Court Information and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-536174 DATE: 20180705

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

JOSEPH S. MANCINELLI, CARMEN PRINCIPATO, DOUGLAS SERROUL, LUIGI CARROZZI, MANUEL BASTOS and JACK OLIVEIRA in their capacity as THE TRUSTEES OF THE LABOURERS’ PENSION FUND OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN CANADA, and CHRISTOPHER STAINES Plaintiffs

– and –

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA CANADA, BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD., BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ (CANADA), BARCLAYS BANK PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL CANADA INC., BNP PARIBAS GROUP, BNP PARIBAS NORTH AMERICA INC., BNP PARIBAS (CANADA), BNP PARIBAS, CITIGROUP, INC., CITIBANK, N.A., CITIBANK CANADA, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS CANADA INC., CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (CANADA), INC., DEUTSCHE BANK AG, THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., GOLDMAN SACHS CANADA INC., HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK PLC, HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC., HSBC BANK USA, N.A., HSBC BANK CANADA, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P.MORGAN BANK CANADA, J.P.MORGAN CANADA, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY CANADA LIMITED, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, RBS SECURITIES, INC., ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V., ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE S.A., SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE (CANADA), SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE, STANDARD CHARTERED PLC, UBS AG, UBS SECURITIES LLC and UBS BANK (CANADA) Defendants

Counsel: Louis Sokolov, Daniel Bach and Robert Gain for the Plaintiffs

Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992

HEARD: July 4, 2018

PERELL, J.

REASONS FOR DECISION

A. Introduction

[1] This is an action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992. [1] In this motion, the Plaintiffs seek approval of an Administration Protocol and a Distribution Protocol to govern how the net proceeds of court-approved settlements in an on-going class action will be distributed among the Class Members.

B. Facts

1. Procedural Background

[2] I shall briefly describe the factual background below, but the general background facts are set out in my Reasons for Decision reported as: Staines v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2016 ONSC 5270 (Consent Certification No. 1), Mancinelli v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2016 ONSC 6953 (Settlement Approval No. 1), Mancinelli v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2016 ONSC 7857 (Consent Certification No. 2); Mancinelli v. Royal Bank of Canada 2017 ONSC 2324 (Settlement Approval No. 2); Mancinelli v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2017 ONSC 3910 (Consent Certification No. 3); Mancinelli v. Royal Bank of Canada 2017 ONSC 4219 (Consent Certification No. 4); and Mancinelli v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2017 ONSC 5503 (Settlement Approval Nos. 3 & 4).

[3] The Plaintiffs, Joseph S. Mancinelli, Carmen Principato, Douglas Serroul, Luigi Carrozzi, Manuel Bastos, and Jack Oliveira, in their capacity as The Trustees of the Labourers’ Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada, and Christopher Staines, sue 18 groups of financial institutions.

[4] The Plaintiffs sue: (1) Royal Bank of Canada, RBC Capital Markets LLC; (2) Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Canada, Bank of America National Association; (3) The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (Canada); (4) Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays Capital Canada Inc.; (5) BNP Paribas, BNP Paribas (Canada), BNP Paribas Group, BNP Paribas North America Inc.; (6) Citibank, N.A., Citibank Canada, Citigroup Global Markets Canada Inc., Citigroup, Inc.; (7) Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Securities (Canada), Inc.; (8) Deutsche Bank AG; (9) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Canada Inc.; (10) HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC North America Holdings Inc., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Bank Canada; (11) J.P.Morgan Canada, JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association, JPMorgan Chase & Co., J.P.Morgan Bank Canada; (12) Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Canada Limited; (13) Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, RBS Securities, Inc., Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Royal Bank of Scotland PLC; (14) Société Générale S.A., Société Générale (Canada), Société Générale; (15) Standard Chartered PLC; and (16) UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC and UBS Bank (Canada); (17) Bank of Montreal, BMO Financial Corp., BMO Harris Bank N.A., BMO Capital Markets Limited; and (18) Toronto Dominion Bank, TD Bank, N.A., TD Group Holdings, LLC, TD Bank USA, N.A. and TD Securities Limited.

[5] In their class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired with each other to fix prices in the futures exchange market (the “FX Market”). It is alleged that through the use of multiple chat rooms with names such as “The Cartel,” “The Bandits’ Club,” and “The Mafia,” the Defendants communicated directly with each other to coordinate their: (a) fixing of spot prices; (b) control and manipulation of FX benchmark rates; and (c) exchange of key confidential customer information to trigger client stop loss orders and limit orders. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants’ conspiracy impacted all manner of FX instruments, including those trading both over-the-counter and on exchanges. While the Defendants’ conduct allegedly impacted all FX Instruments, it was aimed at affecting spot prices – commonly known to the public as “exchange rates”.

[6] The Plaintiffs, through Mr. Staines, commenced an action by way of Statement of Claim, which was issued on September 11, 2015. The Statement of Claim pleads several causes of action against the Defendants including a statutory right of action for contraventions of Part VI of the Competition Act; [2] namely: civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs claim damages of $1 billion plus punitive damages.

[7] Similar litigation has been commenced in Québec by Chirstine Béland. The Québec action is being case managed by Justice Bouchard of the Québec Superior Court.

[8] The Class consists of:

Persons in Canada who, between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013, entered into a FX Instrument either directly or indirectly through an intermediary, and/or purchased or otherwise participated in an investment or equity fund, mutual fund, hedge fund, pension fund or any other investment vehicle that entered into an instrument traded in the FX Market.

“Excluded Persons” means each defendant to the Actions, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates; provided, however, that Investment Vehicles shall not be considered Excluded Persons. “Investment Vehicles” are any investment entity or pooled investment fund, including, but not limited to, mutual fund families, exchange-traded funds, fund of funds and hedge funds, in which a Defendant has or may have a direct or indirect interest, or as to which its affiliates may act as an investment advisor, but of which a Defendant or its respective affiliates is not a majority owner or does not hold a majority beneficial interest: see Administration Protocol, Schedule “C”, at paras. 4(j) and 4(p).

[9] On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiffs served a partial certification record.

[10] On May 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs served a Supplementary Motion Record for the certification motion.

[11] On April 4, 2018, this Court approved Garden City Group, LLC as Claims Administrator, and scheduled the hearing to approve the Distribution Protocols.

2. Settlements

[12] In a first round of settlements, this court approved settlements with three groups of Defendants: (1) UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC and UBS Bank (Canada) (“UBS”); (2) BNP Paribas Group, BNP Paribas North America Inc., BNP Paribas (Canada), and BNP Paribas (“BNP”); and (3) Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Canada and Bank of America National Association (“Bank of America”).

[13] In the first round of settlements, the Plaintiffs recovered $16 million for the Class Members: UBS paid $5.0 million; BNP paid $4.5 million; and Bank of America paid $6.5 million.

[14] In my Reasons for Decision for the settlement approval for the first round of settlements, I noted that for future settlement approval motions, the Court would require additional information on the Plaintiffs’ calculation of damages. In my Reasons for Decision, Mancinelli v. Royal Bank of Canada, [3] I stated at paras. 34 and 35:

34. Like the objector, I was concerned that at this early juncture of this class proceeding, there was insufficient information about the amount of the settlements being reasonable having regard to the actual damages allegedly suffered by the Class Members, which has not yet been quantified.

35. Nevertheless, having regard to the information that was available from the proceedings in the United States and having regard to the Defendants’ minority share of the Canadian market and keeping in mind the very significant litigation risks and also the value to be attributed to the Settling Defendants’ co-operation in prosecuting the claims against the non-Settling Defendants who command 85% of the marketplace, I am satisfied that the amount of these early settlements is fair and reasonable. I will, however, expect more information about the methodology of the Plaintiffs’ calculation of damages if there are more settlements.

[15] For the second round of settlement approvals, the Plaintiffs retained Professor Ilias Tsiakas, Professor of Finance at the University of Guelph and an expert in foreign exchange markets. He obtained a PhD in Economics from the University of Toronto in 2001 and subsequently joined Warwick Business School in the U.K., where he was Assistant Professor of Finance and promoted to Associate Professor of Finance, as well as serving as Director of the Warwick PhD in Finance program. He joined the University of Guelph in July 2010 as tenured Associate Professor of Finance and was promoted to Full Professor in July 2016. He has published numerous papers on exchange rates, including in the Journal of Financial Economics and the Review of Financial Studies, and published two chapters in the Handbook of Exchange Rates.

[16] Professor Tsiakas was retained to provide an estimate on the range of potential damages suffered by members of the putative class. Professor Tsiakas estimated a range of total damages between $155 million and $619.9 million between 2008 and 2013 (i.e., the period that was the subject of regulatory findings) and between $270 million and $1,089 million (approximately $1 billion) for the entire class period.

[17] In the second round of settlements, the Plaintiffs reached settlements with three more groups of Defendants: (1) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (“Goldman Sachs”); (2) JPMorgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Bank Canada, J.P. Morgan Canada, and JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association (“JPMorgan”); and (3) Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citibank Canada, and Citigroup Global Markets Canada Inc. (“Citibank”).

[18] In the second round of settlements, the Plaintiffs recovered $39.3 million for the Class Members: Goldman Sachs paid $6.8 million; JP Morgan paid $11.5 million; and Citibank paid $21 million.

[19] In the third and fourth rounds of settlements, the Plaintiffs reached settlements with six more groups of Defendants: (1) Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., and Barclays Capital Canada Inc. (“Barclays”); (2) HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC North America Holdings Inc., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and HSBC Bank Canada (“HSBC”); (3) Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, RBS Securities, Inc., Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., and Royal Bank of Scotland PLC (“RBS”); (4) Standard Chartered plc; (5) The Bank OF Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ LTD. and Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (Canada) (“BTMU”); and (6) Société Générale S.A., Société Générale (Canada), Société Générale (“SocGen”).

[20] In the third and fourth round of settlements, the Plaintiffs recovered $51.5 million for the Class Members: Barclays paid $19.7 million; HSBC paid $15.5 million; RBS paid $13.2 million; Standard Chartered plc paid $0.9 million; BTMU paid $0.45 million; and SocGen paid $1.8 million.

[21] The aggregate recovery to date is approximately $107 million.

3. The Administration Protocol

[22] The Administration Protocol provides that the Administrator will: (a) establish a claims process, including a website and a secure web-based claims system, and perform industry-standard verification procedures on claims made; (b) provide professional and timely support and assistance to Class Members; (c) provide adjudication (and, if applicable, payment) of claims in a timely and efficient manner; (d) notify Class Members of decisions promptly; (e) provide complete and timely reporting; and (f) be bilingual in all respects.

[23] The Claims Administrator will retain information that will allow the claims process to be audited by Class Counsel at their own discretion or pursuant to an order of the Court. The Administrator itself may elect to audit any claim.

4. Distribution Protocol

(a) The Design of the Distribution Protocol

[24] To develop the Distribution Protocol, the Plaintiffs retained Professor Tsiakas to prepare a report that: (a) considered the relevant proportion of damages suffered by Direct and Indirect Claimants; and (b) the appropriate “conversion ratios,” “relative damage factors” and currency liquidity classifications relevant to the valuation of direct claims.

[25] The Distribution Protocol differentiates between Direct and Indirect Claimants.

[26] The Direct Claims Fund and Indirect Claims Fund are allocated 80% and 20% of the Net Proceeds, respectively. This allocation is based on Class Counsel’s judgment and Professor Tsiakas’ analysis.

[27] A Class Member may be a Direct Claimant in respect of one transaction and an Indirect Claimant in another, but a Class Member cannot advance a claim for the same FX trades in different funds.

[28] If the Distribution Protocol produces an unjust result as between Direct and Indirect Claimants, Class Counsel may seek directions, or the approval of a reasonable modification to the Protocols, from the Court.

[29] If there are more monies allocated to either the Direct Claims Fund or the Indirect Claims Fund than are required to compensate all valid claims against that Fund, Class Counsel will seek further direction from this Court, and may propose a modification to the Distribution Protocol.

[30] The distribution in Québec will be subject to the application of the Regulation respecting the percentage withheld by the Fonds d’aide aux actions collectives.

(b) Direct Claimants

[31] A Direct Claimant is a Class Member who entered into a FX instrument directly with a financial institution, whether or not that institution is a Defendant. Direct Claimants include various institutional entities that transacted directly with a financial institution, including: (a) financial institutions such as pension funds, hedge funds, currency funds, money market funds, leasing companies, insurance companies, financial subsidiaries of corporate firms, and central banks; (b) smaller commercial and investment banks; and (c) non-financial end-users such as corporations and non-financial government entities. A Direct Claimant will document their eligible transaction volume using their own records, and submit those records to the Claims Administrator.

[32] The Claims Administrator will calculate a Direct Claimant’s entitlement by utilizing the formulae set out at paragraph 21 of the Distribution Protocol. Direct Claimants will share the Direct Claims Fund pro rata. A Direct Claimant’s entitlement will be calculated on a trade-by-trade basis, with reference to the Conversion Ratio and if applicable, Relative Damage Factors.

[33] The Distribution Protocol accounts for a given investment instrument’s exposure to FX spot prices by applying a “Conversion Ratio” to each transaction. The Conversation Ratio accounts for the fact that the spot pricing decisions of the alleged conspirators affected different financial instruments traded in the FX market in different ways.

[34] By way of illustrations, for spot transactions the Conversion Ratio is 1.0; i.e. for every dollar transacted in the spot market, the Claimant recovers a dollar. For transactions involving options of FX futures, the Conversion Ratio is 0.2 because a change in the spot market will have less effect on the option transaction because the pricing of the option is not wholly dependent on spot prices.

[35] Conversion Ratios originated in the US Distribution Plan, but Professor Tsiakas conducted a fresh review of the Conversion Ratios, considering the Canadian context, before recommending that they be adopted in the Distribution Protocol.

[36] The Distribution Protocol for Direct Claimants adjusts the Direct Claimants claim based on “Relative Damage Factors” which account for the currency pair of the trade, trade size, a time-period legal discount, and liquidity.

[37] The time period legal discount is based on the fact there have been no regulatory findings nor admissions of manipulation before December 2007. This may indicate that it will be more difficult to prove the misconduct complained of in this action in that period, and compensation for trades between January 1, 2003 and November 30, 2007 is accordingly discounted by 40%.

[38] Liquidity, which is the ability to execute a transaction of a desired size at or near the prevailing market price is a crucial aspect of trading. Modifications for currency pair traded are intended to account for the effect of the liquidity of a currency pair on damage. Lower liquidity would have exacerbated the effects of the Defendants’ alleged misconduct, since dealer manipulation would have a larger effect on prices for less liquid currencies.

[39] The US Plan and the Protocols incorporate different liquidity-based classifications. The reason for their divergence is based on three specific concerns set out by Professor Tsiakas: (a) the classifications used in the US Plan were not exhaustive; (b) the US Plan used a problematic methodology, since it failed to adequately link pegged currencies against their so-called “anchor currencies”, meaning market movements between the pegged currency and other currencies might not be adequately captured; and (c) the US Plan evaluated the liquidity of currency pairs traded in the United States, not Canada. In light of these concerns, Professor Tsiakas overhauled the currency classifications in the Protocols using Canadian-specific data. The Distribution Protocol incorporates the unique Canadian data.

[40] The sole instance where a Class Member will not be entitled to a payment is where compensation for a valid Direct Claim is less than $20.

(c) Indirect Claimants

[41] Indirect Claimants are Class Members who entered into a FX Instrument indirectly through an intermediary, and/or purchased or otherwise participated in certain investments that themselves entered into FX Instruments. Indirect Claimants include any person who invested in an investment entity or pooled investment fund.

[42] Typically, Indirect Claimants are less sophisticated investors than the Direct Claimants. Among other things, Indirect Claimants suffered damages because some of the assets held by their Investment Vehicles were improperly valued with reference to a manipulated foreign exchange rate. Thus, the net asset value of these vehicles was incorrectly calculated. When the investor redeemed his or her units, the investor suffered damages in the domestic currency.

[43] Calculating precisely the damages sustained by Indirect Claimants and then allocating them among individual Claimants is analytically complex, and would require multiple data sources including the transaction history of any given investment with the Defendants or other financial institutions. To maximize the Indirect Claim take-up rate, the Protocols allow Indirect Claimants to provide evidence that they held sufficient funds in relevant Investment Vehicles during the class period.

[44] In this regard, the Claims Administrator will create a list of the investment vehicles in Canada that entered into FX Instruments, and will post that list to the Claims Administration website. In consultation with Class Counsel, investments may be added to the list.

[45] The Claims Administrator has discretion to determine what documentation is sufficient for the purposes of establishing an Indirect Claimant’s holding of an investment.

[46] Professor Tsiakas opined that damages to Indirect Claimants are lower than damages to Direct Claimants. Indirect Claimants will receive a payment based on the cumulative value of their investments over the Class Period, as set out in the chart below:

Cumulative Investment	Payment
Less than $100,000	$20
Over $100,000 but less than $1,000,000	$50
Over $1,000,000	$50 plus $1 per $10,000 in excess of the first $1,000,000

[47] Every Indirect Claimant is entitled to at least $20.

5. Objections

[48] There were no objections to the protocols.

C. Discussion and Analysis

[49] The Courts authority to approve Distribution Plan or Protocols is grounded in its jurisdiction to approve settlements. [4] Subject to court approval, Class Counsel are required to develop a distribution scheme that is in the best interests of the class. [5] A Plan will be appropriate if it is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class. [6] Deciding what is fair and reasonable can involve considerations of what is economical and practical on the facts of a particular case. [7]

[50] The test for approving a distribution Plan is analogous to the test that the Court applies when deciding whether to approve a settlement. [8] A settlement must fall within a zone of reasonableness to be approved. [9] The zone of reasonableness assessment allows for variation between settlements depending upon the subject matter of the litigation and the nature of the damages for which settlement provides compensation. [10] A settlement is to be reviewed on an objective standard which accounts for the inherent difficulty in crafting a universally satisfactory settlement. [11]

[51] In approving plans of distribution, courts have found that distinguishing between different types of claimants is reasonable and appropriate. For example, in Gould v BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., [12] Justice Cullity approved a Plan where there were discounts for the claims of secondary market purchasers to reflect increased certification and substantive litigation risks affecting their claims. [13] However, In Zaniewicz v. Zungui Haixi Corp. [14] the court held that it inappropriate and unfair to include persons as class members and to exclude them from a distribution.

[52] In my opinion, the Protocols in the immediate are within the zone of reasonableness, and they are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class. They should be approved.

Perell, J. Released: July 5, 2018.

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-536174 DATE: 20180705 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: JOSEPH S. MANCINELLI, CARMEN PRINCIPATO, DOUGLAS SERROUL, LUIGI CARROZZI, MANUEL BASTOS and JACK OLIVEIRA in their capacity as THE TRUSTEES OF THE LABOURERS’ PENSION FUND OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN CANADA, and CHRISTOPHER STAINES Plaintiffs – and – ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA CANADA, BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD., BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ (CANADA), BARCLAYS BANK PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL CANADA INC., BNP PARIBAS GROUP, BNP PARIBAS NORTH AMERICA INC., BNP PARIBAS (CANADA), BNP PARIBAS, CITIGROUP, INC., CITIBANK, N.A., CITIBANK CANADA, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS CANADA INC., CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (CANADA), INC., DEUTSCHE BANK AG, THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., GOLDMAN SACHS CANADA INC., HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK PLC, HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC., HSBC BANK USA, N.A., HSBC BANK CANADA, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P.MORGAN BANK CANADA, J.P.MORGAN CANADA, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY CANADA LIMITED, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, RBS SECURITIES, INC., ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V., ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE S.A., SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE (CANADA), SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE, STANDARD CHARTERED PLC, UBS AG, UBS SECURITIES LLC and UBS BANK (CANADA) Defendants REASONS FOR DECISION PERELL J. Released: July 5, 2018.

[1] S.O. 1992, c. 6. [2] R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34. [3] Mancinelli v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2016 ONSC 6953 (Settlement Approval No. 1). [4] Eidoo v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2015 ONSC 5493. [5] Eidoo v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2015 ONSC 5493 at para. 108. [6] Zaniewicz v. Zungui Haixi Corporation, 2013 ONSC 5490 at para 59. [7] Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2014 BCSC 1936 at para 34; Markson v. MBNA Canada Bank, 2012 ONSC 5891. [8] Zaniewicz v. Zungui Haixi Corporation, 2013 ONSC 5490 at para 59; Eidoo v Infineon Technologies AG, 2014 ONSC 6082; Eidoo v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2015 ONSC 5493 at para 74. [9] Rosen v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., 2016 ONSC 4752 at para 12; Leslie v. Agnico-Eagle Mines, 2016 ONSC 532 at para. 8. [10] Parsons v. Canadian Red Cross Society, [1999] O.J. No. 3572 at para. 70 (S.C.J.). [11] Parsons v. Canadian Red Cross Society, [1999] O.J. No. 3572 at para 80 (S.C.J). [12] Gould v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc, [2007] O.J. No. 1095 at paras 2, 19-23 (S.C.J.). [13] U.S. courts have also approved of this approach to plans of distribution. A reasonable plan may consider the relative strength and values of different categories of claims: In re IMAX Sec Litig, 283 FRD 178 (SDNY 2012). Particularly in the case of a large class action, the apportionment of a settlement can never be tailored to the rights of each Plaintiff with mathematical precision: In re PaineWebber Ltd P’ships Litig, 171 FRD 104 (SDNY 1997), aff’d, 117 F.3d 721 (2d Cir 1997). Exactitude is not required in allocating consideration to the class, provided that the overall result is fair, reasonable and adequate: Silberblatt v. Morgan Stanley, 524 F Supp 2d 425 (SDNY 2007). [14] Zaniewicz v. Zungui Haixi Corporation, 2013 ONSC 5490. See also Welsh v. Ontario, 2018 ONSC 3217 at para 13.