Photo of John Pirie

John Pirie

Subscribe to John Pirie's Posts

John Pirie leads Baker McKenzie's Canadian litigation and government enforcement group and is a member of the North American group's Steering Committee. A Chambers ranked trial lawyer, he handles complex business disputes, investigations and white-collar matters, particularly those with multi-jurisdictional aspects. John's focus includes a significant fraud and financial recovery component, having pursued and defended a range of leading cases in the area. He has deep experience with emergency relief measures, including global asset freeze orders and remedies available in bankruptcy and receivership. John has acted for governments, banks, investors, multinational corporations, officers and directors, a stock exchange, a securities regulator, members of the judiciary and an array of professionals. Clients interviewed by Chambers Global say: "John Pirie has an excellent command of the law and clients' needs and expectations" and "he is an experienced courtroom advocate who is particularly well regarded for his civil fraud expertise."

Follow:Read more about John PirieJohn's Linkedin Profile

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 Court approves gold-plated releases despite extensive fraud allegations

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 How should a Court divide a shortfall of money among victims of a Ponzi Scheme