• About
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • News
  • Students
  • Alumni
  • Payments
  • FR
Background Image
Bennett Jones Logo 100 Years
  • People
  • Expertise
  • Knowledge
  • Search
  • FR Menu
  • Search Mobile
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
View all
Practices
Corporate Litigation Regulatory Tax View all
Industries
Capital Projects Energy Funds & Finance Mining View all
Advisory
Crisis & Risk Management ESG Strategy and Solutions Governmental Affairs & Public Policy
View Client Work
International Experience
Insights News Events
New Energy Economy Series Business Law Talks Podcast Economic Outlook
ESG & the CIO Subscribe
Bennett Jones Centennial Menu
People
Practices
Industries
Advisory Services
Client Work
About
Offices
News
Careers
Insights
Law Students
Events
Search
Alumni
Payments
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
 
Blog

Ontario Court Upholds Limitations on Liability for Misrepresentations Contained in Take-Over Bid Circulars

August 10, 2015

In a decision released on July 30, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has clarified that plaintiffs seeking to advance claims under section 131(1) of the Securities Act (Ontario) alleging misrepresentation in a take-over bid circular cannot proceed against both the offeror and its directors, but rather, are required to make an election. Notwithstanding the broad mandate for public protection created under the Securities Act, the Court clearly affirmed that the rights of action provided pursuant to section 131(1) are mutually exclusive. Plaintiffs are precluded from advancing such statutory rights of action concurrently against both an offeror and its directors, and, by necessary implication, from pursuing vicarious liability claims.

Rooney v ArcelorMittal SA, a putative class action, was commenced in Ontario following a successful joint take-over bid for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation led by the corporate defendants and their directors, a number of whom were named personally as defendants in the proceeding. On the motion before Justice Rady, the defendants sought to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim on several grounds, including on the basis that, pursuant to section 131(1) of the Securities Act, the plaintiffs were precluded from proceeding against both the joint offerors and their corresponding directors.

Section 131(1) of the Securities Act sets out a statutory cause of action for security holders, entitling security holders to claim rescission or damages in circumstances where take-over bid circulars are found to contain misrepresentations.

The plaintiffs argued that, as remedial legislation intended to foster investor protection, the Securities Act must be given a broad and liberal interpretation. On that basis, they suggested that any requirement for election in the legislation was intended to apply solely to the remedy (i.e., either for rescission or damages) and was not intended to require security holders to elect as between whom to pursue a cause of action against. In support of their argument, the plaintiffs also unsuccessfully sought to draw parallels between the provisions for prospectus liability and take-over bid liability.

After carefully reviewing the legislative history of section 131(1) and its judicial treatment post-enactment, the Court disagreed and found that, despite the fact the legislation was not as clearly expressed as it could be, an election as between the offeror and its directors was required. The Court arrived at this conclusion based on several factors, including the plain language of the provision, which expressly speaks to an election. Justice Rady also concluded that the plaintiffs' claims in vicarious liability against the directors would similarly be barred if they sought to pursue claims against the offeror, given that, to hold otherwise, would render the election requirement irrelevant and unnecessary.

As a final matter, the Court also concluded that section 131(1) excluded claims arising from secondary market transactions. Justice Rady ultimately concluded that since shareholders operating in the secondary market could never elect to exercise a right of rescission pursuant to section 131(1), the language of the provision must have been intended to exclude secondary market transactions.

It remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs will appeal.  However, the decision, which narrows the scope of permitted claims pursuant to section 131(1), is likely welcome news for public issuers and their directors in Ontario, who have been, in light of statutory deemed reliance provisions, particularly vulnerable to claims arising from circular misrepresentations.

Download PDF

Authors

  • Joseph N. Blinick Joseph N. Blinick, Partner
  • Alan P. Gardner Alan P. Gardner, Partner
  • Amanda C. McLachlan Amanda C. McLachlan, Partner

Fall 2022 Economic Outlook: Managing Risks and Taking Action

Related Links

  • Insights
  • Media
  • Subscribe

Recent Posts

Blog

Field Notes: Recent Pesticide Initiatives in Canada

January 26, 2023
       

Blog

Canada Border Services Agency Publishes Update of [...]

January 25, 2023
       

Blog

Balancing Act: Facilitating Trade and Worker Protection [...]

January 18, 2023
       

Blog

Accounting for Oil and Gas Revenues Without an Operating Agreement

January 10, 2023
       

Blog

Ontario Court of Appeal Considers Interpretation of [...]

January 09, 2023
       
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer 100 Years
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer 100 Years
About
  • Leadership
  • Diversity
  • Community
  • Innovation
  • Security
  • History
Offices
  • Calgary
  • Edmonton
  • Montréal
  • Ottawa
  • Toronto
  • Vancouver
  • New York
Connect
  • Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Careers
  • Students
  • Alumni
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
© Bennett Jones LLP 2023. All rights reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use
Logo Bennett Jones