As a result of the rising tide of shareholder activism in
Canada, a number of defensive tactics have been developed by
corporate management. The newest innovation in management's
arsenal is the activist investor ban—an agreement between an
issuer and a purchaser that restricts the purchaser from
transferring its shares to activist investors.
Activist investor bans have recently become the norm in the
realm of pharmaceutical mergers and acquisitions. Last
month, for example, the Canadian drug maker Concordia Healthcare
Corp. agreed to issue a 14% equity stake to a private equity firm,
but not before putting an activist investor ban in place. The
agreement prohibited the purchaser from selling or transferring the
securities to more than 50 named activist firms in addition to
anyone listed on the Sharkwatch 50—a compilation of the
largest activist firms. These firms and investors were essentially
It is not surprising that corporate management wants to maintain
control of share ownership when large offerings are made, such as
the Concordia Healthcare offering. Companies sometimes view
activist shareholders as not having the long term health and
profitability of a corporation in mind, and a large offering is an
easy way for an activist shareholder to quickly acquire significant
holdings. This risk can be combatted by placing resale restrictions
and bans on the transfer of securities to known activist
Of course, restrictions on the transfer of securities are
nothing new. Canadian corporations have long imposed long waiting
periods or 'lock-ups' and have prohibited transfers which
would place a security holder over the 10% early warning threshold
or the 20% takeover bid threshold. However, re-sale restrictions
have rarely targeted specific investors and prohibited them from
There is no prohibition on activist investor bans in Ontario.
The securities regulators have commented that they may have concerns with agreements which
restrict the transfer of securities to activist investors. This
view is consistent with Canadian securities regulator's
position on the importance of shareholder democracy demonstrated by
their treatment of shareholder rights plans (see: Re Baffinland Iron Mines). It remains
to be seen whether Canadian securities regulators will impose
restrictions or limits on activist investor bans.
The author would like to thank Danny Urquhart, articling
student, for his assistance in preparing this update.
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Norton Rose Fulbright is a global legal practice. We provide
the world's pre-eminent corporations and financial institutions
with a full business law service. We have more than 3800 lawyers
based in over 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada,
Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central
Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all
the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy;
infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and
innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.
Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global
business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to
provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of
our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia,
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South
Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc) and Fulbright &
Jaworski LLP, each of which is a separate legal entity, are members
('the Norton Rose Fulbright members') of Norton Rose
Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein
helps coordinate the activities of the Norton Rose Fulbright
members but does not itself provide legal services to
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.
A fundamental principle of contract law in Canada is that the parties to a contract are usually free to negotiate and agree upon any terms which will advance their respective (and sometimes mutual) interests.
Royal Bank of Canada v. Surje & Company Inc. is a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The personal defendant, Sunny Bhasin held most of the common shares in Surge & Company Inc., the corporate defendant.
The use of electronic signatures is becoming increasingly commonplace in commercial transactions, as individuals and businesses capitalize on the administrative efficiency afforded by today’s digital world.
Following the Divisional Court's decision in Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Ryerson University, companies that contract with government institutions should be aware that such contracts are likely open to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Back in April 2015, we discussed key questions to keep in mind when negotiating earn-outs, and looked at recent trends coming out of the American Bar Association's 2014 Canadian Private Target M&A Deal Points Study (the 2014 ABA Study).
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).