We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
On August 20, Investment Industry Regulatory Organization
of Canada (IIROC) released guidance regarding
the circumstances in which it may intervene to vary or cancel
trades it considers "unreasonable" or not in
compliance with UMIR. As we discussed in an earlier post,
IIROC released proposed guidance on the subject in April, and
the final version of the guidance reflects changes suggested in
response to comments received in response to the original
proposal.
Ultimately, guidelines are provided with regards to (i) a
"no touch zone" for which there will generally be no
regulatory intervention when the price difference between the
erroneous trade and the current fair value of the security does not
exceed the greater of 10% of the security's price or 10
trading increments; (ii) the limited conditions under which
IIROC would consider intervening to cancel an erroneous trade;
and (iii) the market-based conditions used to determine whether a
higher threshold than the "no
touch zone" will be used when an erroneous trade has
been executed during significant market volatility, outside normal
trading hours or in a security of limited or very limited
liquidity. For more information, see IIROC Notice 12-0259.
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 Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
An insider trading decision of the Alberta Securities Commission (the "Commission") released on April 10, 2013, provides a thoughtful and practical approach by a securities commission to its assessment of what constitutes a "material fact".
This article touches on some of the key types of businesses and explains what a might be the typical role of a lawyer in providing advice or assistance to you in setting up your business or in having others join you in your business.
In the decision MDV Representations v. Corporation Xprima.com, the Superior Court highlights the importance of drafting termination clauses in a service contract using clear and simple language.
The Alberta Court of Appeal has recently released a decision that adds much needed clarity to when an officer or director of a corporation will be personally liable for torts committed by a corporation.
A discussion on a recent case, which provides a cautionary tale on the dangers of entering into a share purchase agreement and subsequently closing a share purchase transaction, without ample due diligence.
In our last post, we outlined some of the reasons why corporate spin-offs are used. In this post, we address some of the most common methods used to implement the corporate spin-off.
Crowd Funding: Raising Capital For Business Start-Ups & SME's (Video Content)
