Canada: 2012 Securities Law Review

This securities law review provides a brief overview of some key securities law developments over the past year. This review also comments on two of 2013's proposed legislative changes.

I.    The Securities Act Reference - Death of the National Regulator

In December 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") ruled that the federal government's proposed plan to set up a single national securities regulator was unconstitutional.

The federal government argued that the plan was within its constitutional right to govern trade and commerce, but the SCC was not persuaded and ruled that the day-to-day regulations of the markets are contractual in nature and thus fall within the provinces' jurisdiction over property and civil rights.

However, the SCC suggested that a co-operative approach, which recognizes the provincial nature of securities regulation and allows the federal government to deal with genuine national concerns, would be supported by Canadian constitutional principles.

II.    Shareholder Rights Plans

The following summarizes three of 2012's principal decisions in the area of shareholders rights plans ("SRP") as well as comments from the Executive Director of the Ontario Securities Commission ("OSC").

Notable Decisions Relating to SRPs

AbitibiBowater Inc. c. Fibrek Inc.

AbitibiBowater launched an unsolicited bid for Fibrek shares and locked-up certain Fibrek shareholders.

In response, Fibrek sought out Mercer International Inc. as a white knight and proposed to issue warrants to Mercer; Mercer launched a friendly bid for Fibrek shares and offered a higher price than AbitibiBowater.

As a result of a series of regulatory and judicial decisions, the proposed warrant issuance to Mercer was cease traded, with the SCC eventually refusing leave to appeal.

Fibrek illustrates that in the absence of a real need for financing, the Québec Bureau de décision et de révision will consider it improper for a board to issue securities to dilute a potential acquiror, even if allowing the dilution would result in a higher offer for all shareholders.

For an earlier McMillan comment on Fibrek click here.

Inmet Mining Corporation v. Petquilla Minerals Ltd., BCSC

In Inmet the British Columbia Supreme Court held that the test for determining when a SRP should be rendered ineffective turned on two factors: 1) the period of time the offer had been announced and outstanding; and 2) whether there was a real and substantial possibility of an alternative that would increase shareholder choice and maximize shareholder value.

The commission found that Petquilla had 60 days to find a better offer and that it did not demonstrate that there was a "real and substantial" possibility of a superior bid forthcoming. The commission concluded that it was time for Petaquilla's SRP to go.

Thirdcoast Limited and Parrish & Heimbecker Limited, OSC

In ordering a cease trade order for Thirdcoast's SRP, the OSC considered the amount of time Thirdcoast had to respond to the bid.

The formal bid had been outstanding for 35 days prior to its expiry and Parrish & Heimbecker's intention to make the bid had been publically known for 122 days.

Since no other viable bidder had come forward, the OSC held that it was not satisfied that the SRP would serve the purpose of enhancing shareholder value.

Comments from Maureen Jensen, Executive Director of the OSC

In March 2012, Maureen Jensen, executive director of the OSC, commented on SRPs in the context of shareholder democracy stating that SRPs go "to the heart of how decision-making authority is allocated between the board and shareholders".

Jensen further commented that the CSA's regulatory approach to SRPs is based on commission decisions interpreting the national policy on defensive tactics.

This interpretation has effectively meant that the role of target boards in responding to hostile bids is limited to using a SRP to solicit a better offer.

Jensen stated that this approach needs to be revisited in light of significant market, governance and regulatory developments that have occurred since the policy was adopted in 1986.

The OSC and CSA are creating a framework for SRPs that allow target boards more latitude in responding to hostile bids if shareholder approval of the SRP has been obtained.

The aim of the proposed legislation is to leave the decision on how to respond to a hostile bid to an issuer's board and its shareholders, rather than a decision made by regulators. In January 2013, Instrument 62-105 Security Holder Rights Plans is expected to be published for public comment.

III.    Notable Judicial Decisions

Development of Securities Class Actions

Fischer v. IG Investment Management, Ontario Court of Appeal 

In Fischer the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the relationship between OSC proceedings and proceedings commenced under Ontario's Class Proceedings Act ("CPA") and held that persons that settle complaints with the OSC may still be subject to class action lawsuits.

Sharma v. Timminco, Ontario Court of Appeal

In Sharma the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the limitation period governing a cause of action created by section 138. 3 of the Securities Act (Ontario) ("OSA"), for misrepresentations in an issuer's continuous disclosure, will continue to run until leave is granted by the court, and that the limitation period is not suspended by the CPA. The SCC dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal.

Definition of a "Responsible Issuer" - Abdula v. Canadian Solar Inc., Ontario Court of Appeal

In Abdula, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a statutory cause of action for secondary market misrepresentations can be raised against foreign-listed issuers that maintain a "real and substantial connection" to the province of Ontario, even though their shares are not traded on a Canadian exchange.

Empty Voting - Telus Corporation v. CDS Clearing and Depository Services Inc. and CDS & Co., British Columbia Court of Appeal 

In Telus Corporation, Telus argued that Mason Capital Management LLC ("Mason"), a U.S. hedge fund, should not be allowed to requisition a shareholders' meeting because it had a very limited financial interest in the company.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that, while it recognized there was a strong concern that Mason's interests did not align with the economic well-being of the company, there was no indication that Mason violated any laws. Further, Telus did not point to any viable statutory authority which would allow the courts to intervene on broad equitable grounds.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal concluded that the remedy to the concern of empty voting must lie in legislative and regulatory change.

For an earlier McMillan comment on the Telus - Mason decision click here.

Televote System - International Energy and Mineral Resources Investment Hong Kong Company Limited v. Mosquito Consolidated Gold Mines Limited, the British Columbia Supreme Court

The BC Supreme Court ruled in Mosquito that before telephone solicitation systems can be widely used there are multiple protocol issues that must be resolved.

The court's decision arose in the context of a proxy fight between the present directors of Mosquito and a dissent slate led by two former directors of Mosquito.

The directors used the televote system, and instructed their televote operators to accept verbal voting instructions from the solicited shareholders and to execute proxies on their behalf. 

The court identified the following items relating to the televote system as problematic:

(i) oral grant of authority insufficient - the televote system's reliance on an oral grant of authority (as opposed to written confirmation) is inconsistent with legislative requirements;

(ii) no unique identifier - the televote system did not have a reliable means of identifying the person giving instructions, nor ensuring the integrity of the information contained in the proxy;

(iii) no complete record - the televote system did not produce a complete record of oral grants of authority;

(iv) agency relationships - the proxy solicitor acting as agent for both the shareholders and management creates potential for confusion and possible conflict of interest;

(v) lack of prior disclosure - the facts that a televote system was going to be used was not mentioned in any of the meeting materials; and

(vi) lack of sufficient safeguards - the court cautioned that there is danger of abuse when partisan solicitation is combined with vote taking. A televote system must have sufficient safeguards built into it to ensure that instructions are properly given and shareholders have freedom to vote as they choose.

The court noted that televote systems are relatively new and encouraged the industry to take steps to establish appropriate protocols, which will include addressing the issues presented above, to ensure that proxy and voting instructions are properly given and that shareholders have the freedom to vote as they choose.

Advance Notice By-Laws - Northern Minerals Investment Corp. v. Mundoro Capital Inc., BCSC

In Mundoro Capital, Mundoro adopted an Advance Notice Policy ("Policy"), which set a deadline for shareholders to submit nominations for directors, and stated that only persons nominated before the deadline would be eligible for election.

The Policy also specified that the chairman of the meeting has the power and duty to determine whether a nomination was made in accordance with the Policy and that the board could waive any Policy requirement.

The petitioner, Northern Minerals, argued that there was no legal basis for the Policy.

The BCSC held that nothing expressly prevented the directors from creating the Policy, nor did the petitioner establish that the Policy infringed shareholder rights.

The BCSC found that the Policy encouraged an orderly nomination process and ensured that shareholders are informed of the issues in advance of the AGM.

McMillan publicly advocates for public companies to adopt advance notice by-laws. During the 2012 proxy season, the firm assisted several clients in adopting advance notice by-laws; in each case the by-laws were approved by shareholders without legal challenge.

For an earlier McMillan comment on advance notice by-laws click here and here.

OSC Public Interest Jurisdiction  – Paul Donald

Paul Donald, a vice president at RIM, bought $300,000 worth of shares in Certicom Corp., after learning from another RIM executive that RIM was interested in acquiring Certicom.

The OSC determined that while Donald's trading did not technically breach insider trading securities laws, his actions were contrary to public interest.

The OSC explained that market participants and officers of public companies are expected to adhere to a high standard of behavior, and that Donald's conduct impugned the integrity of Ontario's capital markets.

For an earlier McMillan comment on the Donald decision click here.

IV.    Legislation – Adoption of Amendments

Amendments to NI 31-103: Registration Requirements, Exemptions and Ongoing Registrant Obligations

In January 2012, amendments providing exemptions to registered members of the IIROC or the Mutual Fund Deals Association were approved. These amendments came into force on February 28, 2012.

In June 2012, the CSA published for comment proposed amendments to provide investors with increased disclosure regarding compensation as well as investment performance reports.

In November 2012, the CSA published for comment proposed amendments requiring all registered dealers and advisors, outside of Québec, to utilize the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments to resolve client disputes and complaints.

Amendments to NI 54-101: Communication with Beneficial Owners of Securities of a Reporting Issuer (Notice and Access)

The amendments are focused on modernizing and improving communications between reporting issuers and their shareholders by allowing a greater use of the internet to deliver proxy-related materials.

It is anticipated this system will cut costs of proxy voting communication materials.

The system allows issuers to distribute their materials to shareholders by posting the documents on SEDAR, a website that is not SEDAR, such as the reporting issuer's own website or that of a service provider and by sending a specified notice to beneficial owners.

For an earlier McMillan comment on Notice and Access click here.

Amendments to the TSX Company Manual

In December 2012, the TSX's amendments to its Company Manual regarding the election of directors came into in force.

The amendments require issuers to: 1) elect directors individually (opposed to slate); 2) hold annual elections for all directors; 3) disclose in their company's information circular whether they have adopted a majority voting policy for uncontested director elections, and if not, to explain their practices for electing directors and why they have not adopted a majority voting policy; 4) advise the TSX if a director receives a majority of "withhold" votes (if a majority voting policy has not been adopted); and 5) promptly issue a news release providing detailed disclosure of the voting results for the election of directors.

The TSX has also published for comment a proposed amendment which would require all TSX issuers to adopt a majority voting policy effective January 1, 2014.

For an earlier McMillan comment on the TSX amendments click here.

V.    Canadian Securities Administrators Comments

In 2012, the CSA issued multiple notices to provide the public with guidance and support when interpreting securities legislation. The following summarizes four such notices.

CSA Staff Notice 41-307 – Concerns regarding an issuer's financial condition and the sufficiency of proceeds from a prospectus offering

Staff Notice 41-307 provides guidance to issuers with short-term liquidity concerns, on how to avoid a prospectus receipt refusal.

First, the prospectus must contain clear disclosure on how the proceeds will be used, as well as the issuer's financial condition.

Second, the anticipated proceeds from the prospectus offering must be sufficient to accomplish the purpose of the offering.

Anticipated proceeds from an offering may be considered insufficient if they are raised: 1) for a specific purpose, but do not address the issuer's short-term liquidity requirements; 2) through a best efforts offering without a minimum subscription, or a minimum subscription that does not appear to be sufficient to satisfy the issuer's short-term liquidity requirements; or 3) through a shelf prospectus offering that can be drawn down in small increments that, when considered separately, may not be sufficient to satisfy short-term liquidity requirements.

CSA Staff Notice 43-307 – Mining Technical Reports – Preliminary Economic Assessment

Staff Notice 43-307 discusses the CSA's concerns regarding the recent misuse of Preliminary Economic Assessments ("PEAs").

The notice states that issuers should not be representing that their PEA has been or will be done at or close to the level of a prefeasibility study.

The CSA recommends that issuers be careful to not describe a study as a PEA unless it falls within the PEA definition.

CSA Staff Notice 51-720 – Issuer Guidance for Companies Operating in Emerging Markets

Staff Notice 51-720 summarizes the CSA's concerns from its March 2012 report titled Emerging Market Issuers Review ("Report").

The Report was published to assess the quality and adequacy of emerging market issuers' compliance with disclosure and other regulatory requirements.

The notice provides emerging market issuers with guidance on the following eight areas: 1) business and operating environment; 2) language and cultural differences; 3) corporate structure; 4) related parties; 5) risk management and disclosure; 6) internal controls; 7) use of and reliance on experts; and 8) oversight of the external auditor.

TSX Emerging Markets Consultation Paper

Following CSA Staff Notice 51-720, the TSX and TSXV published a consultation paper on their respective listing requirements applicable to issuers with a significant connection to an emerging market jurisdiction. The principal purposes of the paper are to: 1) present the potential risks associated with listing emerging market issuers (EMIs) that have been identified by the TSX and the TSXV; 2) provide preliminary guidance to issuers and their advisors with respect to listing considerations applicable to EMIs; and 3) solicit comments from market participants on matters related to listing EMIs, including possible new guidance or requirements the TSX and TSXV may implement.

Consultation Paper 25-401 – Potential Regulation of Proxy Advisory Firms

The Consultation Paper attempts to address the public's concerns regarding proxy advisory firms and their potential impact on Canadian capital markets, and serves as a tool to further inform the CSA of whether there is a need to regulate proxy advisory firms.

Concerns raised by the public include: 1) potential conflict of interest; 2) lack of transparency; 3) potential inaccuracies and limited opportunity for issuer engagement; 4) perceived corporate governance implications; and 5) the extent of reliance by institutional investors.

VI.    Proposed Legislative Changes for 2013

NI 51-103: Ongoing Governance and Disclosure Requirements for Venture Issuers

NI 51-103 will introduce a new regulatory regime for venture issuers focused on streamlining and tailoring continuous disclosure requirements and governance obligations.

The aim of NI 51-103 is to: 1) improve access to key information and facilitate informed decision-making through improved disclosure requirements; 2) allow management more time to focus on the growth of their company by streamlining and reducing disclosure requirements; 3) enhance investor confidence in the venture market by introducing substantive governance standards; and 4) enhance the ability of securities regulators to focus on the unique challenges associated with the venture market.

For an earlier McMillan comment on NI 51-103 click here.

The foregoing provides only an overview. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, a qualified lawyer should be consulted.

© Copyright 2013 McMillan LLP

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
Amandeep Sandhu
Pamela Lindsay (Articling Student)
 
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