Marshall Geisser Law | Visitor Post: Directors and Officers Need To Protect Secondary Market Misstatement Claim
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-20658,single-format-standard,qode-quick-links-1.0,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-11.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.2.1,vc_responsive

Visitor Post: Directors and Officers Need To Protect Secondary Market Misstatement Claim

Visitor Post: Directors and Officers Need To Protect Secondary Market Misstatement Claim

James R. Lane

As I have actually kept in mind in prior posts, securities class action lawsuits represents a considerable part of the business liability landscape in Canada. In the following visitor post, James R. Lane, a founding partner of the Toronto law practice of Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP, has a look at a current essential choice by the Ontario Court of Appeal dealing with director and officer liability problems under the Ontario Securities Act. A version of this article formerly was released as an alert to the law practice’s customers. I wish to thank Jim for his desire to enable me to release his short article as a visitor post on this website. I invite visitor post submissions from accountable authors on subjects of interest to this website’s readers. Please call me straight if you wish to send a visitor post. Here is Jim’s visitor post.


The directors and officers of a business mining coal in Mongolia were called personally as offenders in a securities class action in Ontario. On the complainant’s movement for leave to bring the action, the court allowed the claim to continue versus the business, however not the directors and officers. Not so quick, stated the Ontario Court of Appeal in enabling the claim versus the people to go on.

In Rahimi v. SouthGobi Resources Ltd., investors declared versus SouthGobi Resources Ltd., 2 previous CEOs and 3 Directors after the business reiterated previous audited monetary declarations. The business revealed in a news release that the declarations did not fulfill profits acknowledgment requirements, leading to a share rate drop.

Under the Ontario Securities Act, leave of the court is needed to continue with a misstatement claim of this sort. This is a reasonably brand-new reason for action that requires a balancing in between offering an efficient solution for financiers while safeguarding business from pricey, unmeritorious claims. As a result, leave can just be approved if the court is pleased that the action is generated excellent faith and has an affordable opportunity of success.

The SouthGobi directors and officers opposed the leave movement counting on an affordable examination defence consisted of in the Act. That defence mentions that an individual or business is not accountable for a misstatement if they show they have actually carried out an affordable examination and had no sensible premises to think that the declaration included a misstatement.

The directors and officers argued that there was no misstatement in the monetary declarations, however rather that any misstatement remained in the business’s news release. They declared to be uninformed of the material of journalism release when it headed out. The movements judge gave leave to continue versus the business, however not versus the directors and officers on the basis that there was no sensible possibility of their being personally accountable offered their dependence on external auditors, among other examinations efforts.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, stating that the function of the requirement for acquiring leave was to evaluate out plainly unmeritorious claims, specifically those that may be incorrectly meant to effect share rate. The Court faulted the movements judge for surpassing a screening function to perform a mini-trial on the basis of inadequate proof. In specific, the movements judge ought to have considered exactly what proof was not available since the movement preceded any commitment on the part of the potential offenders to make disclosure of appropriate proof.

The Court of Appeal concluded that there were severe spaces in the proof along with reliability problems associating with the problem of sensible examination. At the centre of the Court’s issue was journalism release. Journalism release acknowledged product weak points in internal profits reporting controls. The Court saw that recognition as effective proof that there was no sensible examination. The Court even more questioned, if the directors and officers disagreed with journalism release after it was provided, why did they not need that the mistake be remedied? The Court was sceptical that the directors and officers were truly uninformed of journalism release in spite of remaining in crisis mode at the time. Delegate claim versus the directors and officers was for that reason approved on appeal since a complete trial would be needed to deal with these problems.


James Lane is a founding partner of Bersenas Jacobsen Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP a shop lawsuits company in Toronto. His practice consists of defence of claims versus accounting professionals, style specialists, officers and directors, and others insureds under liability policies.

The post Guest Post: Directors and Officers Must Defend Secondary Market Misrepresentation Claim appeared initially on The D&O Diary.

No Comments

Post A Comment