Canada: Focus on Securities Litigation - February, 2006

Last Updated: February 8 2006
Article by Matthew Fleming

In its recent decision regarding allegations of insider trading against Kwok Yuen Ho, the former Chairman and CEO of ATI Technologies Inc. ("ATI") and his wife, Betty Ho, the Ontario Securities Commission ruled on several important issues in the context of an insider trading case. Mr. Ho was represented by a team of lawyers from FMC, led by J.L. McDougall, Q.C., and both he and Mrs. Ho were exonerated by the Commission of any wrongdoing.1

Issues Before The Commission

The Commission, in its Reasons, addressed four critical issues:

1. the standard of proof to be applied in the context of an insider trading case before the Commission;

2. the extent to which hearsay evidence will be relied upon by the Commission in reaching a decision on the merits of a case;

3. whether, at the time Mr. Ho and Mrs. Ho disposed of their shares, it was a material fact that ATI would suffer a shortfall in forecasted revenue and earnings and whether they had knowledge of that fact when they disposed of their shares; and

4. whether a charitable donation is a "sale" falling within the ambit of subsection 76(1) of the Securities Act.

Background And The Allegations Against Mr. And Mrs. Ho

On May 24, 2000, ATI issued a press release announcing that it would not meet its forecasted revenue and earnings in its third quarter of 2000. Shortly thereafter, the price of ATI shares fell more than 50%.

Almost a full month prior to the issuance of the press release, between April 26 and April 28, 2000, Mr. Ho donated a number of ATI shares to charitable institutions. Between April 24 and May 2, 2000, Mrs. Ho sold a number of her own ATI shares. OSC Staff ("Staff") alleged that, in contravention of subsection 76(1) of the Securities Act2, Mr. and Mrs. Ho "traded" their ATI shares while they were in a special relationship with ATI and while they had knowledge of a material fact about ATI that had not been generally disclosed. Subsection 76(1) reads as follows:

No person or company in a special relationship with a reporting issuer shall purchase or sell securities of the reporting issuer with the knowledge of a material fact or material change with respect to the reporting issuer that has not been generally disclosed.

Staff alleged that the material fact was that "ATI would fall short of its forecasted revenue and earnings for Q3 2000." In addition, Staff formulated the allegations so as to link the donations of Mr. Ho with the sales of Mrs. Ho, alleging that they both traded the total amount of shares gifted and sold.

1. The Standard Of Proof

In reaching its decision, the Commission applied a standard of "clear and convincing proof based on cogent evidence" in considering whether a breach had occurred. This approach is consistent with prior case law which has held that where a respondent’s ability to carry on professional practice or continue as a registrant under the Securities Act is in jeopardy as a result of the allegations made against him or her, there is a heightened burden within the civil standard of the balance of probabilities that must be met in order to find that an administrative offence has been committed.

In its decision, the Commission emphasized that in the context of a "serious complaint" against a person, the appropriate standard of proof to be applied, and the nature of the evidence required to meet that standard, are integral to the duty of an administrative tribunal to provide a fair hearing. The Commission went on to state that where adverse findings will have "serious consequences" for a respondent, reliable and persuasive evidence is required as a matter of fundamental fairness in order for Staff to discharge its burden of proof.

2. Hearsay Evidence

In the course of presenting its case, Staff chose to introduce a number of documents, primarily emails sent and received by executives at ATI in the course of ATI’s fiscal year 2000. These documents were introduced into evidence through Staff’s principal investigator in the case. Staff did not call as witnesses the authors and recipients of those documents with the result that Staff’s case was based almost entirely on documentary hearsay evidence. Staff asked the Commission to draw inferences from the documents.

While the Commission accepted that an administrative tribunal may exercise its discretion and admit hearsay evidence, pursuant to section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act3, the exercise of that discretion must take into account the nature of the complaint and the rights of the respondent, especially where the allegations are serious and contentious. In doing so, the Commission recognized that the "mere allegation of insider trading can have significant adverse repercussions for a respondent" and that the admission of hearsay evidence might, in some cases, give rise to a denial of natural justice and fundamental fairness. The Commission concluded that the hearsay evidence adduced by Staff merited little weight given Staff’s failure to call the authors of the documents to explain the content of the documents and the facts they relied upon in preparing them. The Commission found that Staff’s failure to do so compromised the ability of the respondents to test the evidence through cross-examination.

3. At The Time Of The Disposition Of Shares, Did A Material Fact Exist?

Staff alleged that the material fact known to Mr. and Mrs. Ho was that ATI "would" fall short of forecasted revenue and earnings for Q3 2000. This material fact was made public with the issuance of the press release by ATI on May 24, 2000. The issue under consideration, therefore, was whether, during the period from April 24 to May 2, 2000 when Mr. Ho gifted his shares to charity and Mrs. Ho sold a portion of her ATI holdings, it was an established fact that ATI would fall short of its forecasted revenue and earnings.

To prove its case that ATI "would" fall short of its forecasted revenue and earnings, Staff relied primarily upon the emails of ATI executives that expressed a pessimistic outlook of ATI’s ability to meet its forecasts. In response to this evidence, witnesses were called on behalf of Mr. Ho, some of whom had authored the emails, to provide context and evidence as to the nature of the industry in which ATI operated and the factors that affected ATI’s operations and sales. The direct evidence of these witnesses, and of Mr. Ho, was found to be credible by the Commission. In the result, the Commission concluded that at the time Mr. and Mrs. Ho disposed of their shares, the material fact in issue did not yet exist.

Knowledge Of The Material Fact

Notwithstanding the finding by the Commission that the alleged material fact did not exist during the period in which the respondents disposed of their shares, the Commission considered whether Mr. and Mrs. Ho had "actual knowledge" of that fact. The Commission emphasized that a contravention of subsection 76(1) of the Securities Act requires that the respondents have actual or "subjective" knowledge of a material fact.

This finding was significant in the context of the hearing where Staff had submitted that actual knowledge of a material fact was not a prerequisite to a finding that subsection 76(1) had been contravened. Rather, Staff argued that a violation of subsection 76(1) occurred where a person conducts a trade and "ought to have known" of the existence of a material fact, or was reckless or wilfully blind to the existence of a material fact. Staff went further in its closing written submissions, arguing that Mr. Ho "would have known" that there was "some probability" that ATI would fall short of its forecasted revenue and earnings. With respect to Mrs. Ho, Staff alleged that the Commission should draw the inference that she traded her shares on the advice of her husband with the intention of applying the tax credit received from his donations and avoiding the capital gains tax incurred on the sale of her shares.

The Commission noted that Staff’s allegations were "significantly at variance" with the original allegations levied against the respondents and that Staff is prohibited from changing the allegations without first seeking an order of the Commission permitting such an amendment. The Commission further found that Staff failed to demonstrate that Mrs. Ho sold her shares on the advice of Mr. Ho, or that Mrs. Ho was in a special relationship with ATI, a required element of section 76(1). In doing so, the Commission implicitly rejected the attempt by Staff to link the donations of Mr. Ho to the trades of Mrs. Ho. The Commission concluded that Staff failed to establish that the respondents knew of a material fact at the time they disposed of their shares.

4. Whether A Gift Constitutes A Trade

The Commission also considered whether the gifting of shares to a charity constituted a sale of securities within the meaning of subsection 76(1) of the Act which prohibits a person or company in a special relationship with reporting issuers from selling securities with knowledge of an undisclosed material fact or change.

Staff asserted that the tax savings received by the donor in such circumstances make the donation of shares a sale for the purposes of subsection 76(1). However, the Commission noted that Staff failed to adduce any direct evidence that Mr. Ho realized any tax savings. The Commission determined that where a gift is made "in good faith and without pretence or subterfuge" it will not be considered a sale for the purposes of an insider trading offence. In addition, the Commission referred to OSC Policy 57-602, which applies where there is an application to vary a cease trade order to permit a party to establish a tax loss. The Policy provides that if the disposition of shares is by way of gift, the Commission will take the view that it is not a trade within the meaning of the Securities Act. Ultimately, the Commission found that the gifts were made in good faith as each gift was made to a significant charity and had been the subject of prior planning by Mr. Ho.

Conclusion

The decision of the Commission is likely to have more general application beyond the limited scope of insider trading offences. In particular, where serious allegations are made against a respondent which, if accepted, may result in severe sanctions, Staff will be expected to satisfy the heightened evidentiary standard of clear and convincing proof based on cogent evidence. This standard, in most cases, would not be met through hearsay evidence alone. Direct, reliable and persuasive evidence proving the allegations will be required. Further, given the fundamental principle of fairness in the administrative law context, Staff is likely to be limited in attempts to deviate during the course of a hearing from allegations made against a respondent at the outset of a hearing. The stricter evidentiary standard to which Staff was held in this case appropriately reflected the seriousness of the allegations against the respondents and the severity of the consequences of an adverse decision by the Commission.

Footnotes

1 Mr. Ho was also represented by Mr. Randall Bennett, a partner with Reuter Scargall Bennett LLP.

2 R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5.

3 R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22. 

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.

Authors
Events from this Firm
16 Oct 2018, Other, Calgary, Canada

Dentons and SheEO are coming together for a morning of #radicalgenerosity on October 16, 2018. Meet Vicki Saunders, Founder of SheEO, and learn about how SheEO is changing the landscape for female entrepreneurs.

17 Oct 2018, Webinar, Toronto, Canada

Dentons and SheEO are coming together for an evening of #radicalgenerosity on October 17, 2018. Meet Vicki Saunders, Founder of SheEO, and learn about how SheEO is changing the landscape for female entrepreneurs.

17 Oct 2018, Webinar, Toronto, Canada

With the continued focus on Bill 148’s significant changes to the Employment Standards Act, Dentons’ Toronto Employment and Labour group is pleased to launch a new webinar series focusing on Bill 148.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
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