• About
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • News
  • Students
  • Alumni
  • Payments
  • EN | FR
Background Image
Bennett Jones Logo
  • 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
Energy Infrastructure Mining Private Equity & Investment Funds View all
Advisory
Crisis & Risk Management Public Policy
View Client Work
International Experience
Insights News Events Subscribe
Arbitration Angle Artificial Intelligence Insights Business Law Talks Podcast Class Actions: Looking Forward Class Action Quick Takes
Economic Outlook New Energy Economy Series Quarterly Fintech Insights Quarterly M&A Insights Sustainability & the CIO
People
Offices
About
Practices
Industries
Advisory Services
Client Work
Insights
News
Events
Careers
Law Students
Alumni
Payments
Search
Subscribe

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

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
 

Due Diligence Defence Deemed Available for Issuance of Securities in Breach of Securities Laws

April 20, 2017

Written By Christian P. Gauthier, Kwang Lim, Brigeeta C. Richdale, Sabrina Royer, and Patrick J. Sullivan

The B.C. Securities Commission's (the Commission) decision in Re SunCentro (2017 BCSECCOM 58) provides rare guidance on the availability of a due diligence defence to parties that have illegally distributed securities. The Commission held that a due diligence defence was available to an issuer and certain of its directors, officers and promoters for the improper use of the "Family, Friends and Business Associates" prospectus exemption.

SunCentro Corporation (SunCentro) is a Vancouver-based private solar company. Between 2011 and 2013, SunCentro raised a total of US$250,525 from 26 investors. The Commission initiated administrative proceedings against SunCentro, its officers and its promoters alleging that securities issued to investors under these offerings did not qualify under a prospectus exemption. Based on the evidence submitted at the hearing, the Commission considered whether a due diligence defence was available to one or more of the respondents.

In its written decision, the Commission determined that a due diligence defence is available under common law to administrative proceedings brought under Securities Act (British Columbia), and provided the following general guidance to sellers of securities:

  • the steps that are reasonable will vary depending upon the facts and circumstances of the purchaser, the offering and the exemption being relied upon;
  • while sellers should obtain and retain documentation of certain key facts, including obtaining representations and warranties and/or confirmation of a purchaser’s financial or other personal status, that those steps will not be sufficient in and of themselves;
  • sellers should understand the terms and conditions of the exemption that they intend to rely upon;
  • sellers should adopt appropriate policies and procedures to ensure that persons acting on their behalf understand the terms and conditions of the exemptions being relied upon; and
  • sellers take steps to verify the factual basis of the information being relied upon including asking questions of the purchaser.

The Commission found that SunCentro took the following steps to ensure the legality of its exempt distributions of securities:

  • established a board policy for the private placements;
  • educated board members on the prospectus exemptions being used by SunCentro;
  • obtained properly executed subscription agreements from the investors; and
  • delegated responsibility for the administrative tasks necessary to complete financings to a member of the senior management of SunCentro.

The Commission found that SunCentro and its officers were able to establish the due diligence defence for distributions made to six investors under the "Family, Friends and Business Associates" exemption. While SunCentro and its officers had received representations from a director that these six investors were his close friends, the evidence before the Commission established that these six investors were business associates of the director's father, and did not qualify for the "Family, Friends and Business Associates" exemption. Although the Commission ultimately held that the evidence did not support the director's representations, it found that SunCentro and its officers were entitled to rely on them. When combined with the aforementioned steps, this was sufficient to successfully establish the due diligence defence in relation to these six distributions.

However, the Commission found that none of the respondents succeeded in establishing the due diligence defence for distributions made to nineteen investors referred to SunCentro by a promoter. Securities had been distributed to these investors on the incorrect assumption that the promoter was an "affiliate" of SunCentro, and that the promoter's close friends and family would accordingly qualify for the "Family, Friends and Business Associates" exemption. None of the respondents had sought professional guidance on whether the promoter was in fact an affiliate of SunCentro, and were not entitled to rely on the due diligence defence.

The following sanctions were imposed by the Commission:

  • SunCentro was subject to a permanent cease trade order;
  • SunCentro was ordered to disgorge the full $165,500 obtained from the 19 investors referred by the promoter;
  • the respondents were each ordered to pay an administrative penalty;
  • certain respondents were prohibited from acting as a director or officer of an issuer for several years; and
  • no trade orders were made against certain respondents.

The Commission's decision establishes the availability of the defence of due diligence in such administrative proceedings. Due diligence means that issuers and their directors, officers and promoters must, at least, understand the terms and conditions of the exemptions on which they intend to rely, establish a system to ensure that others acting on their behalf have appropriate understanding of such exemptions and that appropriate controls are in place to obtain and verify information and retain documentation. Representations should be sought and obtained from the relevant officer or director where the issuer seeks to rely on the "Family, Friends and Business Associates" exemption. Basic precautionary steps will likely be insufficient where the exemption relied on warranted further consideration and guidance. The treatment of the due diligence defence in subsequent decisions is uncertain and should be followed closely.

Please note that this publication presents an overview of notable legal trends and related updates. It is intended for informational purposes and not as a replacement for detailed legal advice. If you need guidance tailored to your specific circumstances, please contact one of the authors to explore how we can help you navigate your legal needs.

For permission to republish this or any other publication, contact Amrita Kochhar at kochhara@bennettjones.com.

Key Contacts

  • Christian P. Gauthier Christian P. Gauthier, Partner
  • Kwang  Lim Kwang Lim, Vancouver Managing Partner

Related Links

  • Insights
  • Media
  • Subscribe

Related Expertise

  • Capital Markets

Recent Posts

In The News

Canada Needs to Build Economic Resilience: Bennett Jones Economic Outlook

June 16, 2025
       

Speaking Engagements

Legacy Builders Live Webcast

June 12, 2025
       

Client Work

Bennett Jones Acts for Dow Chemical in Successful $3.56 Billion Contract Claim

June 11, 2025
       

Speaking Engagements

Uncovering the CETA Opportunity

June 11, 2025
       

Client Work

DCM Group, a Thrust Capital Partners Portfolio Company, Acquires Metcor

June 09, 2025
       

Updates

Economic Outlook: Building Resilience and Capacity in a Disrupted World

June 2025
       

In The News

You've Been Flagged for a CRA Audit—Here's What Happens Next

June 05, 2025
       

Announcements

Ten Bennett Jones Lawyers Ranked in Lexpert's Special Edition on Technology

June 04, 2025
       

Client Work

Shopify Wins In Federal Court Against CRA In Merchant Data Case

June 04, 2025
       
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
About
  • Leadership
  • Diversity
  • Community
  • Innovation
  • Security
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 2025. All rights reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use
Logo Bennett Jones