Paul Mulholland

In a securities class action concerning alleged misrepresentations in the prospectus and offering materials for a company’s 2010 initial public offering, the representative plaintiff moved for court approval of a settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The settlement provided for a global payment of USD $15,250,000 to resolve claims by Canadian and U.S. investors, with a coordinated cross‑border approval process and a shared claims administration.

The court applied the established criteria for approval of class action settlements, including the likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel’s recommendations, the reasonableness of the terms, and the absence of objections.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved both the settlement and the plan of allocation, as well as class counsel’s requested contingency fees and litigation expenses.

In a securities class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Securities Act, the plaintiffs sought certification for settlement purposes against certain underwriters, approval of three settlements totalling approximately $10.85 million, approval of counsel fees, and approval of a proposed plan of allocation.

The court held that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and approved them, along with counsel fees and the appointment of an administrator.

However, the court rejected the parties’ proposed distribution plan because it excluded class members who purchased shares on the day of the corrective disclosure from any compensation.

Exercising its authority to determine the plan of allocation, the court varied the distribution plan to include those purchasers and approved the modified plan as fair and reasonable.

The representative plaintiff in a certified securities class action sought court approval of a settlement, class counsel fees, and a modest honorarium under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The proposed settlement required the defendants’ insurers to pay $2.25 million for distribution to class members alleging misrepresentations affecting publicly traded shares.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class after considering the likelihood of success, litigation risks, and the absence of objections.

However, the court declined to approve the proposed cy près recipient because of connections between class counsel and the proposed organization, concluding that such links created an inappropriate indirect benefit to counsel.

The settlement and counsel fees were approved subject to the parties proposing a different cy près recipient.

In a proposed securities class action, the plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Ontario Securities Act to commence a statutory secondary market misrepresentation claim against certain corporate directors.

The defendants had been noted in default and did not oppose the motion.

The court held that the statutory leave test requires a showing that the action is brought in good faith and that there is a reasonable possibility it will succeed at trial.

Given the deemed admissions arising from the defendants’ default and the evidentiary record concerning alleged misrepresentations in financial disclosure documents, the court found the threshold satisfied.

Leave to proceed against the directors under Part XXIII.1 of the Act was granted.