Documents or on the Exchange Offer.
We hereby consent to the use of this opinion as an Exhibit to the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 (the "REGISTRATION STATEMENT") relating to the Exchange
Offer, and to the reference to our firm under the heading "Legal Matters" in
the Prospectus constituting a part of the Registration Statement. In giving
such consent, we do not concede that we are experts within the meaning of the
Securities Act of 1933 or the rules or regulations thereunder, or that this
consent is required by Section 7 of that Act.
Yours truly,
FASKEN CAMPBELL GODFREY
/s/ Fasken Campbell Godfrey