Canada: Cross Border Perspectives On Mergers & Acquisitions

Last Updated: November 7 2011
Article by Alfred Enns and David Surat

Most Read Contributor in Canada, September 2016

On October 5, 2011, BLG hosted a panel discussion on cross border issues in Mergers & Acquisitions at the Faculty of Law of McGill University. The keynote speaker was the Hon. Chief Justice Myron Steele of the Supreme Court of Delaware, with commentary and a Canadian perspective provided by the Hon. Justice Marie Deschamps of the Supreme Court of Canada and Jeff Barnes, a senior partner in BLG's M&A group. The panel was chaired by Fred Enns, a partner in BLG's Montréal office and also a member of the M&A group.

This panel discussion focused on the review of shareholder rights plans, also know as poison pills, in Canada and in Delaware and the differing approaches taken by courts as compared to the securities regulators.

Although there are clearly dramatic differences in the analysis carried out under Delaware and Canadian law and significant differences in the approach taken by courts and the securities regulators, the panellists noted that in appropriate circumstances the outcomes may be similar. Highlights of the panellists' remarks are set out below.


The Chief Justice suggested that the view that Delaware law allows a board of directors to "just say no" to a hostile offer has been overstated. In the context of appropriate findings of fact that a poison pill was no longer reasonable or that there was no sufficiently articulated long-term strategy that required protection, he suggested that a case could be made for a mandatory injunction removing a poison pill under Delaware law.

Chief Justice Steele noted that poison pills are generally considered under the intermediate form of scrutiny that falls between the business judgment rule, where the court will defer to the judgment of the board of directors; and the entire fairness review, where the burden shifts to the board to demonstrate that any judgment was fair to the shareholders, both in terms of the process that gave rise to the price and the price achieved.

Under this intermediate standard it is acceptable for boards of directors to raise defensive measures to hostile offers when they believe in good faith, after reasonable diligence and in the exercise of their duty, that the offer is inadequate or is a sham offer that cannot be reasonably consummated. The board's duty is to protect first the strategy that they believe is in the long-term interests of the corporation and to exercise their fiduciary duty to protect shareholders interests, as long as they are consistent with that strategy. In assessing the board's actions, the courts consider whether:

  • there is a genuine cognisable threat to the long-term strategy of the corporation; and
  • whether the board's response is reasonable and proportionate.

The focus should be on whether there is a long-term strategy in place that the board intends to pursue, but it does not mean a board can just say "no" forever.

Chief Justice Steele noted that the analysis is determined primarily by the facts found in each decision. Findings of fact made by the Court of Chancery are accepted on review by the Supreme Court of Delaware unless they are clearly erroneous. Chief Justice Steele suggested that, with appropriate findings of fact, a pill could be removed under Delaware law.

As an example, Chief Justice Steele reviewed the recent decision of Chancellor Chandler in Air Products v. Airgas, which was not appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court. In that decision, Chancellor Chandler declined to issue an injunction against a poison pill maintained by the board of Airgas to block an unsolicited offer from Air Products.

The "best and final" offer from Air Products fell short of the Airgas board's view of the fair value of the corporation and the board's valuation was supported by both independent shareholder advisory firms and by three independent directors who had been successfully nominated to the Airgas nine member staggered board by the bidder. There was also evidence that a substantial number of shares were held by short-term arbitrageurs who would likely tender their shares to any offer at a premium to the current market price, regardless of the long-term prospective value of the corporation. The willingness of shareholders to accept an inadequate offer, referred to as substantive coercion, has been recognised as a legitimate threat to a long-term corporate strategy in prior Delaware decisions.

Chief Justice Steele noted that there was a tension between the view on the one hand that the board should have the power to defeat any inadequate hostile offer and the view on the other hand that, once the board has discharged its duty to make its view of the long-term value of the corporation clear to shareholders and there is no likelihood that the poison pill could be used to generate an alternative offer, it should be up to shareholders to decide whether to accept the board's view of the corporation's value or accept the bidder's offer. Chancellor Chandler's opinion appeared to show some sympathy for the latter position. However, he described his analysis as "constrained by Delaware Supreme Court precedent."

Chief Justice Steele took issue with the view that the Chancery is constrained in its ability to remove a pill in the appropriate circumstances and suggested that, if the Chancellor had found facts that were inconsistent with it being reasonable to keep the pill in place, an injunction against maintaining the pill could be issued under Delaware law. Where there is just a battle of valuations, rather than the defence of a long-term strategy, a case can be made for removing the pill and letting the shareholders decide.

Chief Justice Steele also addressed the rationale for the existence of the Revlon duty under Delaware law. The paradigmatic situation under which Revlon applies is where the board decides that the Corporation is for sale. Once there is a decision that there is no alternative to a sale, there is only one duty – to maximize value for the shareholders. The board is free to pursue a range of strategies in seeking to fulfill this duty, but there is no valid course other than a process that is reasonably dedicated to maximize value to the shareholders. He noted that under Delaware law, once you have decided that a corporation's long-term strategy is not viable; it no longer makes sense to consider that the board owes a duty to the corporation or any class of stakeholders other than the shareholders. He noted that this appears to be a significant difference from the Canadian law and the considerations under the public interest approach taken by the Canadian securities regulators.


Mr. Barnes opened the session with an overview of the operation of poison pills and the Canadian securities regulators' review of poison pills. He noted that a significant difference between poison pills in Canada and the United States is the widespread existence of the permitted bid concept. Canadian poison pills allow a permitted bid to be made without triggering the pill.

A permitted bid must be open for at least 60 days and must have specific minimum conditions. By contrast, in the United States, there is generally no mechanism for effecting a bid without going to court to have the poison pill removed. In Canada the securities regulators took jurisdiction over poison pills shortly after they came into existence. Canadians regulators use their broad powers to make orders in the public interest to regulate poison pills. National Policy 62-202 Take Over Bids – Defensive Tactics outlines how the public interest jurisdiction will be interpreted in connection with poison pills.

The Canadian review of poison pills is focused on the regulatory concern that there is an inherent conflict of interest between management and directors, who may have an interest in maintaining their positions, and shareholders, who have an interest in maximizing the value of their investment. The policy strongly favours unrestricted auctions for corporations in Canada as a means of dealing with this inherent conflict of interest.

As a result, a poison pill can only be used as an auctioneer's gavel. Once there is an offer, the board generally cannot stand in the way of the shareholders deciding whether or not to accept the offer. Although there have been exceptions, the securities regulators will generally require a poison pill to be removed after an average of approximately 75 days. In particular, while the conduct of the board of directors may be taken into account, the fact that a board acts in accordance with its fiduciary duties will not justify maintaining a poison pill indefinitely.


Justice Deschamps' remarks focused on the directors' fiduciary duty and duty of care under the Canada Business Corporations Act. She noted, with reference to the 1971 Dickerson Report on the reformulation of the CBCA, that the balance between shareholder rights and other stakeholders was specifically considered by the drafters of the CBCA. The CBCA was intentionally formulated as a director-centric statute, with the responsibility for managing the corporation exclusively with the directors. However, broad remedies were provided to stakeholders, such as the oppression remedy. Furthermore, while the directors' fiduciary duty is owed only to the corporation, the scope of the duty of care was left open-ended and framed in the same terms as common law professional liability.

The Supreme Court of Canada has dealt with change of control situations in Peoples, which concerned an insolvency, and BCE, which concerned a friendly leveraged buy-out. In these decisions, the Court was not considering the inherent conflict between the directors and shareholders, as is the case under a poison pill, but between competing stakeholders. The issue was whether the directors had met their duties in the process leading up to the challenged action. In both cases, the Court emphasised that the directors' fiduciary duty is owed only to the corporation. Directors must look to the long-term interests of the corporation and there are no specific stakeholders, including shareholders, whose interests are to be preferred.

In response to Chief Justice Steele's comments, Justice Deschamps noted that under Canadian law the directors' fiduciary duty is always owed to the corporation, regardless of whether the directors have decided that a sale is inevitable. Even if the shareholders change, the corporation continues to exist and the directors' duties remain intact. However, despite this difference, she noted that the Canadian courts' review, with the focus on the directors' execution of their fiduciary duty and the long-term interests of the corporation, is closer to the review conducted by the Delaware courts than the public interest review of the Canadian securities regulators.

* * * * * * * * * *

It will be interesting to see whether the regulation of poison pills by Canadian securities regulators will continue in its current form. It appears increasingly likely that the Canadian securities regulators may revisit the application of National Policy 62-202 Take Over Bids – Defensive Tactics to poison pills and consider specific rule-making to remove the uncertainty that arises from regulating poison pills through the contested hearing process.

About BLG

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.