Photo of Brad Moore

The Ontario Securities Commission, like several other regulatory investigators, has extensive power to compel testimony and require the disclosure of documents and information.  A recent decision of the OSC, B (Re) (2020 ONSEC 21), has highlighted a gap in the Commission’s power to compel testimony from a witness where such testimony may constitute a breach of the witness’s contractual obligations to a third party.

The Case

Staff of the Commission is conducting an investigation pursuant to an investigation order issued by the OSC under section 11 of the Securities Act.  Investigation orders empower Staff to issue a summons pursuant to section 13 of the Act, to compel an individual to provide oral testimony under oath and to provide documentary evidence.  Section 16 of the Act prohibits the recipient of a summons from disclosing information relating to the summons or the investigation, subject to narrow exceptions.

Staff served upon an individual, identified only as “B”, a summons under section 13 of the Act.  Although B was prepared to cooperate with Staff, B was concerned that doing so would violate B’s employment contract, which imposes confidentiality over all matters relating to B’s employment without an exception that is relevant to a regulatory investigation.
Continue Reading Recent OSC Decision Raises Uncertainty for Witnesses Responding to a Summons

Introduction

On June 25, 2020 the Canadian Securities Administrators (“CSA”) released their Consultation Paper 25-402 – Consultation on the Self-Regulation Organization Framework (“Consultation Paper”). The Consultation Paper discusses seven key issues of the existing framework for self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and is seeking feedback from industry representatives, investor advocates, and the public on how the innovation

The Deal 

On December 15, 2019, United Kingdom-based Cineworld Group plc (“Cineworld”), the second largest cinema chain worldwide, entered into an arrangement agreement (the “Arrangement Agreement”) with Cineplex Inc. (“Cineplex”) whereby Cineworld would acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Cineplex for $34 per share in cash, representing a premium of 42% to

Further to our earlier post discussing COVID-19 and Material Adverse Change (“MAC”) provisions in mergers and acquisitions agreements and the hearing held last week in connection with an application for the final order (“Final Order Application”) in respect of the proposed plan of arrangement (the “Arrangement”) involving Rifco Inc. (“Rifco”), an alternative auto financing company

Introduction

The Yukon Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Carlock v. ExxonMobil Canada Holdings ULC,[1] overturning the Supreme Court of Yukon’s unexpected decision to award dissenting shareholders a 43% premium over the negotiated deal price in ExxonMobil Canada Holdings ULC’s (“ExxonMobil”) acquisition of InterOil Corporation (“InterOil”) in 2017.

The Court of

us-1978465_1920

Last month, federal prosecutors achieved a resounding victory in a tipping case before the U.S. Supreme Court in Salman v. United States, 580 U. S. ____ (2016).  In its much anticipated decision, the Court held that a jury could infer that the tipper personally benefited from making a gift of confidential information to a