See Cruden v. Bank of N.Y., 957 F.2d 961, 968 (2d Cir.1992); Feldbaum v. McCrory Corp., No. 12006, 1992 Del. Ch. LEXIS 113, at *23-*24 (Del. Ch. June 1, 1992) (applying New York law). 12 . The no action clause in that case also contained the identical "with respect to this Indenture” language present here. Feldbaum, 1992 Del. Ch. LEXIS 113 at * 17. 13 . Indeed, at least one commentator has said that the "scope of the no-action clause is rather broad," noting that it applies to "most noncontractual claims ... and to suits against defendants other than the company.” Marcel Kahan, Rethinking Corporate Bonds: The Trade-Off Between Individual and Collective Rights, 77 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1040, 1051 (2002) (citing McMahan & Co. v. Wherehouse Entm’t, Inc., 859 F.Supp. 743, 746, 749 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (<HOLDING>), aff d in part and rev’d in part, 65 F.3d 1044
recognizing that third party may not recover contribution against parent where child has no cause of action against parent for negligent supervision holding no action clause bars claims against officers of issuer underwriter of bonds and issuers parent company recognizing that entities holding intellectual property for parent company had no real economic substance and allowing taxation of a portion of income attributable to parent corporations business in the state holding parent company bound in subsequent action by res judicata effect of judgment against subsidiary holding that issuer and shareholder had no right to bring an action for equitable relief under  13d