Last October 12th, the Supreme Court dismissed the investors' appeal, who, by way of a class proceeding, were alleging wrongdoing on the part of Danier Leather Inc. (Danier)1 for omitting to disclose poor intra-quarterly results before the closing of its initial public offering.
Many legal issues were ruled by the Supreme Court in this matter, but we wish to deal in particular with the conclusions concerning the Business Judgment Rule in the context of non disclosure of lower results to the results forecasted in the prospectus.
The Business Appreciation Rule is a shield often used in the defense of directors when business decisions become matters of litigation, and thus, frequently constitutes a defense in a liability proceeding against directors.
Indeed, the passage of time and ulterior events can cast doubts on some decisions taken by the board of directors.
But in accordance with the Business Judgment Rule, our tribunals show restraint toward a decision taken by a board of directors as long as that decision was taken by directors acting in an informed manner, in good faith and that the said decision was reasonable.
Thus, the tribunal should not question whether it was a "perfect" decision or the "best" decision but rather if the said decision was reasonable with regard to the context, and, in such a case, the tribunal should not substitute its opinion for that of the board of directors.
One of the issues the Supreme Court had to rule on in Danier, was related to the application of the Business Judgment Rule with regard to the disclosure requirements pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act2. The argument that was put forth by the respondents was that it was required to defer to the management's expertise in terms of sales forecasts in the light of their solid practical experience.
However, the Supreme Court draws an important line and reminds us that, from a general legal standpoint, even though forecasts can constitute matters of Business Judgment Rule, fact remains that disclosure is a matter of legal obligation. Consequently, the requirements of the law with respect to disclosure cannot be subordinated to the Business Judgment Rule.
In order to arrive at such a conclusion, the Court calls to attention the basic principles of the Business Judgment Rule which are that business decisions must be taken freely by directors on the basis of their special expertise and take into account reasonable risks. That said, these justifications qualified as "traditional" for the application of this rule are not called upon in the case of decisions relating to disclosure :
"It is for the legislature and the courts, not business management to set the legal disclosure requirements." (paragraph 55 of the decision)
Thus, in the case of disclosure obligation, the Business Appreciation Rule that would require deference from the tribunals regarding decisions made by boards of directors would not apply. Disclosure must always be made pursuant to the law and all of its applicable parameters.
1. Kerr v. Danier Leather Inc.
- 2007 SCC. 44
2. Ontario Securities Act,
R.S.O. 1990, ch.S.5
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your
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.
The prospect of an internal investigation raises many thorny issues. This presentation will canvass some of the potential triggering events, and discuss how to structure an investigation, retain forensic assistance and manage the inevitable ethical issues that will arise.
From the boardroom to the shop floor, effective organizations recognize the value of having a diverse workplace. This presentation will explore effective strategies to promote diversity, defeat bias and encourage a broader community outlook.
Staying local but going global presents its challenges. Gowling WLG lawyers offer an international roundtable on doing business in the U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia. This three-hour session will videoconference in lawyers from around the world to discuss business and intellectual property hurdles.
Under the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act, and the Excise Tax Act, a director of a corporation is jointly and severally liable for a corporation's failure to deduct and remit source deductions or GST.
Under the Income Tax Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Pension Plan Act and the Excise Tax Act, a director of a corporation is jointly and severally liable for a corporation's failure to deduct and remit source deductions.
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).