The defendant brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel, arguing that a settlement agreement from prior litigation prohibited the counsel from acting for certain plaintiffs in this action.
The defendant also sought to strike portions of the statement of claim, alleging a breach of the deemed undertaking rule regarding a disputed document.
The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to set a timetable.
The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the current claims did not arise directly from the restructuring covered by the settlement agreement and that the deemed undertaking rule did not apply to documents incorporated into a settlement agreement.
The court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion and imposed a case management timetable.
