On September 2, 2014, the Ontario Securities Commission commenced its high-profile hearing in the case of the Sino-Forest Corporation (“SFC“). SFC is alleged to have engaged in widespread fraud relating to its public financial disclosure. The specific allegations involve the fabrication or overestimation of revenue and assets, falsified evidence of ownership, backdated contracts, and undisclosed control over particular customers and suppliers.
Continue Reading
The OSC’s introduction of no-contest settlement proceedings
In October 2011, the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC“) raised the concept of offering no-contest settlements of the sort commonly employed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC“). On March 11th of this year, after receiving some sharply divided feedback in months of public hearings, the OSC announced that it was moving forward with the introduction of a policy that would permit settlement of enforcement proceedings without requiring an admission by the respondent of misconduct (no-contest settlements). The OSC has emphasized that the deployment of this policy will only be available in a narrow set of circumstances. In the meantime, the debate over whether such a policy can achieve its objectives of expedience and efficient resource allocation while at the same time avoiding the risk of letting wrongdoers off the hook, has yet to be resolved.
RCMP charge two in yet another alleged investment fraud
As reported by the Globe and Mail, CBC and other sources, the RCMP has charged two people after at least 160 investors were allegedly defrauded of more than $21-million. The RCMP has reported
Continue Reading
“Fraud on the market” and securities class actions
Our team has been monitoring some key developments that could soon impact US and Canadian companies that list shares on US exchanges. One of 2014’s most important legal developments is likely to flow from the US Supreme Court’s ruling on “fraud on the market” theory, to be rendered in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc. (“Haliburton”). Oral argument in Halliburton took place on March 5, 2014.
In Halliburton, the US Supreme Court has been asked whether “it should overrule or substantially modify the holding in Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) … to the extent that it recognizes a presumption of class-wide reliance derived from the fraud on the market theory.” The decision in Halliburton is expected to be of importance given that in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans, a case decided in early 2013, members of the Supreme Court expressed concern with respect to the fraud on the market theory.
Continue Reading
Court approves gold-plated releases despite extensive fraud allegations
Our team acted for one of the parties in Labourers’ Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada v. Sino-Forest Corporation, where Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved Ernst & Young LLP’s $117 million settlement relating to class action lawsuits commenced by jilted investors following the downfall of former stock market darling, Sino-Forest Corporation. The $9.2B class action involves significant fraud allegations that call into question Sino-Forest’s structure, reporting and revenues, as well as the practices of its auditors and underwriters. In addition to garnering attention as the largest auditor settlement to date in a Canadian securities class action, this landmark decision is noteworthy for the Court’s approval of a comprehensive third-party release and a ‘no opt-out’ settlement feature granted in favour of Ernst & Young. The Court also approved a controversial framework that would make similar settlements available for future settling defendants – a feature some critics characterize as extraordinary relief in cases where there are underlying fraud allegations.
Continue Reading
Cybersecurity threats
Cybersecurity threats are evolving with ever-increasing levels of sophistication. In the wake of a series of high profile data breaches, US President Obama recently commented that the nation’s “economic prosperity in the 21st Century
Continue Reading
How should a Court divide a shortfall of money among victims of a Ponzi Scheme
Dividing up a shortfall from a Ponzi scheme was first posed before the United States Supreme Court in 1924. The infamous case of Cunningham v. Brown dealt with the original Ponzi scheme of Charles Ponzi and distributing remaining funds back to victims when his investment scheme was finally unravelled, but left victims with only a fraction of their original investments. Unraveling a Ponzi scheme to return a shortfall of money back among its victims is akin to untangling the noodles in a half-eaten bowl of spaghetti at a buffet and trying to determine who cooked each strand. Where multiple chefs (all using the same recipe) all had their spaghetti thrown in one giant pot, it would be a seemingly impossible task to untangle the half-eaten bowl to see which chefs’ spaghetti was still in that bowl.
Continue Reading