Canada: The Danier Leather Class Action Case

Last Updated: December 14 2011
Article by Jasmine T. Akbarali

Originally published in GlobeAndMail.com, October 24, 2007

After nine years of litigation, the Danier Leather Inc. class action suit was finally settled Oct. 12 when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the company had not violated securities disclosure laws.

Investor Rick Durst had challenged the information contained in Danier's prospectus. And not only did he lose the class action case, but he was also ordered to pay Danier's share of legal costs, a figure estimated to be in excess of $1-million.

The ramifications of the case are considerable. Join ReportonBusiness.com at noon EDT today for a discussion with Jasmine T. Akbarali, a lawyer with Lerners LLP who specializes in commercial litigation.

Ms. Akbarali was a member of the Lerners team representing the investors in the Danier case. This prospectus misrepresentation case was the first trial of a class action relating to the civil liability of corporate issuers and their directors for misrepresentation in a prospectus.

Related Articles Recent

Ms. Akbarali has summarized the case issues for ReportonBusiness.com.

1. The scope of liability for prospectus misrepresentation.

Section 130 of the Securities Act (Ontario) provides for liability on the part of issuers and others (including directors) where a prospectus contains a misrepresentation. One of the issues in Danier was the scope of that provision. The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that under s. 130, an issuer can be liable for a misstatement of material fact up to the date the prospectus is receipted, but only for failure to disclose a material change between receipt and closing. A material fact is a fact that can be expected to affect the market price of a security. A material change is a change in relation to the business, operations or capital of an issuer. By concluding that post-receipt, only material changes must be disclosed, the court has relieved the issuer of an ongoing responsibility to disclose material facts to avoid civil liability. This makes the due diligence process for issuers and underwriters much cleaner and more predictable. It also means that investors cannot be sure they have all material facts when they purchase securities under a prospectus.

2. The applicability of the business judgment rule

The Supreme Court considered whether the business judgment rule could be used to assess management's regulatory disclosure obligations. Traditionally, the business judgment rule has been applied where a board of directors has before it a range of business options, and its choice is being criticized after the fact. This may arise where, for example, a shareholder is unhappy with a corporate decision taken by the board (say, which of competing takeover bid offers to recommend) and seeks an oppression remedy. Courts have acknowledged that they do not have the expertise of business managers. Recognizing the policy that directors and management should feel free to take appropriate risks and make decisions in the best interests of the shareholders given their expertise, courts have applied the business judgment rule to decline to second guess those decisions as long as they are within a range of reasonableness. The question in Danier was whether to extend that rule to the securities context, where the issue was whether the issuer had complied with its obligations under the Securities Act. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the rationale behind the business judgment rule does not apply, as management has no advantage over courts when it comes to assessing the quality of disclosure.This finding strengthens investor protections under the Securities Act, because it recognizes that it is inappropriate to defer to management's assessment of whether it has met its regulatory obligations.

3. Costs in class actions

The Court considered whether to depart from the traditional rule that the unsuccessful party bears the successful party's costs. The Class Proceedings Act, in s. 31, allows a court to decline to award costs against a representative plaintiff, recognizing the unique access to justice issues that are engaged in a class action. The court declined to apply s. 31 in this case, and by doing so, may have "chilled" class actions. Representative plaintiffs may be less inclined to step up in view of the repercussions they might face if they are unsuccessful. These repercussions are greatest where the suit has merit but is eventually unsuccessful, because those are the cases where the costs awards will also be highest.

Ms. Akbarali acts on a broad range of civil litigation matters, encompassing both trial and appellate advocacy.

Ms. Akbarali's experience includes class action proceedings, product liability claims, investment dealer negligence, securities litigation, shareholder disputes, oppression remedy claims, contractual disputes and constitutional litigation. She has appeared in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Ms. Akbarali received her Bachelor of Laws from the University of Windsor where she was the gold medallist of her law class. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree from McMaster University and her Suomi (Finnish) I & II Certificate from the University of Helsinki. Ms. Akbarali served as Clerk to the Honourable Mr. Justice J. C. Major, Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Ms. Akbarali is a member of the Advocates' Society, the Toronto Lawyers' Association, the Ontario Bar Association and the Canadian Bar Association. She is a director of the George Hull Centre for Children and Families and volunteers with the Children's Bridge Foundation.

Join the conversation at noon EDT today, or get a jump on the queue by submitting your question here.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Cathryn Motherwell, deputy editor, Report on Business: Hello Jasmine, and welcome to ReportonBusiness.com. We are delighted to have you join us today for a discussion that has certainly been the talk in legal circles, and in the investment community. And so to start, could you please summarize what you believe are the key points where the Supreme Court of Canada is breaking new ground?

Jasmine Akbarali: I'm happy to be here.

The Danier action involved Danier's initial public offering, which closed on May 20, 1998. The crux of the plaintiffs' complaint was that, after the prospectus was receipted on May 6, 1998, but before closing, Danier became aware of poor sales results but did not disclose them. The allegation was that the results made statements in its prospectus misleading and constituted a misrepresentation under s. 130 of the Ontario Securities Act. This would make Danier liable for damages to the class under the Act if proved. When the poor sales results were disclosed, two weeks after closing, Danier's share price fell. The trial judge found that investors lost approximately 22% of their investment. In the end, Danier substantially met its forecast, but even when those results were released, the share price did not recover.

The first issue the Supreme Court grappled with was the reach of s. 130, and specifically, whether the provision provided for liability for failing to disclose a material fact that arose after the prospectus was receipted but before closing. The Act defines material facts as those which can reasonably be expected to affect the price of the security. The material fact that was alleged not to be disclosed was the poor sales results.

However, under the scheme of the Securities Act, an issuer is obliged to disclose material facts up to the date of receipt, but only material changes thereafter. Material changes are changes in the business, operations or capital of an issuer. The Court had to consider whether the disclosure regime in the Act set the parameters for the civil liability created under s. 130 of the Act. In its conclusion, the Court found that there could not be civil liability under s. 130 for failing to disclose material facts after receipt. Since Danier had complied with its disclosure obligations (ie because the poor sales results did not amount to a material change), it had no liability for misrepresentation under s. 130.

The court also addressed how the business judgment rule applies in the securities context. The business judgment rule traditionally has application to corporate decision making, and is a judicial recognition that courts do not have the expertise of business people. However, extending the business judgment rule to the determination of whether adequate disclosure is made under the Securities Act was a novel application of the rule. The court concluded that the business judgment rule should not apply to disclosure decisions, since evaluating the quality of disclosure is appropriately for the courts and the legislature.

Last, the court was asked to depart from the traditional costs rules in civil litigation, in which the losing party pays part of the successful party's costs. The Class Proceedings Act allows the court to exercise its discretion and not award costs against an unsuccessful representative plaintiff. The court declined to depart from the traditional rule in this case, making the representative plaintiff liable for significant costs. This can be expected to have a chilling effect on class actions, since plaintiffs risk becoming responsible for costs that may be much greater than their personal financial stake in the litigation.

Evgeny Zborovsky writes: The Supreme Court found that Danier's forecast contained an implied representation of objective reasonableness as of the date the final prospectus was receipted, overturning both the Ontario Court of Appeal on the issue of objective reasonableness and the trial judge on the date issue. What do you think will be the impact of this aspect of the decision?

Jasmine Akbarali: That is an interesting point Evgeny. For those who are unfamiliar with this issue, I will add a little background.

The plaintiffs alleged that Danier's forecast of its fourth quarter and fiscal year 1998 included the implied representation that it was objectively reasonable and that this representation ceased to be true after May 6, but before closing, when Danier became aware of its poor sales results. One issue that was canvassed at the Court of Appel and the Supreme Court of Canada was whether the implied representation of objective reasonableness was one of fact or law.

The Court of Appeal concluded that there was no such implied representation either at law or in fact. Danier's prospectus called its forecast "management's best judgment". By the Court of Appeal's reasoning, that did not imply that management's best judgment was also objectively reasonable. The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that, as a matter of fact, "management's best judgment" would be understood to be objectively reasonable.

This was bolstered by other statements in the prospectus, such as the auditor's statement that management's assumptions provided a reasonable basis for the forecast. However, the court also limited the impact of the representation to May 6, the date of receipt, finding that the forecast was a snapshot of the company's prospects at that time.

Because the findings are factual, the impact is circumscribed. However, what is important about the Supreme Court's approach is that it interpreted the language of the prospectus in the way that an investor would. Although there was no express representation of objective reasonableness, the court looked at how an investor would read and understand the prospectus. Issuers will be responsible for the messages they convey, whether explicitly or not.

Cathryn Motherwell: A number of big investors and funds have said the deck is stacked against them in Canadian courts. Does the Danier decision reinforce that perception?

Jasmine Akbarali: The Danier decision is a limit on issuer liability. By adopting an approach to s. 130 that does not require an issuer to correct statements in a prospectus that become untrue, if they are not material changes, the Supreme Court has limited recourse for investors in some circumstances. There are entities that will only invest in cross-listed securities, in part because they want access to the broader remedies available in the United States. Whether in the long run this will impact the ability of smaller issuers to raise capital in Canadian markets remains to be seen.

Cathryn Motherwell: The Danier lawsuit was launched before Bill 198 took effect in Ontario. If that bill had been in effect could there had been a different decision?

Jasmine Akbarali: I don't think so. Bill 198 is important for secondary market liability, which has different issues than liability for prospectus offerings. (A big concern about secondary market liability is indeterminate liability, since shares may change hands a number of times. That concern is not engaged in the primary market, where the purchasers under a prospectus are easily identifiable.)

Section 130 remains much as it was back in 1998 when Danier's IPO closed. The Supreme Court of Canada noted the amendments to the section and that they were not material to the issues raised in this case.

Cathryn Motherwell: Are you surprised that your client has been ordered to pay costs for both sides? Will that send a chill to other investors?

Jasmine Akbarali: This aspect of the Supreme Court's decision probably has the broadest effect on class actions generally, not just securities class actions.

The plaintiff had asked the court to decline to award costs by exercising its jurisdiction under s. 31 of the Class Proceedings Act. That section allows a court, considering whether the class action was a test case, raised a novel point of law or involved a matter of public interest, to decline to award costs against an unsuccessful representative plaintiff. This is because class actions generally engage access to justice issues. They are a vehicle to allow a number of claims, which individually might not justify litigation, to be brought to the court together. The representative plaintiff in a class action takes on a responsibility for the benefit of the class. On his or her own, the representative plaintiff may not have a sufficient financial stake in the litigation to proceed.

It is also important to remember that class actions involve additional steps not found in individual litigation, such as the motion to certify the action as a class proceeding. As a result, costs of class actions can be higher than individual actions. They will be even higher if the action is meritorious, but eventually unsuccessful, because one can expect more pre-trial motions and longer proceedings in those cases.

In this case, the court ordered the representative plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs, which will be significant. This decision is likely to produce a chilling effect on other class actions, because representative plaintiffs stand to lose significantly more than their potential gain.

However, it is also important to note that class actions generally are funded on a contingency basis. In other words, most plaintiffs' counsel will not be paid unless the class action is successful or settles. The costs exposure of a representative plaintiff is generally to the defence, not his or her own lawyers.

Another interesting aspect of this issue is how plaintiff class action lawyers will decide how to take on cases. There are some counsel who will indemnify representative plaintiffs against adverse costs awards. I think we will see counsel less willing to do that going forward. I think we will also see counsel less likely to take on difficult cases that perhaps should be brought to courts because of the concerns of costs exposure after this decision.

Richard Ballantyne from Vancouver writes: As a director, I find the decision heartening, but as an investor, it does seem to be a return to the Wild West where companies can duck duties to prospective investors. The part I am struggling with is that I find it hard to distiguish between the definition of material fact and material change. I would have thought that a drop in sales was a material change to operations. How did the court pin-point the distinction.

Jasmine Akbarali: That's a great question Richard. The court noted the distinction between a change in results of operations and a change in operations. The latter is clearly a material change, but the former is not. The court emphasized that poor intra-quarterly results may reflect a material change in operations, but on its own is not a change in the business, operations or capital of an issuer.

From a policy perspective, one reason why material facts are subject to lower disclosure thresholds than material changes is because material facts may be matters external to the issuer. There has been a reluctance to burden an issuer with the obligation to monitor and disclose facts external to it even if those facts could impact its share price.

Cathryn Motherwell: Thanks very much for shedding some much-needed light on this critical issue. Are there any points you would like to raise in summation?

Jasmine Akbarali: It's been a pleasure to be here.

I think the Danier decision has clarified the disclosure obligations of reporting issuers and let investors know what kind of protection they can expect from s. 130. The court, in its reasons, recognized that the Securities Act is remedial legislation, deserving of a broad interpretation. The Act works to protect investors from the risks of an unregulated market. It also works for issuers, by promoting the integrity and efficiency of the capital markets so as to enhance the pool of capital available to them. The Danier decision, at its heart, is about the balance between the interests of investors and the obligations of issuers.

www.lerners.ca

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

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

Authors
Jasmine T. Akbarali
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions